new backhaul level required?

[lazydog]

Something thing to keep in mind is that Sprint is a Tier 1 internet provider, and has its own fiber network under their SprintLink division.

 

All the big internet players have peering agreements and other special arrangements with each other, so I would not assume that Sprint is paying retail for a tower's internet connection. 

[mhammett]

Something thing to keep in mind is that Sprint is a Tier 1 internet provider, and has its own fiber network under their SprintLink division.

 

All the big internet players have peering agreements and other special arrangements with each other, so I would not assume that Sprint is paying retail for a tower's internet connection.

As someone who is about to expand their own network to pick up some peering, I understand that. However, Sprint has circuits to connect their towers back to that area's LTE core. I'm not sure if those are 1:1 the same as their previous Mobile Switching Centers or are different. From there, I'd suspect it heads to the Internet. A problem Sprint will have if it doesn't already is the lack of peering capacity to major CDNs and a skew in the upload/download of its network as its eyeball count goes up, but not the number of hosting customers.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Deval]

As someone who is about to expand their own network to pick up some peering, I understand that. However, Sprint has circuits to connect their towers back to that area's LTE core. I'm not sure if those are 1:1 the same as their previous Mobile Switching Centers or are different. From there, I'd suspect it heads to the Internet. A problem Sprint will have if it doesn't already is the lack of peering capacity to major CDNs and a skew in the upload/download of its network as its eyeball count goes up, but not the number of hosting customers.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

If you do a tracert of a site while on Sprint's MBB network, I believe it goes from last mile provider -> switch site -> Sprint's core -> Internet.

[mhammett]

If you do a tracert of a site while on Sprint's MBB network, I believe it goes from last mile provider -> switch site -> Sprint's core -> Internet.

 

Are there LTE cores in each MSC or fewer? I'd suspect that you wouldn't see any IP until it hits the LTE core. IP routing protocols don't typically update fast enough for there to be anything other than layer 2 between the handset and the core.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Are there LTE cores in each MSC or fewer? I'd suspect that you wouldn't see any IP until it hits the LTE core. IP routing protocols don't typically update fast enough for there to be anything other than layer 2 between the handset and the core.

You scared away (from this thread) everyone less knowledgable than you. Lol

[mhammett]

You scared away (from this thread) everyone less knowledgable than you. Lol

 

Now how does that help me? :-p

[WiWavelength]

Are there LTE cores in each MSC or fewer?

Good question. Currently, fewer. We have an LTE core list in a thread around here somewhere. Someone needs to dig it up and post it here.

 

But to continue, Sprint uses multiple MSCs in many markets, while LTE cores are fewer and farther between. They are basically located at nodes on the Sprint national fiber backbone.

 

That said, Sprint does seem to be consolidating NIDs, hence may be consolidating multiple MSCs, too. As such, we may see the number of LTE cores and number of MSCs approach parity.

 

AJ

[mhammett]

We have an LTE core list in a thread around here somewhere.

 

But to continue, Sprint uses multiple MSCs in many markets, while LTE cores are fewer and farther between. They are basically located at nodes on the Sprint national fiber backbone.

 

As such, we may see the number of LTE cores and number of MSCs approach parity.

 

Ah, so we'll get more cores as time goes on, but we're going to have fewer MSCs as well. I think I saw a list of MSCs somewhere on here, but I already knew where the ones were around me, due to researching my ability to provide backhaul.

 

Are sites aggregating to MSCs, then MSCs aggregating to cores?

 

I wish Sprint had a better fiber network map...  one like Zayo or Level 3 or Windstream. I'd be nice for the new Sprint to get really competitive with that asset.

[Deval]

Ah, so we'll get more cores as time goes on, but we're going to have fewer MSCs as well. I think I saw a list of MSCs somewhere on here, but I already knew where the ones were around me, due to researching my ability to provide backhaul.

 

Are sites aggregating to MSCs, then MSCs aggregating to cores?

 

I wish Sprint had a better fiber network map...  one like Zayo or Level 3 or Windstream. I'd be nice for the new Sprint to get really competitive with that asset.

 

https://www.sprint.net/performance/

[mhammett]

https://www.sprint.net/performance/

 

That actually is a really nice link with lots of other useful information. Not so good, though, for laying out how their network physically goes from point A to point B.

[Deval]

That actually is a really nice link with lots of other useful information. Not so good, though, for laying out how their network physically goes from point A to point B.

 

I agree, but there isn't a lot more out there, to be honest.

[mhammett]

I agree, but there isn't a lot more out there, to be honest.

 

*nods* I didn't expect there to be. Just wishing.

[Nickel]

Good question. Currently, fewer. We have an LTE core list in a thread around here somewhere. Someone needs to dig it up and post it here.

 

But to continue, Sprint uses multiple MSCs in many markets, while LTE cores are fewer and farther between. They are basically located at nodes on the Sprint national fiber backbone.

 

That said, Sprint does seem to be consolidating NIDs, hence may be consolidating multiple MSCs, too. As such, we may see the number of LTE cores and number of MSCs approach parity.

