This includes ALL of the Dakota's, much of Montana, half of Wyoming, about half of Colorado, and parts of Idaho, Utah, and so on.
Since earlier this year nothing else has been said on the divesture. I know it's still waiting on govt. approval. Damn it's slow. But anyways, I'm curious about what people think will happen in these areas.
I contacted an AT&T rep recently and ...
Has the fcc even approved this merger yet? I think the fcc and dojs requirement will come out once they approve it.
I would expect they would go straight to '3g' because it would be easier to get the same coverage.
They just finished the evdo 3g upgrade here and it would be a waste to just rip it out. It will be around for at least 3 years...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MowTowRollAh
No FCC or DoJ approvals have been acquired yet for the divested markets....
And it's been dead quiet on that front from what I have seen.
Just hope yall don't get to see the same crap that this part of the US gets with AT&T. AT&T could care less for rural areas. They have licens IN ND, SD, etc. but do not wish to add towers there. I think 2-3 cities have 1-2 AT&T towers in them in ND and SD so they don't spend a lot of money on Roaming.
And don't expect 3G everywhere Alltel has 3G now. AT&T does not cover rural ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CellKrazeDude
Just hope yall don't get to see the same crap that this part of the US gets with AT&T. AT&T could care less for rural areas. They have licens IN ND, SD, etc. but do not wish to add towers there. I think 2-3 cities have 1-2 AT&T towers in them in ND and SD so they don't spend a lot of money on Roaming....
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetigergrowl
That makes no sense. In ND and SD AT&T uses the current Alltel towers to roam off of and have no native coverage. The Alltel towers have been retro-fitted with GSM for AT&T to roam off of, which is why it's part of their extended network here. If they do have actual towers....I have no clue where. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetigergrowl
That makes no sense. In ND and SD AT&T uses the current Alltel towers to roam off of and have no native coverage. The Alltel towers have been retro-fitted with GSM for AT&T to roam off of, which is why it's part of their extended network here. If they do have actual towers....I have no clue where. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CellKrazeDude
Maybe you should check the coverage maps...
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...997588314&sc i=6
Thats for Minot, ND
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...838726419&sc i=5
That's for Bowman, ND.
AT&T HAS Licens in ND and SD, but never add native service. They put these ...
AT&T has spots of coverage in the Dakotas to cut down on roaming and save their limited (10MHz of PCS) license assets. They've never shown any interest in building a PCS network in MT/ND/SD and to be fair it is a challenge (though MTPCS/CellularOne has shown it can be done successfully).
However, it's a big difference owning a side of 850MHz cellular - it's much easier to build...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markie11
AT&T has spots of coverage in the Dakotas to cut down on roaming and save their limited (10MHz of PCS) license assets. They've never shown any interest in building a PCS network in MT/ND/SD and to be fair it is a challenge (though MTPCS/CellularOne has shown it can be done successfully).
However, it's a...
Quote: Originally Posted by shango6 The new technology thats replacing gsm is spost to be more flexible when it comes to hard distance limits. Shrinking a tower that has a 40 mile radius to a 22 mile radius would be huge step backwards. But if anyone can achieve that incredible feat of stepping backwards, it would be AT&T. lol. Truth be told, even with this acquisition I'm rather concerned about how AT&T will treat the...
Again, what I said is it's to save their license and save on roaming charges. They have to serve a minimum population. There is no need for these sites to actually be connected to a network and accessible. But they have to exist and at least have a test mode broadcast. AT&T decided to go ahead and actually hook up the sites required to save their PCS licenses and let them work to save a bit on roaming fees. (Yes, it's absurd...
Quote: Originally Posted by CellKrazeDude Maybe you should check the coverage maps... http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...997588314&sci=6 Thats for Minot, ND http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...838726419&sci=5 That's for Bowman, ND. AT&T HAS Licens in ND and SD, but never add native service. They put these towers up to cut down on Roaming charges. That don't sell service there. It is only for people who...
Quote: Originally Posted by whitetigergrowl That makes no sense. In ND and SD AT&T uses the current Alltel towers to roam off of and have no native coverage. The Alltel towers have been retro-fitted with GSM for AT&T to roam off of, which is why it's part of their extended network here. If they do have actual towers....I have no clue where. Many times it's a licensing issue if there are problems getting service in...
Quote: Originally Posted by bgmk82j They better be set up newer gsm which has no hard block limit for the booster to reach anywhere than the current gsm...... The new technology thats replacing gsm is spost to be more flexible when it comes to hard distance limits. Shrinking a tower that has a 40 mile radius to a 22 mile radius would be huge step backwards.
Thread profile page for "Alltel/AT&T divested markets" on http://www.howardforums.com.
This report page is a snippet summary view from a single thread "Alltel/AT&T divested markets", located on the Message Board at http://www.howardforums.com.
This thread profile page shows the thread statistics for: Total Authors, Total Thread Posts, and Thread Activity