Verizon Wireless Expands Its Network in Colorado's Ski Country

Very cool for Verizon. Those mountain towns can be tough to cover, I'm glad they are getting a network in place out there! It is also great for Sprint customers who would be able to roam on those towers as well.

 

Well now it could be easier to call sky patrol when you crash into that TREE!
:loony: :redface: :rasp:

 

Something like that. I would say that this would be great Marketing for them in the Denver area. They could say that you can go to xyz ski resort and have coverage from your Verizon phone!

 

Andy,
Thanks for posting that. Not to throw cold water on Verizon's announcement, but it isn't as rosey a picture as it would seem. First, "Purgatory" changed its name to Durango Mountain Resort almost two years ago. That was a welcome site.

But the Breckenridge/Frisco site is located between those two towns, and serve them both equally poorly. Breckenridge has grown to be a major convention center and the Verizon signal does not penetrate these larger complexes. My wife goes to many gatherings there, and cannot get Verizon service inside some of the buildings. With her last phone she could roam on Sprint there, but with a new phone and PRL, she cannot.

Frisco is small with no big buildings.

Not that the capacity isn't appreciated...the towns grow as much as ten- to 20-fold in the ski season. But they need more signal there. Sprint has much better coverage in most of the ski areas here. It's there that I will miss the loss of Sprint roaming the most (I still have it until the impending purchase of a new phone). On the slopes all carriers work well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get cranky. We do want everything to be perfect, don't we?

 

I agree with Bill. IMHO, ATT TDMA is usually the much stronger signal in Breck, Frisco, and Copper Mountain than VZ.

 

I am happy to know that when I die and go to Purgatory I will have good coverage. Glad to about the enhancements, I am planning a trip there next winter will have to check out the coverage..

 

Now about ski mountains....

Wouldn't it be easy to locate towers and co-locate sites at the top of lifts?
Always wondered why the line of sight potential of ski lifts does not seem to be utilised to the full potential.

On the Angeles Crest Highway, in Los Angeles, you can get a line of sight signal from Palmdale and Lancaster and maybe from Azusa.

Is there any sites on Mt. Wilson or Mt. Waterman or Mt. Baldy?

I don't know, but do those Colorado signals come from the top of the ski lifts?

 

After further review... this story needs some additional info. Verizon did indeed add a new site in Frisco, and, while they didn't add or move the site in Breckenridge, they "added an antenna", which should help coverage at the resort. I will assume they went from omni to sectorized antennas.

Adding a sectorized antenna could add a significant amount of gain toward the town. I'll stop in and see if it has fixed the dead spots.

(Yes, I AM going to step into the the Beaver Run elevator and say, "can you hear me now?" Lord the humility.)

 

Yugo,
You would think so, but alas, very few antennas are on the top of ski mountains. Most of Verizon's are down on the highway, which does 'look' up toward the ski runs, and the back of the ski area is served by other antennas along the highways at each end of the valley. It's much easier to service them, especially off-season.

There are some cell sites on the top of lifts, mosty notably Winter Park, but that is the exception. And in many cases, the lift top locations cast a rf shadow into the ski town itself, far below the lift, and at an steep angle away from the main lobe of radiation.

In Verizon's defense, most of their ski area sites were installed years ago (by Airtouch, Commnet, et al) before there were lots of buildings or big hotels in these towns. The more recent carriers have an advantage in building cell sites that reflect current coverage needs.

 

They do locate towers on top of ski lifts. There's a couple of towers disguised as trees over top of Snow Valley resort in Big Bear and Sprint has one at Bear Mountain. There are none at Mt. Baldy last I checked which was about a year ago.

 

Yep - I've seen both both. Bear Valley seems to have an AT&T antenna at the top of the mountain. Whereas at Kirkwood, Cingular's got an antenna at the base of the resort over on top of Red Cliffs day lodge.

 

While skiing at Copper Mountain, first time this year on Saturday, I noticed to the right of the Super Beer Lift, 2/3 near to the top, a large cellular tower 'hidden' in the trees, with a lot of 'dishes' all over it. I had never seen this before but I must say, the tower looked very impressive. Cell reception at the base of Copper was fine on Verizon.

 

In locating cell sites there a a lot of rules, not the least of which are equipment space, access, power and terrain. While some ski areas have sites that qualify at the TOP, most do not.

Copper Mountain is a good example. They established all the cell antennas at about 2/3 of the way up the mountain. The top does not have all the needed attributes. The top of Vail does not have many antennas, but a lower site, Eagle's Nest, does. It is at the top of the gondola, and Sprint has a complete communications center, faxes, computers, etc, and a cell site on the roof, too. But I use only sites in the valley there.

In Aspen, which is a fairly small area, all of the cell sites are either in town, or on an opposite mountain, facing the ski hill, which is a much more efficient location.

Winter Park has one of those disguised "trees", with 4 or 5 carriers on it, right at the top of the first lift but it is not a good site. These ski areas have way too many mountaintops you can ski behind, so after I leave the front of the ski area, I'm accessing sites only in the valley.

Most Steamboat cell companies use a big RF site at the north end of the ski area with all the town's 2-way equipment. But Sprint and T-Mobile use sites located on the roofs of condos in the valley, looking up at the ski hill.

AFAIK, Keystone does not have any cell sites on the mountain, they are all around the village, and when you ski around to the back of the area, your phone will access those towers in Breckenridge and Frisco.

Taos sites are located across the valley from the ski area, and they could use better coverage in the back of the area, but there are no facilities there.

Cell companies do not like to rent a snowmobile to make repairs on cell sites because they can't take all the equipment they need. So most are in the valleys looking up. If any of the sites are on the top of the ski areas, and there are plenty, they are there because access and the facilities are available, and there is some need for such wide coverage the mountain would provide.

Then there's the lightning factor... I was told it was because of so many hits, Commnet Cellular abandoned the tops of Winter Park and Monarch, and Verizon never re-established them.

*Also, I'm happy 14-er had such a good time at Copper. The lifts are identified by Letters, a,b,c, etc., then given a similar name. He was skiing along the "B" or "Super Bee" lift, and it would be only natural to call it the "Beer" lift after a good lunch at the Black Diamond cafe. <wink>

 

Wow,
Some very interesting and valid points were brought up in this post. I never thought about the lightning of servicing factors. Those alone would make the propositon on a tower on top of a ski hill a problem!

 

Cingular finally got their site at Bear Valley upgraded to GSM sometime last month. Long time coming, but at least its done now.

So Cingular has coverage at just about every ski area in California (either native or roaming on Edge). The last 2 places they need to cover are Dodge Ridge in Pinecrest and Badger Pass in Yosemite. The only coverage at either place is from Golden State Wireless. Dodge Ridge is CDMA; Badger Pass only has Analog.