Jump to content

Sprint Wireline Discussion


mhammett
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any leads as to what Sprint plans on doing with (primarily) its wireline and (secondarily) other non-wireless operations?

 

They plan to upgrade to 400G this year and next. Now personally I think they should let them go free. Otherwise they should merge with Level 3 that has a lot more metro fiber loops than Sprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you reveal your source?

 

I'm not sure what Son's thoughts are on wireline, but they have a pretty substantial network that could be massaged back into a good position. The backhaul expertise they've hopefully been building with Network Vision could be used to extend their fiber core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you reveal your source?

 

I'm not sure what Son's thoughts are on wireline, but they have a pretty substantial network that could be massaged back into a good position. The backhaul expertise they've hopefully been building with Network Vision could be used to extend their fiber core.

 

http://www.ciena.com/connect/blog/Sprint-upgrades-to-Ciena-100G-to-trial-400G-in-2013.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always amazed by how big sprint's wireline business is.

 

I am also amazed how far it has fallen.

 

http://www.renesys.com/category/bakers-dozen/

 

It's a total commodity driven market. Too many competitors. Plus the cable cos have their own networks. So there's not a lot of profit left in the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a total commodity driven market. Too many competitors. Plus the cable cos have their own networks. So there's not a lot of profit left in the market.

 

Cable cos isn't really impacting Sprint's transit business.  It's asia + LVLT/Global crossing

 

Did you check out the charts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint (like AT&T and Verizon) have abused their cash cow for so long that the new generation has taken over. If they take their wireline seriously, they could win back some business. I don't expect them to compete at the $0.30/meg level, but the big telcos are at several dollars a meg. Sprint or T or VZ under $4/meg would be a big deal. More cooperation in access to the network (Ethernet access at POPs\huts) would be a big deal. There's a ton of smaller providers\enterprises that would love to get their networks at a decent rate...  they just don't let it happen.

 

I guess I did know that.

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2012/06/ciena-helps-sprint-upgrade-its-backbone/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cable cos isn't really impacting Sprint's transit business.  It's asia + LVLT/Global crossing

 

Did you check out the charts?

 

Sprint used to provide both local and long distance for them. Cox and Comcast have since build their own IP backbone, while Level 3 provides TWC with theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they survive, I would like for them to absorb either Level 3 or TW Telecom or both just for their fiber loops.

It's more likely that TWT or L3 would acquire Sprint wireline than the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of a merger between sprint and centurylinks wireline units but then I thought about Centurylinks reliability issues and said nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of a merger between sprint and centurylinks wireline units but then I thought about Centurylinks reliability issues and said nevermind.

Funnily enough, that's where Sprint's DSL business went. After all, SprintLink wasn't just a backbone network as it is today. It was also a DSL provider for many areas. Sprint spun it off as Embarq after acquiring Nextel, and Embarq was acquired by CenturyTel, who renamed itself to CenturyLink. CenturyLink then acquired Qwest, officially becoming a Baby Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, that's where Sprint's DSL business went. After all, SprintLink wasn't just a backbone network as it is today. It was also a DSL provider for many areas. Sprint spun it off as Embarq after acquiring Nextel, and Embarq was acquired by CenturyTel, who renamed itself to CenturyLink. CenturyLink then acquired Qwest, officially becoming a Baby Bell.

Yup. The problem is sprint and embarq knew how to run a phone company. Apparently CenturyTel is still learning. I got it straight from a tech who stated that they had been arguing with  the execs about buying cheap equipment and not allowing weekend repair visits. They were buying cheap dslams and then putting to many lines on each one. I do have to say, in the two years since my one month of no DSL service they have started weekend repais and the reliability has gotten much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. The problem is sprint and embarq knew how to run a phone company. Apparently CenturyTel is still learning. I got it straight from a tech who stated that they had been arguing with  the execs about buying cheap equipment and not allowing weekend repair visits. They were buying cheap dslams and then putting to many lines on each one. I do have to say, in the two years since my one month of no DSL service they have started weekend repais and the reliability has gotten much better.

