Sprint wants to save $1B by relocating towers

[JeffDTD]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JossMan]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 All the T-Mobile fanboys will be out in full force. 

[JThorson]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Terrell352]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like major disruptions 2.0....Hope not because trolls are going to lose it and actual customers may lose it too. If its anything like network vision 1.0 it will not be pretty.

[JThorson]

 All the T-Mobile fanboys will be out in full force. 

And it begins... S.Ali "So now the public (taxpayer owned land) has to subsidize Sprint's capital structure. Unbelievable. Time to update their hashtag to #MoreHandouts"

 

I still hope Sprint will succeed and I understand why they are taking this route. To use an analogy of a sinking ship, they are trying ways to stop it from sinking. They have been plugging the holes and the ship isn't sinking anymore, but the ship isn't floating straight yet. They are now trying to find ways to get the water out of the ship to help right itself.

[bigsnake49]

No mountains and everything is flat. Perfect conditions for wireless.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

 

On the other hand, no tall structures to put panels on and NIMBY's out the wazoo.

[RedSpark]

Sounds like major disruptions 2.0....Hope not because trolls are going to lose it and actual customers may lose it too. If its anything like network vision 1.0 it will not be pretty.

 

I disagree. Sprint has much more competent executives running this build now. Between John Saw and Günther Ottendorfer, and combined with Masa's and Marcelo's oversight, Sprint will handle the NGN project much better than Network Vision. I think this is all a bunch of FUD, honestly.

[travismheim]

I don't really see an issue with relocating sites to cheaper locations if it can provide comparable coverage. Sites get relocated all the time for various reasons, saving money is a legitimate reason to do it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[orangeblue]

Found this article this morning.

 

https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/sprint-plans-1-billion-cost-183421251.html

 

[jeffcarp]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is that a negative article? I don't see that as a negative. In fact, to me it explains the recent restructuring where Sprint went to a bunch of regional managers. If they are going to transition from private market tower leases to government properties then those Regional Managers essentially become lobbyists whose goal is to cozy up with local governments in order to secure great financial terms and easy approval processes for their equipment deployments.

[dnwk]

There isn't much "government tower" out there and I don't think they will be cheap.

[JThorson]

Why is that a negative article? I don't see that as a negative. In fact, to me it explains the recent restructuring where Sprint went to a bunch of regional managers. If they are going to transition from private market tower leases to government properties then those Regional Managers essentially become lobbyists whose goal is to cozy up with local governments in order to secure great financial terms and easy approval processes for their equipment deployments.

I believe why people see it as a negative article is due to them thinking Sprint still has a sub-par network compared to the other carriers and thinking the only reason Sprint has to do this is because they don't know how to run a company and can't fund anything.

 

Though I could be wrong... I'm not a troll so I can't say for sure.

[JThorson]

Already being discussed

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6319-marcelo-claure-town-hall-meetings-new-family-share-pack-plan-unlimited-individual-plan-discussion-thread/page-554

[red_dog007]

Is this a $1billioin savings this year, or is that over several years.  If it is $1billion this year, that is a lot of changing up of backhaul providers and relocating towers which I hope doesn't make holes in the network.  Only makes sense to move a tower to a government owned site if it is right next door.  Otherwise, might as well just be a brand new site. 

 

Maybe this is part of what Sprint is talking about too?  They said they want to add thousands of new sites, so maybe these savings is just coming from picking new sites that are owned/operated by government.

 

Im also sure a lot of the existing sites, prices are being renegotiated as much as possible.

[laqn1283]

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again.  Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers.  It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.  

[RedSpark]

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again.  Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers.  It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.  

 

No it won't.

[utiz4321]

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again. Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers. It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.

I don't think the two companies mentioned have all of sprint's towers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonny_crockett]

The article is interesting but really lacks details.  For example, Sprint has leases in place with the tower companies (generally on a portfolio basis) and simply cannot walk away from those leases cost-free.  In addition, even assuming that they could reduce their operating costs by moving from privately-owned towers to public facilities, it would cost money to move the equipment.  Maybe they can execute the plan, but you have to be at least a little concerned about the ability execute a plan of this scale.  

[lilotimz]

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again. Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers. It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.

Stop fear mongering.

 

What the report is stating corresponds to recent sprint executive moves with hiring regional market managers.

 

This is no doubt a signal that sprints wants to do more vertical integration with regards to cell site deployments (cut off the expensive middle men like ATC etc) where they own the sites in question or deploy it on cheaper property like government owned antenna towers / structures which are mostly used for public safety antennas or right of ways like municipal owned light poles, traffic light poles, government buildings, government property where sprint can build their own towers / cell sites, and municipal owned telephone poles.

 

In this regard, I'm starting to seen the regional managers as more like semi lobbyists where they start getting deep local connections with cities and municipalities. This more close and direct touch can help sprint cut costs by streamlining the red tape process, cutting out intermediates, and being more efficient with network deployment.

 

Consider this fact for a moment.

 

For the first time in years.

 

Sprint corporations owns their own cell towers and plans to own more.

[RedSpark]

I didn't know that.

 

Yup. Go here: http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/reuse_and_recycle

 

Under "Get a gift card online", select the applicable link. The iPhone, smartphone and iPad links take you to a Brightstar page:

 

i.e.: iPhone: https://reuserecycle.abbti.brightstarcorp.com/Iphonehome.aspx

[laqn1283]

I am not fear mongering.  I have a lot riding on Sprint and its stock.  I am no engineer.  But from reading that article, my initial reaction "oh no this is not good".  The article implies that they are contemplating moving existing cells towers onto government sites not about building new towers on government owned properties.  

[S4GRU]

I'm pretty sure 'the source' is from a tower company. They would be negative about it all, would have seen many of the details of NGN and would have seen the NV debacle firsthand. The tower companies have the most to lose from this.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

I am not fear mongering.  I have a lot riding on Sprint and its stock.  I am no engineer.  But from reading that article, my initial reaction "oh no this is not good".  The article implies that they are contemplating moving existing cells towers onto government sites not about building new towers on government owned properties.  

 

The article almost sounds like it is someone misinterpreting the small cell deployment plan, which would be utilizing government property (utility poles, street lights, other property like that) and is also focusing on using microwave backhaul. 

[laqn1283]

The article almost sounds like it is someone misinterpreting the small cell deployment plan, which would be utilizing government property (utility poles, street lights, other property like that) and is also focusing on using microwave backhaul. 

If existing cell towers remain the same, and it is about small cell deployment, then where is the 1 billion in cost saving coming from? I agree with you that whoever wrote that article is really confused.  It is almost impossible for Sprint to relocate current towers onto government properties without adversely affect service even more so than NV1.  

[mhammett]

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

"Sources familiar with the initiative said Sprint plans to cut its network costs by relocating its radio equipment from tower space it has leased from Crown Castle and American Tower to spots on government-owned properties, which costs much less. This process could begin as soon as June or July."

Well, Sprint sold many of those towers to Crown Castle in the first place...