Alltel/AT&T divested markets

I

I ♥ Cleavage

New member
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 asked a few basic questions. Basically fishing for info. 2 things of much importance were asked.

1. Will those area's get 3G?

Her answer? Yes. But knowing the 3G currently is in CDMA format and not GSM, I double checked and clarified that the 3G is currently CDMA and not GSM in most places with Alltel. She again said yes. Now honestly, I'm sure 3G will be available. But when and to what extent is yet to be seen. While I'm sure the Buffalo in Custer State Park in SD might enjoy some 3G action, I don't think AT&T will find it needed in rural areas. But I'm sure many of the major cities and roadways will get it.

Now normally I would still be skeptical on the 3G stuff. When you look at a 3G map for AT&T, it looks like the U.S. has the chicken pox. I suspect that as the towers are cranked up for GSM, that 3G will be on shortly after...if not at the same time. But that's speculation. HOWEVER I have had a few others call to see what response they would get. And theirs were very similar. Almost identical really. They were told the same thing about these areas getting 3G. That it WILL happen. So either the reps have no clue what's going on and are just saying stuff to make people happy. Or they have an inkling of what's going on.

2. Will people need to switch right away when it comes in?

She checked with her supervisor. He said no. In other markets that were in similar conditions that AT&T took over, the towers went 50/50 (You could use Alltel or AT&T) for a short while. And that once they looked at going strictly GSM in those areas, people would get notice about 6 months prior to the complete changeover to GSM. Which is the answer I expected and got and makes the most sense.

3. Will coverage change?

The answer was 'it shouldn't'. A pretty vanilla answer IMO. But again expected for logical reasons. The rep stated that as they understood it, all towers will be used by AT&T in the divested areas and that overall coverage should stay about the same for current Alltel customers, as should signal strength. Now in some areas that makes sense. But visit the Dakotas. Land of Buffalo and lots of wind and open spaces and you start to question that.

Now I talked to a rep for the Alltel stores in the area I live in, and he stated that by this time next year, in most Alltel/AT&T divested markets, it will likely be almost completely switched to AT&T. Which makes sense and is logical.

But even with all of this, for some odd reason I feel like we're in an AT&T/Alltel Twilight Zone scenario. When Verizon and Alltel merged, sure it had it's hiccups. But I wonder how they will compare to the merging of 2 companies with 2 different technologies. How coverage will be affected as well as integration. Now I'm sure like the rep said, this has been done before. I just hope it's fairly painless and that we start to hear something soon.

Anyways, for those of you affected by the merger, any thoughts or opinions on the matter? Any dirt for that fact? lol
 
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...
 
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 areas with 3G unless they know they will make money to pay it off. I think 2013-2014 is when 3G should be completed for AT&T for there coverage area. By 2013 you all will have 4G with Verizon in your area.

Good Luck tho... You all need it.
 
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 those areas.

What you said really makes no sense. If AT&T had it's own towers in the Dakota's you would see native coverage and not extended coverage. Which is all that it really has. Either way, AT&T is roaming off Alltel here currently, although I wouldn't exactly call it top notch quality.
 
Nothing he says ever seems to make much sense. AT&T, along with every carrier, has issues somewhere. AT&T may even have more issues in more places. But to call a network garbage in a place where they haven't even got it running yet is ignorant. I'm sure there will be problems during the transition. Isn't there always with mergers? The Alltel folks being transitioned to VZW aren't exactly having a holiday.

EDIT: This doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me, but I'm sure CellKrazeDud will have an excuse:

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?p=13142867#post13142867

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?p=13142979#post13142979

Also, to correct a little bit; the Alltel towers weren't retrofitted with GSM. They were GSM from the Midwest Wireless and/or Western Wireless days. Alltel left GSM for roaming.
 
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 a much stronger more competitive network. There's no reason to believe AT&T doesn't want that. Oh, and to the Verizon lovers - Verizon doesn't much like building PCS networks in rural areas they don't have a cellular side to make use of either.
 
In the Dakota's (land of wind and...well not much else), Verizon has far more towers in rural areas. In fact, they have been pumping them out a lot lately. So much so it was in the news. Now it could be to prevent issues from the Alltel merger into AT&T and to prevent spotty coverage afterwards. But they do build more into rural than AT&T. In fact, Alltel and Verizon are the only 2 options in the Dakotas unless you live in Fargo or Sioux Falls. Both on the Minnesota border. Those are the only 2 that even remotely have rural coverage.

What's more amusing is that with AT&T your comment makes little sense realistically. Look at the AT&T coverage map for the Dakota's. Their 'AT&T Native' coverage is so small, it almost doesn't even matter. Most of the states are 'Extended Network' for them.

Rapid City and Sioux Falls are amongst the 2 largest cities in South Dakota for example. Barely a blip on the map for either. And on top of that, read AT&T wireless experiences in those cities. Most are HORRID to the point of being useless. Especially the Rapid City one. In fact, many are useless. I constantly have to deal with that in the Black Hills region. IPhones seem to do well, but damn near every other AT&T phone seems to suck. I know, I've scratched my head on that one, and so have others. My GSM service sucked out here as well. And you can usually tell when a tourist has a GSM phone. They are the ones buying a prepaid or are frustrated as all heck with no service.

So those spots of coverage by AT&T are so minuscule, it's almost pointless and worthless at the moment and likely do little to nothing in regards of saving on roaming fee's.

The Bowman, ND one is the funniest. That town is very small. Yet has some of the best coverage and it's randomly located in the middle of nowhere. ( I know, been through there many times.) With Dickinson and Bismark up there too. (South Dakota gets little love from AT&T atm.) Which is also pretty random. Bismark I can understand, but Dickinson? What about Jamestown. Seriously.

It's random, and in areas that (Outside of Bismark) few people actually travel. So loss of roaming fee's are minimal at best.

Will be interesting to see what all changes after the merger between Alltel and AT&T.
 
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 that non-working sites and spectrum leasing and stuff count for buildout requirements).

My point was that doesn't mean AT&T won't be interested in maintaining a good network with their Alltel-acquired cellular license. Cellular service is far easier to run in rural areas than PCS *AND* they're buying a strong customer base - no need to try and win customers. There's no reason to believe AT&T will neglect these areas just because they neglected their PCS licenses.
 
Actually we do have an AT&T Wireless' towers in Williston, ND, Minot, ND, Dickinson, ND, Bismarck, ND EVEN in Missoula, MT only one area has the AT&T towers of Montana. Yes I did heard there is in South Dakota as well. Formerly CellularONE purchased T-Mobile spectrum on their service therefore they both already has roaming agreements while they are able to roam on neither GSM coverages....
 
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.
 
Back
Top