Sounds like CenturyTel folks were in charge. They were rural-only forever, with little to no competition, so they could afford to skimp out on network-building without losing too many customers. Competing against the Comcasts and Time Warner Cables of the world does not afford them this luxury.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure who SprintLink would be a good fit for. Level3 and CenturyLink are already plenty big. Other providers might not be willing to pay a premium that Sprint would want for their network. Zayo is already flush with AboveNet; I wouldn't expect them to make any huge purchases in the near future. Maybe tw telecom though.

 

I would say Cogent, but they would want a price that's single percentage points of what the network is worth.

 

All of that said, if Sprint decides to go all-in with NV and beyond, having zero bandwidth costs at the backbone level makes life easier for them than, say, T-Mobile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprintlink is plenty big enough for a backbone provider. What they need is metro fiber loops. I thought that Sprint made a mistake letting Embarq go instead of acquiring companies with fiber loops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprintlink is plenty big enough for a backbone provider. What they need is metro fiber loops. I thought that Sprint made a mistake letting Embarq go instead of acquiring companies with fiber loops. 

 

 

Yes, this is definitely the case - though holding onto Embarq would have ended up being a serious distraction.  DSL is a dead end technology anyway.  DOCSIS 3.0 and fiber-to-the-home are the future.  In places where those solutions don't make sense, it will be LTE to home.

 

At the end of the day, it probably just makes sense for them to lease local fiber.

 

I hope Sprint continues to build out backhaul in places like Africa, where there is still money to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is definitely the case - though holding onto Embarq would have ended up being a serious distraction.  DSL is a dead end technology anyway.  DOCSIS 3.0 and fiber-to-the-home are the future.  In places where those solutions don't make sense, it will be LTE to home.

 

At the end of the day, it probably just makes sense for them to lease local fiber.

 

I hope Sprint continues to build out backhaul in places like Africa, where there is still money to be made.

 

While DSL is a dead end the equivalent of AT&T's Uverse clearly is not. While residential fixed line is a deadend, business lines are not. The other thing that it gives you is leverage (call it blackmail :)) over AT&T and Verizon, just in case they are delaying backhaul delivery.

Edited by bigsnake49
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While DSL is a dead end the equivalent of AT&T's Uverse clearly is not. While residential fixed line is a deadend, business lines are not. The other thing is that it gives you is leverage (call it blackmail :)) over AT&T and Verizon, just in case they are delaying backhaul delivery.

 

I am pretty sure we do not say the AT&T "U" word here.  It's a very very bad word.  How AT&T got the FCC to sign off on it is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure we do not say the AT&T "U" word here.  It's a very very bad word.  How AT&T got the FCC to sign off on it is beyond me.

 

Why would they not? More competition on the video front. Personally I think it's too expensive compared to cable, but who am I to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is definitely the case - though holding onto Embarq would have ended up being a serious distraction.  DSL is a dead end technology anyway.  DOCSIS 3.0 and fiber-to-the-home are the future.  In places where those solutions don't make sense, it will be LTE to home.

 

At the end of the day, it probably just makes sense for them to lease local fiber.

 

I hope Sprint continues to build out backhaul in places like Africa, where there is still money to be made.

 

There is still money to be made.  I have a different plan to build places like Africa, without terrestrial antennas ^_^  :blink:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprintlink is plenty big enough for a backbone provider. What they need is metro fiber loops. I thought that Sprint made a mistake letting Embarq go instead of acquiring companies with fiber loops. 

EXACTLY.  You nailed it. They pulled back, took the money & blew it.  They should have been expanding deeper into the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think about areas such as NYC, where Sprint has fiber, just not to prem (last mile). The cost of running private fiber vs. paying Verizon or TWC, etc. for leasing their access is probably cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DSL may be a "dead" technology, but there are millions of people in rural parts of the country who might never get anything else besides DSL or something like LTE.

 

The state of PA has legislation requiring every ILEC in PA to provide DSL by 12/31/2015.  It claims PA has the 3rd highest rural population in the country.  Where I live, about 20 miles from Allentown, we have nothing - no cable, no DSL.  The local cable company won't be expanding to my street, so we are waiting for DSL.  Supposed to be deployed by October 2014.  Verizon has to follow strict timetables outlined by the legislation that was passed.

 

So, even though it might be a "dead" technology, I think it's all some people will ever get.  I know quite a few people who have Verizon DSL because they get it bundled with their Directv service.

  • Like 2
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...