Jump to content

T-Mobile sells rights to 7000 of its towers to Crown for $2.4B


bigsnake49
 Share

Recommended Posts

NEW YORK (Reuters) - T-Mobile USA, the No. 4 U.S. mobile provider, has agreed to sell the rights to 7,200 of its wireless broadcast towers to Crown Castle International Corp for $2.4 billion.

Under terms of the deal announced on Friday, Crown Castle will have the rights to operate the towers for about 28 years and have the option to buy the towers from T-Mobile USA at the end of the lease.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/tmobileusa-crowncastle-idUSL1E8KRJZT20120928?type=marketsNews

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any impact to Sprint here? Does Sprint co-locate on towers that are owned by T-Mobile? Could this cause any issues for Sprint in the long run?

 

Any contract already in place probably has to be honored so I doubt any adverse effects will stem from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any impact to Sprint here? Does Sprint co-locate on towers that are owned by T-Mobile? Could this cause any issues for Sprint in the long run?

 

I imagine there are some Sprint colocated on Tmo owned sites, but not many. Sprint mostly is located on sites owned by tower companies. Crown Castle, American Tower, SBA, etc.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't underestimate TMo HSPA+...I've been able to routinely pull 15M down, 3M up over their DC-H+ with their Rocket 3.0 modem, which is now, I dunno, a year or two old?

 

That saide, Sprint outright sold its towers to Crown Castle a few years back. It makes sense for T-Mobile to do what it did (something similar) since it is getting an upfront paycheck equal to $1000 per month per tower for the duration of the lease. They may end up paying most of that back to Crown Castle by the end of the lease period, but at its end they still own the towers and that kind of money can do a lot of good right this minute for upgrading their network.

 

From Crown Castle's perspective, it's a win as well; they can attract competitors to T-Mobile onto the T-Mobile tower (and get revenue from them), plus they pretty much have a guaranteed revenue stream from TMo. And they now can offer potential lessees 7200 more places to hang equipment.

 

...and of course I'm all for something that gets that company to launch their AWS LTE-A network sooner, and with $2.4 billion in extra cash as of right now they've got the funds to roll things out a bit more quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tmobile can execute a nice LTE network they can be a force to reckon with. Tmobile's HSPA+ network is fast and puts EVDO Rev A to shame. I am glad Tmobile is working hard to really execute on their "Challenger" program and if they needed some funds to ensure that they don't run into shortages for LTE equipment (antennas, radios, backhaul, etc) to ensure they launch on time, good for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like at least a fair amount of the money is simply going back home to 'mother Germany' to help Deutsche Telekom pay down debt: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-tmobileusa-crowncastlebre88r0o7-20120928,0,746149.story

 

Deutsche Telekom said the deal would reduce its debt by about $2.4 billion or roughly 1.9 billion euros.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like at least a fair amount of the money is simply going back home to 'mother Germany' to help Deutsche Telekom pay down debt: http://www.chicagotr...,0,746149.story

 

If DT is doing that, they are so ******* stupid than to use the money to upgrade T-Mobile USA's network! They must be stripping T-Mobile of as many assets to put it back on the market for a super quick and cheap sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DT is doing that, they are so ******* stupid than to use the money to upgrade T-Mobile USA's network! They must be stripping T-Mobile of as many assets to put it back on the market for a super quick and cheap sale.

 

DT needs to set T-Mobile free. Let them sink or swim on their own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DT needs to set T-Mobile free. Let them sink or swim on their own.

 

...but siphoning off assets right as the proceeds could be used to do serious network upgrades...not a good idea.

 

OTOH if T-Mobile were to merge with someone, optimal tower arrangements would a a bit easier if everything is more or less leased. The carrier isn't tied to some owned location. This is particularly handy since I guarantee that the T-Mobile owned sites are mainly spaced for PCS coverage, rather than AWS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but siphoning off assets right as the proceeds could be used to do serious network upgrades...not a good idea.

 

OTOH if T-Mobile were to merge with someone, optimal tower arrangements would a a bit easier if everything is more or less leased. The carrier isn't tied to some owned location. This is particularly handy since I guarantee that the T-Mobile owned sites are mainly spaced for PCS coverage, rather than AWS.

AWS spacing is the same as PCS spacing. Although there might be some minor differences in propagation, in general it tends to follow the PCS spacing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about AWS vs PCS tower spacing. The downlink on AWS has worse propagation characteristics than on PCS, but the uplink is better. Since the uplink is typically the first to fail, it is more important when considering tower spacing. In most/many situations, I would think transmit power on AWS could be increased to compensate for weaker downlink propagation vs PCS. This would mean that the tower spacing could be the same or even a bit wider for AWS.

 

Is this accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone PM me Wednesday afternoon. I might be able to find out the Tx power comparison between AWS and PCS on TMo's network. I was thinking along those same lines, but if TMo is marketing PCS HSPA+ as a coverage benefit, maybe we're off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about AWS vs PCS tower spacing. The downlink on AWS has worse propagation characteristics than on PCS, but the uplink is better. Since the uplink is typically the first to fail, it is more important when considering tower spacing. In most/many situations, I would think transmit power on AWS could be increased to compensate for weaker downlink propagation vs PCS. This would mean that the tower spacing could be the same or even a bit wider for AWS.

 

Is this accurate?

 

Yes it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...