Sprint wants to save $1B by relocating towers

[gusherb]

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper? 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me. 

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers. 

[bretton88]

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.

Cost saving is a little nebulous, it could mean savings from existing expenses or it could mean future savings compared to using the tower companies for their ngn effort. It's very open ended.

[mhammett]

Nothing wrong with microwave, but yeah not a lot of thinking going on here.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Ascertion]

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper?

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me.

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers.

Agreed. This is a cost cutting measure, but the cost to have them moved up front is going to be large. Not to mention the service disruptions and bill credits they'll be giving out as a result. T-Mobile has way more macro towers and they're pulling a profit. Sprint needs to trim the costs elsewhere.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[radem]

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.  

Cost savings could be about getting rid of some of the macro sites that only exist for capacity and switching entire areas to small cells on light poles.  If there are dense small cells blanketing much of the area the macro site covers, they may not need the macro site for capacity over the top any longer and can remove it while providing the macro overlay by tuning nearby sites.

[Dkoellerwx]

Your market does not speak for the other markets, However moving to Microwave backhaul sounds like a good move to me.

 

With all the NGN talk coming up, Sprint could utilize Microwave as cheaper means of getting backhaul to small cells. And because they aren't paying AT&T and Verizon huge fees for fiber line access they can possibly get with another provider for fiber.

 

They have stated that they will focus on Microwave and also LTE (B41) backhaul deliveries to small cells rather than fiber or other wired AAV.

[gusherb]

Your market does not speak for the other markets, However moving to Microwave backhaul sounds like a good move to me.

 

With all the NGN talk coming up, Sprint could utilize Microwave as cheaper means of getting backhaul to small cells. And because they aren't paying AT&T and Verizon huge fees for fiber line access they can possibly get with another provider for fiber.

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.

[Dkoellerwx]

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.

 

I still maintain that somewhere somehow the information was misconstrued or misreported. I do not see this as an actual plan for cost cutting. Maybe cutting ties with a few expensive towers if there is a good alternative, but not ripping up and moving half the network. It seems like there are some details more related to small cell deployment getting mixed into this report that maybe don't belong. 

 

Moving to microwave in a some instances may save a good chunk of change, and it can still deliver 1 Gbps+ speeds. I could definitely see them going the microwave route on new sites.

[markjcc]

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.

Maybe their plan is to convert an existing site that already has like gigabit fiber running to it and simply convert existing sites with fiber running to it with microwave to lessen the bill?

[markjcc]

Here's some interesting thing Sprint could do in places with lots of sunshine all year long such as Hawaii

 

Pico/Micro Cell site + Solar powered with Microwave backhaul. BOOM!

 

I'm pretty creative and stuck a 10W solar panel with a small 12V UPS battery powering a DD-WRT router as a range extender outdoors at my lawn.

 

What makes Sprint from doing the same?

 

[joshuam]

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

[dcshobby]

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

 

 

Any licensed backhaul links that Sprint uses have sub-ms latency like 0.2ms per link so the latency increase is negligible.

[nexgencpu]

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

Just deployed a network at a clients site with a 2gb Microwave and pings were less than 1ms. Don't think its an issue. 

[mhammett]

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

Microwave can have lower pings than fiber, so that's not really an issue.

[nexgencpu]

Does anyone still believe that sprint will be number 1 or 2 in 80% of the top 100 markets? According to what marcelo said.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Yes! Sprint is already going in that direction.

[tyroned3222]

yes! Sprint is already going in that direction.

Will it be by the 2017 time frame is what i fogot to put

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[mhammett]

A) Given Verizon's small and decreasing ILEC footprint, I doubt there is much backhaul money going to Verizon.
I've seen Sprint pass up competitive backhaul providers just to purchase from the incumbent. They have a lot of room to work.
C) Most of their microwave link budgets are crap. Way too small of antennas...  fixing that increases tower rent.
D) 10G backhaul isn't significantly different in price from 1G backhaul, so they could aggregate towers via microwave fairly reasonably...  at an increase in tower rent.
E) Verizon is moving to dark fiber backhaul instead of DWDM or MPLS\CE, but dark fiber can be expensive. I don't know if Sprint has the cash to do the same.
F) Sprint should probably just put me in charge of their backhaul and it'd be done right.  ;-)

[tyroned3222]

A) Given Verizon's small and decreasing ILEC footprint, I doubt there is much backhaul money going to Verizon.

I've seen Sprint pass up competitive backhaul providers just to purchase from the incumbent. They have a lot of room to work.

C) Most of their microwave link budgets are crap. Way too small of antennas... fixing that increases tower rent.

D) 10G backhaul isn't significantly different in price from 1G backhaul, so they could aggregate towers via microwave fairly reasonably... at an increase in tower rent.

E) Verizon is moving to dark fiber backhaul instead of DWDM or MPLS\CE, but dark fiber can be expensive. I don't know if Sprint has the cash to do the same.

F) Sprint should probably just put me in charge of their backhaul and it'd be done right. ;-)

What is sprint biggest problem currently?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[mhammett]

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

If this is true, then there doesn't seem to be a good case for four national carriers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mhammett]

Also, there are typically penalties for breaking long term contracts. That's just wastes money.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[tyroned3222]

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Could sprint be anymore aggressive then they are, or are they trying to be great too fast?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[mhammett]

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

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assure you they don't. There's existing municipal structures as well as Vertical Bridge Communications for one.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[mhammett]

Could sprint be anymore aggressive then they are, or are they trying to be great too fast?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Sprint's biggest enemy is their historical selves. These way cheap plans don't do them any favors.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[hescominsoon]

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper? 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me. 

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers. 

Much of their backhaul is backend fiber run to ATT or verizon.  one thing you have to realize is verizon owns more of the tier 1 backbone in the us than anybody and is in the top 5 in the entire world.  We have seen how vz prices it's wireless assets their backbone pricing is high as well and i am sure they are not giving sprint any kind of volume break either.  If they use microwave for their backhaul they can send the backhaul to places where they own the backbone fiber...drastically cutting their backhaul costs.  From a network engineering perspective this is something i thought sprint should have done long ago.  Leverage their own existing backbone assets.  using microwave backhaul allows them to do just that.,