Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: What Is Verizon Doing To Expand Their Network Coverage?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dalbrich View Post
    In short, the carriers (including Verizon) build based on population.
    Verizon has bought up smaller rural carriers where the population would not really justify the cost of new infrastructure. They do this because some of those rural areas are vacation destinations for their customers in urban areas, and coverage is expected. I was in Yosemite National Park a couple of weeks ago and coverage on Verizon was very good both inside the park and on the roads leading to the park. But the coverage on other carriers was relatively poor (except Sprint roamed onto Verizon). T-Mobile and AT&T did have coverage in the heavily used Yosemite Valley area.

    I've been to Oregon and experienced the tremendous differences in coverage between carriers. U.S. Cellular, which I could not roam onto, seemed to have good coverage in rural areas according to others. Verizon was second best.

    I wish that U.S. Cellular would be bought by Verizon because now I'm on Total Wireless and would like some of that U.S. Cellular coverage.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,429
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianAngela View Post
    They seem to be filling any gaps in areas in which they provide service, though those gaps are very minor compared to T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T.

    There are areas where they have no presence at all and rely on roaming on rural carriers. It isn't clear if Total Wireless/Tracfone customers get that LTEiRA (Rural LTE alliance) coverage. I have not traveled into one of those areas since I switched to Total Wireless.
    I normally look at NW and SE Oklahoma as a quick test on the coverage map. If it shows coverage (normally in a different color), I'm assuming yes. TW doesn't show coverage. Like with ATT I look at Nebraska, especially the center part north of I-80, to see if roaming is supposedly supported.

    But that doesn't mean that the MVNO has the latest map displayed. And I haven't been to SE Oklahoma in years and last time in NW Oklahoma I didn't have verizon coverage, so I don't know whether my current RP Verizon phone has coverage.
    iPhone 11 is my current primary phone. I have older model iPhones and Moto phones available on other lines. Currently prepaid, though would consider postpaid on right plan.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,345
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    I guess network expansion depends a lot on your definition. For me, I'm interested in seeing the footprint (geographically) that I can use my phone expand.

    The reason I make this distinction:
    1- Verizon has (by some people's measure) expanded in my home state of Oregon by multiple acquisitions of local carriers over the years. None of those has changed places where I can use my phone, and in fact, all areas had friendly roaming (back when that was a distinction).
    2- Verizon is continually needing to expand existing coverage in towns and cities when new neighborhoods get built. Some slower, some faster but eventually they tend to grow into new areas of cities. So if this counts as geographic expansion, yep, happens all the time.
    True for me too. One of the reasons I originally went with Verizon, back then, Sprint and Verizon relied extensively on roaming, AT&T had just finished transitioning to GSM with no GSM roaming partners around here and low coverage, US Cellular and IWireless would be 100% roaming when we were on vacation. Verizon Wireless was the only one then that treated "extended network" same as roaming (no percentage usage limits or data limits.)

    Every few PRL updates VZW would switch between preferring US Cellular over Midwest Wireless for roaming or the other way around. Alltel bought MWW so they'd prefer USCC or Alltel roaming. Then Verizon Wireless bought Alltel. This has not affected my effective coverage at all. Of course in modern era, my roaming data is limited to 128kbps so that'd make a difference .

    On point 2, I've seen some help rurally too; eastern Iowa, VZW merged from like 3 or 4 different companies originally, plus Alltel coverage, and until recently they mainly had the rural sites they'd inherited from the analog era. One or two counties had a nice dense network, but a few had the 1 or 2 towers on the tallest hill covering the whole county. These hills tend to not be anywhere near the highways or towns, so blanket coverage but "1 bar" almost all the time. VZW had mostly put band 13 on those and called it good until recently here, but it does appear now they are strategically sticking some new sites nearer the towns and highways to pick that signal strength and speed up.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Samsung S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Total Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kevink1 View Post
    I normally look at NW and SE Oklahoma as a quick test on the coverage map. If it shows coverage (normally in a different color), I'm assuming yes. TW doesn't show coverage. Like with ATT I look at Nebraska, especially the center part north of I-80, to see if roaming is supposedly supported.

    But that doesn't mean that the MVNO has the latest map displayed. And I haven't been to SE Oklahoma in years and last time in NW Oklahoma I didn't have verizon coverage, so I don't know whether my current RP Verizon phone has coverage.
    It would be a nine hour drive for me to an area where I could test Total Wireless with an LTEiRA carrier. I've been through that area in the past but I don't recall trying to use a mobile phone. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, & T-Mobile all show roaming coverage on that carrier for their postpaid customers. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon show prepaid coverage as well. The Tracfone map shows no coverage. The Visible map does show coverage.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Pocatello,ID
    Posts
    29,638
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, Samsung Galaxy Watch (AT&T), Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesH View Post
    I noticed that sometimes they use directional antennas, presumably where cellular service is too weak for the unidirectional antennas, but is usable with a directional antenna.
    Yep, I've seen them on the cellular based call boxes in those locations here, too, the satellite based ones use a different setup of course. We have both cellular and satellite based call boxes in Mendocino County, in fact, we were one of the first counties in the state to deploy them. I'm glad we have them, with all the remote and isolated locations we have here!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,001
    Device(s)
    iPhones, Samsung, Motorola.
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    ... can you really expect any company to pour the funds into building in such an area? ...
    What I'd like to see is a requirement (geographic) that carriers deploy in a real way the spectrum they own. i.e. Need to cover say 70% of the geography you're licensed for. And by this I don't mean a mere pilot signal, I mean something a normal cell phone user could actually use.