 

AJ

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1463-4g-cores-switch-centers/?hl=%2Blte+%2Bcore+%2Blist&do=findComment&comment=30027

 

Is this what you were talking about?

[WiWavelength]

Ah, so we'll get more cores as time goes on, but we're going to have fewer MSCs as well.

 

Having fewer MSCs is only anecdotal at this point.  The Kansas market has consolidated down from four NIDs to only one, even across SID boundaries.  Now, that does not prove MSC consolidation, too, but it does suggest it.

 

AJ

[Geesmill]

I agree, but there isn't a lot more out there, to be honest.

A few years before operations was contracted to Ericsson there was a big push to lock down proprietary information, i.e. network routes. Anytime contractors were giving network info they had to sign nda's. Before that AT&T, Sprint and MCI use to hand out network maps like candy.

 

I think sabotage was the main worry along with every competitor getting the low down on owned and operated assets. There for awhile I remember a big dust up over diverse routing on long haul circuits that were being marketed and sold as physically diverse though the wavelengths were all in the same cable shealth. Not really physically diverse and these products were sold at a premium. Of course that was before all the Ring switching schemes were operational. I would imagine these days that is not as much of an issue.

[mhammett]

I think a few providers used street level maps as a marketing edge, requiring more to follow.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Geesmill]

I think a few providers used street level maps as a marketing edge, requiring more to follow.Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Yep, as on-net buildings/sites became/become a bigger and bigger thing I know more local distribution maps were published. I always thought it was pretty silly attempting to curtail core, backbone maps from getting out as there are marker poles everywhere and if some one is really hell bent on creating havoc the info is out there.

 

I believe Zayo does a pretty good job of making their on-net assets available to the public and aggregators.

[Geesmill]

I think a few providers used street level maps as a marketing edge, requiring more to follow.Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

After AT&T purchased Teleport Comm. Group and they became AT&T Local Network Services back in the 90's I know the LNS network was dispersed publicly as Legacy AT&T wanted to get as many buildings/customers on-net ASAP. Of course that is all ancient history as the babies consumed all the LD network providers and long distance suddenly didn't mean anything going forward.

 

It is really crazy when you think about how much people use to pay for voice long distance.

[mhammett]

Yep, as on-net buildings/sites became/become a bigger and bigger thing I know more local distribution maps were published. I always thought it was pretty silly attempting to curtail core, backbone maps from getting out as there are marker poles everywhere and if some one is really hell bent on creating havoc the info is out there.

 

I believe Zayo does a pretty good job of making their on-net assets available to the public and aggregators.

Agreed. I tried to correct LightCore many times as to the location of their POP in my town. They got it from their Digital Teleport purchase. The address they had was on a road about 1/4 mile away from two houses. Um, I clearly followed your markers to your building with your label on it. I looked up the parcel address with the county. They denied. They were on the wrong road about three miles away. I sometimes wonder if they don't even know where their stuff is.

 

Just below Zayo's maps are Windstream and Level3.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Geesmill]

Agreed. I tried to correct LightCore many times as to the location of their POP in my town. They got it from their Digital Teleport purchase. The address they had was on a road about 1/4 mile away from two houses. Um, I clearly followed your markers to your building with your label on it. I looked up the parcel address with the county. They denied. They were on the wrong road about three miles away. I sometimes wonder if they don't even know where their stuff is.

 

Just below Zayo's maps are Windstream and Level3.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Yep, as different startups went belly up and were acquired for cents on the dollar I believe plans, as-builts, we're misplaced, not updated, etc.

 

I remember as PF Net and Cap Rock declared bankruptcy, groups of ATT technicians were sent to different POP locations nationwide to liberate equipment before building owners got wise to what was up. Technicians I worked with got pretty quick powering down, un-bolting and removing racks of equipment in broad day light. Ahh the tech boom, what memories.

[Nickel]

I agree with this thread for new generate the requirement of usage data are increased through the back haul network through this connection we splitting network point to point ,with wireless back-haul the bandwidth are increases as per our configure require.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[mikejeep]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Pretty sure that was a spam bot...

 

-Mike

[Geesmill]

Pretty sure that was a spam bot...

 

-Mike

Let's hope, I thought it might have been Wayne.

 

http://youtu.be/_-Vk3SxFxj0

[gifters]

Sprint should be doing fiber through google... across their network... or at least SW Mich,,. because who doesn't need a gig of bandwidth to their home for under $100 a month? I'm sure sprint would pay more but I don't think Google is in the interest of BFing people over internet prices like everyone else...

[Boosted20V]

Sprint should be doing fiber through google... across their network... or at least SW Mich,,. because who doesn't need a gig of bandwidth to their home for under $100 a month? I'm sure sprint would pay more but I don't think Google is in the interest of BFing people over internet prices like everyone else...

 

From what I've seen, I don't believe Google has even rolled out business service yet. And they had issues with people trying to use their residential gig connections for business uses. Google is much more interested in advertising to consumers, not businesses.