    Such rules do exist today but the carriers are famous for deploying an unusable pilot signal (sometimes called a protection site) meant only to meet the letter (and not the spirit) of the law.

    We also lost a lot of coverage when analog went away in my home state. Digital exists, but the range is lacking, and for reasons previously discussed new sites in rural areas don't make financial sense.

    I do like to see rural areas be served for many reasons including safety, but also getting folks options for basic internet access. Kind of like the old rural service fees that applied to landlines that subsidized basic telephone service in remote areas. (And I happen to live in a place that is well served, so not for my personal benefit).
    ---
    http://pages.uoregon.edu/dalbrich
    Eugene, OR -- Pacific Northwest

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,962
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dalbrich View Post
    What I'd like to see is a requirement (geographic) that carriers deploy in a real way the spectrum they own. i.e. Need to cover say 70% of the geography you're licensed for. And by this I don't mean a mere pilot signal, I mean something a normal cell phone user could actually use.

    Such rules do exist today but the carriers are famous for deploying an unusable pilot signal (sometimes called a protection site) meant only to meet the letter (and not the spirit) of the law.

    We also lost a lot of coverage when analog went away in my home state. Digital exists, but the range is lacking, and for reasons previously discussed new sites in rural areas don't make financial sense.

    I do like to see rural areas be served for many reasons including safety, but also getting folks options for basic internet access. Kind of like the old rural service fees that applied to landlines that subsidized basic telephone service in remote areas. (And I happen to live in a place that is well served, so not for my personal benefit).
    A) the requirement is 70% the population. it makes sense to deploy where the people are

    B) All the billions it's going to take to deploy and maintain a hardly used network. Who is paying for this mandate? Maybe carriers should start charging by the area people live i that way fi rural people want expensive network equipment deployed that has no ROI ever can pay for it

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,001
    Device(s)
    iPhones, Samsung, Motorola.
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Who is paying for this mandate?
    Actually, the way the mandate was originally done is as follows: If the carrier chooses not to build and provide service (using their owned, licensed spectrum) over a period of years (i.e. 7), then any other carrier that chooses to do so can acquire that spectrum provided they build. Now if its economically unfeasible for any carrier to build, the area in question will stay fallow. However, the incumbent carrier risks losing their spectrum if another party chooses to build. If this was actually done right (i.e. no protection sites allowed), you might be surprised how much geographic coverage improvement could occur.

    Long term investments are good. I happen not to have children, but I am glad to pay taxes to support schools that benefit our society. So I don't derive any direct benefit but I can see the big picture. The rural service fees that permitted land lines in rural areas, also made the USA the envy of the world in the "early internet" days (i.e. 1990's, so really the early http/web)*-- as our people widely had access. i.e. yes, dialup modems, but its true, it's something that ended up being an awesome long-term investment. Anyway, doing something similar with with wireless may permit more US households to participate in the modern economy. And who knows, it may be a kid in some rural community that creates something of large value to human kind.

    And no, you don't have to pay for it personally. Perhaps some incremental cost would occur, but it would be bounded by what's feasible.

    -Dan

    PS: *I recognize and was a part of the early internet (pre-web), and non-internet services, but what people think of as "the Internet," is one with websites. So that's the intent of my use of 'internet' here; not the actual early internet that pre-dates the web by decades.
    (I had both bitnet and uucp email addresses pre-web, I predate DNS of course. Gone are the days of IP addresses hand written, taped to my office wall. I remember telnet, FTP, and 'gopher', and of course usenet the great long predecessor of all forum websites like this one. )
    Last edited by dalbrich; 01-24-2020 at 12:31 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,345
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    Actually, the way the mandate was originally done is as follows: If the carrier chooses not to build and provide service (using their owned, licensed spectrum) over a period of years (i.e. 7), then any other carrier that chooses to do so can acquire that spectrum provided they build. Now if its economically unfeasible for any carrier to build, the area in question will stay fallow. However, the incumbent carrier risks losing their spectrum if another party chooses to build.
    That's exactly what happened here. Eastern Iowa Verizon Wireless coverage was from almost every part of Verizon Wireless, one county was Bell Atlantic Mobile, some US West/New Vector, some GTE I think? Don't know if it was BAM, USWest, GTE, or who that did not build out most of their licenses; but shortly after Verizon Wireless formed, Midwest Wireless petitioned the FCC for basically every county in Iowa that VZW did not actually have any service in. Years later, Alltel bought Midwest Wireless, and after that VZW bought Alltel, so after about 10 years the licenses came back to them, but actually built out.

    Other big example of this (well not that big area-wise but...), Commnet largely got areas from petitions to the FCC, and put up roamer-only coverage. For a brief while in areas with no other provider, they ran analog, TDMA, CDMA, EVDO, and GSM/EDGE simultaneously. Present day they run CDMA/EVDO/LTE in areas with no other CDMA provider, GSM/UMTS/LTE when there's no other GSM provider, and CDMA/EVDO/GSM/UMTS/LTE when there's neither one. Dividng up the spectrum over that many services, I bet the speeds aren't great but infinitely better than "no service". I'm sure they'll be VERY happy in a few years when they can cut down to just LTE .

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. What Can Verizon do to Upgrade their Voice Technology
    By mush10 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-30-2007, 05:27 PM
  2. What can Verizon do to further make their service better?
    By jasonkdailey in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 12:39 PM
  3. Is Verizon going to expand its roll out of EV-DO next week?
    By Life-Is-Good in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-25-2004, 12:47 PM
  4. what is verizon doing?
    By Vyruz Reaper in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-26-2003, 05:53 PM
  5. is fido going to expand their network
    By dd61999 in forum Fido
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 02:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks