Sprint sets a new record

[S4GRU]

Hello everyone, Kevin Fitchard here.

 

I guess I'm not the most popular guy on these forums, but I actually know several of you here so I thought I would offer up some thoughts on my recent coverage. (And I appreciate you defending my credibility, AJ, even though I know we disagree on this.)

 

First, wanted to let you know, I'm pubbing a piece tomorrow based on my interview with Dan Hesse on the LTE rollout. I'm still pretty critical, but I give Dan his say, and he's a pretty convincing guy.

 

As for my coverage of Sprint lately, yes, it's taken a very critical turn. I've been covering Sprint for 13 years, and I've always rooted for the company. It does things differently and it challenges collective industry wisdom (WiMAX, unlimited plans, even mobile payments). But I've also been writing the same tired line for seven years: Sprint's gonna turn the corner, just you wait, it will launch the network its promising.

 

Seven year's later, I'm still getting the same line, so as a journalist/blogger/editorialist (whatever you want to call me) I'm not giving them a benefit of the doubt anymore. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I wanted to explain my new stance. It's the same thing I explained to Dan Hesse today.

 

Keep commenting on my posts. There is sometimes a delay because we do moderate them, but we always approve them if they're not marketing spam. People read them. I read them, which is why I'm here.

Kevin,

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. Many of us here read your articles and we appreciate you sticking your head in the Lion's Den. Not many would have the professional courage to do that.

 

Robert

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

[Destroyallcubes]

Hello everyone, Kevin Fitchard here.

 

I guess I'm not the most popular guy on these forums, but I actually know several of you here so I thought I would offer up some thoughts on my recent coverage. (And I appreciate you defending my credibility, AJ, even though I know we disagree on this.)

 

First, wanted to let you know, I'm pubbing a piece tomorrow based on my interview with Dan Hesse on the LTE rollout. I'm still pretty critical, but I give Dan his say, and he's a pretty convincing guy.

 

As for my coverage of Sprint lately, yes, it's taken a very critical turn. I've been covering Sprint for 13 years, and I've always rooted for the company. It does things differently and it challenges collective industry wisdom (WiMAX, unlimited plans, even mobile payments). But I've also been writing the same tired line for seven years: Sprint's gonna turn the corner, just you wait, it will launch the network its promising.

 

Seven year's later, I'm still getting the same line, so as a journalist/blogger/editorialist (whatever you want to call me) I'm not giving them a benefit of the doubt anymore. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I wanted to explain my new stance. It's the same thing I explained to Dan Hesse today.

 

Keep commenting on my posts. There is sometimes a delay because we do moderate them, but we always approve them if they're not marketing spam. People read them. I read them, which is why I'm here.

You have gained a lot of respect from that. One of the most professional actions I have seen In a while. Valid point, and A Valid reason for your Article stance.

[thewezgrays]

http://gigaom.com/2014/02/12/sprint-ceo-dan-hesse-4g-lte-network/

 

I see the article went up an hour ago...

[Kevin Fitchard]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. 

 

 

Weill, I've actually linked to S4GU article written by you and AJ before, Robert. It would be hypocritical for me to use S4GU content and be unwilling to participate in a discussion, right?

[jreuschl]

I'm sure this has been beaten to death on here but two questions:

 

1. Why did Sprint not focus just on the major metro areas and then upgrade other areas later like T-Mobile did?  Lots seem to be going goo gah over how great TM is but they don't say how horrible they are outside of metro areas.

 

2. Why are they waiting to do 800 LTE, TD LTE, until after the initial upgrade?  Is it because the phone technology wasn't available yet until now?

[The Dave]

Kevin,

 

I appreciate your stance. I enjoy reading your articles, and I don't have a problem with criticism as long as it is unbiased. As we all know, there are many articles and many comments that take on an extreme "Sprint is so horrible it may just kill your baby" tone. However, unbiased criticism helps keep companies honest and keep things progressing. That, I appreciate.

[mozamcrew]

I'm sure this has been beaten to death on here but two questions:

 

1. Why did Sprint not focus just on the major metro areas and then upgrade other areas later like T-Mobile did?  Lots seem to be going goo gah over how great TM is but they don't say how horrible they are outside of metro areas.

 

2. Why are they waiting to do 800 LTE, TD LTE, until after the initial upgrade?  Is it because the phone technology wasn't available yet until now?

 

1. The sites T-Mobile is putting LTE on already had fiber backhaul for HSPA and they didn't need to replace their 3G gear either, so what they are doing is much easier. Sprint's biggest problem is the sheer volume of work (antennas, rrus, base stations, and new backhaul), and the slowness of certain backhaul vendors. Ideally, the backhaul could all have been completed right before work started on a site, then as a cluster of sites is completed, they are all turned on in a bunch (or as they are ready in markets that don't have legacy CSFB issues.) Because backhaul is so slow to arrive, you had to make multiple trips to a site.

 

2. There wasn't enough spectrum to do ANY 800 LTE until Nextel was shutoff last June (2013). So there was no way to put 800 LTE on the initial sites, even though the antennas and rrus all supported it.

[Conan Kudo]

1. The sites T-Mobile is putting LTE on already had fiber backhaul for HSPA and they didn't need to replace their 3G gear either, so what they are doing is much easier. Sprint's biggest problem is the sheer volume of work (antennas, rrus, base stations, and new backhaul), and the slowness of certain backhaul vendors. Ideally, the backhaul could all have been completed right before work started on a site, then as a cluster of sites is completed, they are all turned on in a bunch (or as they are ready in markets that don't have legacy CSFB issues.) Because backhaul is so slow to arrive, you had to make multiple trips to a site.

 

T-Mobile is replacing its 2G and 3G gear with new multi-mode 2G/3G/4G gear in order to conserve space and make room for a 700MHz LTE overlay later on. The major difference between T-Mobile's deployment and Sprint's deployment is that T-Mobile already worked out backhaul providers years ago, and can merely renegotiate to expand backhaul capacity. Sprint has to effectively start from scratch, because a lot of its existing backhaul isn't suitable for mobile broadband service.

[mozamcrew]

T-Mobile is replacing its 2G and 3G gear with new multi-mode 2G/3G/4G gear in order to conserve space and make room for a 700MHz LTE overlay later on. The major difference between T-Mobile's deployment and Sprint's deployment is that T-Mobile already worked out backhaul providers years ago, and can merely renegotiate to expand backhaul capacity. Sprint has to effectively start from scratch, because a lot of its existing backhaul isn't suitable for mobile broadband service.

 

I was under the impression that TMUS was only doing that on some of their sites. But yes, the backhaul is Sprint's biggest obstacle. 

[lilotimz]

I was under the impression that TMUS was only doing that on some of their sites. But yes, the backhaul is Sprint's biggest obstacle.

NSN markets are complete tear out of legacy equipment and replacement with NSN gear. This is basically the same thing as sprint.

 

Ericsson has them retrofitting cabinets and replacing antennas or adding radio heads. Way easier than sprint as they don't need to swap cabinets most of the time and mess with electrical equipment.

Both don't have to contend with backhaul so once they're done they can fire it up immediately whereas sprint sites languish for months.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

 

[mozamcrew]

NSN markets are complete tear out of legacy equipment and replacement with NSN gear. This is basically the same thing as sprint.

 

Ericsson has them retrofitting cabinets and replacing antennas or adding radio heads. Way easier than sprint as they don't need to swap cabinets most of the time and mess with electrical equipment.

Both don't have to contend with backhaul so once they're done they can fire it up immediately whereas sprint sites languish for months.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Thank you Lilotimz, I knew I'd heard something to that effect before. I just didn't remember what the deal was exactly.

[Conan Kudo]

Thank you Lilotimz, I knew I'd heard something to that effect before. I just didn't remember what the deal was exactly.

It's not a 50-50 split, and some Ericsson markets are also complete replacements, too. Though this mainly is in zones where MetroPCS and T-Mobile both use Ericsson (California and Florida are example markets). NSN dominates the modernization effort, and they've replaced Nokia, Nortel, Lucent, and Ericsson gear.

 

Sprint's project, in terms of current footprint, is evenly split among three vendors. However, Samsung will get the bulk of the network expansion that will occur over the next few years, since Samsung's region covers most of the uncovered areas of the country. As that rolls out, we'll see it shift to make Samsung the dominant vendor of Sprint's Network Vision and Spark programs.

[Nickel]

It's not a 50-50 split, and some Ericsson markets are also complete replacements, too. Though this mainly is in zones where MetroPCS and T-Mobile both use Ericsson (California and Florida are example markets). NSN dominates the modernization effort, and they've replaced Nokia, Nortel, Lucent, and Ericsson gear.

 

Sprint's project, in terms of current footprint, is evenly split among three vendors. However, Samsung will get the bulk of the network expansion that will occur over the next few years, since Samsung's region covers most of the uncovered areas of the country. As that rolls out, we'll see it shift to make Samsung the dominant vendor of Sprint's Network Vision and Spark programs.

Are you suggesting that Samsung might take over some other's territory or just cover more of their own territory?

[mozamcrew]

Are you suggesting that Samsung might take over some other's territory or just cover more of their own territory?

I think he is looking at the areas of the US that have large gaping holes in native Sprint coverage (ND, SD, MT, WY) and noticing they are all in Samsung territory. Those four states have most of the MSAs yet to get a buildout in the PCS G block as well, so Sprint will be doing SOME kind of footprint expansion in this area. Much of those areas used to be served with "like native" Alltel coverage up until the Verizon merger/divestment a few years back.

[joshnys8913]

It's not a 50-50 split, and some Ericsson markets are also complete replacements, too. Though this mainly is in zones where MetroPCS and T-Mobile both use Ericsson (California and Florida are example markets). NSN dominates the modernization effort, and they've replaced Nokia, Nortel, Lucent, and Ericsson gear.

 

Sprint's project, in terms of current footprint, is evenly split among three vendors. However, Samsung will get the bulk of the network expansion that will occur over the next few years, since Samsung's region covers most of the uncovered areas of the country. As that rolls out, we'll see it shift to make Samsung the dominant vendor of Sprint's Network Vision and Spark programs.

Thats a good sign still for Sprint 

[Nickel]

I think he is looking at the areas of the US that have large gaping holes in native Sprint coverage (ND, SD, MT, WY) and noticing they are all in Samsung territory. Those four states have most of the MSAs yet to get a buildout in the PCS G block as well, so Sprint will be doing SOME kind of footprint expansion in this area. Much of those areas used to be served with "like native" Alltel coverage up until the Verizon merger/divestment a few years back.

That was my thought, too. But if that is the case how does that make Samsung the "dominant" vendor for NV?

[Dkoellerwx]

That was my thought, too. But if that is the case how does that make Samsung the "dominant" vendor for NV?

I suppose because they have the largest geographical area. However, Samsung hasn't been assigned to any of the uncovered regions, because they're not Sprint markets. It's quite possible that of Sprint does decide to create, say a Montana market, they could pull another vendor to do it. That's a big if, and not really that likely either.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Nickel]

I suppose because they have the largest geographical area. However, Samsung hasn't been assigned to any of the uncovered regions, because they're not Sprint markets. It's quite possible that of Sprint does decide to create, say a Montana market, they could pull another vendor to do it. That's a big if, and not really that likely either.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

So that map of the areas that the vendors covers means nothing?

[mozamcrew]

I suppose because they have the largest geographical area. However, Samsung hasn't been assigned to any of the uncovered regions, because they're not Sprint markets. It's quite possible that of Sprint does decide to create, say a Montana market, they could pull another vendor to do it. That's a big if, and not really that likely either.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Sprint will have to build some coverage in those areas by 2016 due to the PCS G block buildout requirements. See here http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3703-potential-sprint-rural-buildout-by-2016/

 

I just assumed since they are smack in the middle of the Samsung area on that map that Samsung would be the OEM for those sites.

[Dkoellerwx]

Sprint will have to build some coverage in those areas by 2016 due to the PCS G block buildout requirements. See here http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/3703-potential-sprint-rural-buildout-by-2016/

 

I just assumed since they are smack in the middle of the Samsung area on that map that Samsung would be the OEM for those sites.

I have read that thread, and I don't believe it requires a real build out, they could just add service to WiMax protection sites and call it good. Who knows at this point what will happen.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Dkoellerwx]

So that map of the areas that the vendors covers means nothing?

When it's outside of Sprint markets, yes. I don't believe it applies. I could be wrong, but I don't see how Samsung could have bid on geographic regions where Sprint doesn't have a network.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Nickel]

When it's outside of Sprint markets, yes. I don't believe it applies. I could be wrong, but I don't see how Samsung could have bid on geographic regions where Sprint doesn't have a network.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Huh, I guess I just assumed it was done on a geographic area rather than market by market.

[Dkoellerwx]

Huh, I guess I just assumed it was done on a geographic area rather than market by market.

Again, I could be wrong but it makes most sense to me that it was done by market.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[mozamcrew]

I have read that thread, and I don't believe it requires a real build out, they could just add service to WiMax protection sites and call it good. Who knows at this point what will happen.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Those wimax protection sites won't provide enough coverage to satisfy the all buildout requirements. They might for the Casper WY BEA, but I doubt it will for those other BEAs. Three of the BEAs didn't even have a single clearwire protection site. So we know Sprint will have to do something else in those areas. Frankly, Just covering the interstates and the cities along them in ND, SD, and MT would make their coverage map LOOK a lot better. It wouldn't require more than maybe 100-200 sites to do it well either.

 

For example, If you wanted to cover just the city of Bismarck ND, you'd probably want at least 3 sites around the city (N, SE, and SW maybe), plus a site east and west of the city on I94. In ND, if you just covered i29, i94, US2, and all the towns along them, you'd be doing very well. Maybe add about 5 more sites and you'd look really good (I'm thinking a pair on US83 between Minot and Bismarck, and a pair on US 85 between Dickinson and Williston, and one in Carrington which is on US 281 between Devils Lake and Jamestown.

[WiWavelength]

Those wimax protection sites won't provide enough coverage to satisfy the all buildout requirements. They might for the Casper WY BEA, but I doubt it will for those other BEAs. Three of the BEAs didn't even have a single clearwire protection site. So we know Sprint will have to do something else in those areas.

 

Since I authored the thread being referenced, I will chime in.

 

In those BEAs where Clearwire has "license protection" sites, overlaying them with band 25 LTE 1900 will be enough to provide "substantial service."

 

In those BEAs where Clearwire has no "license protection" sites, Sprint may choose to accept FCC penalties or walk away from the spectrum licenses.  Even modest buildout with almost zero ROI may not be worth it.

 

We shall see in the next two years.  But I titled my thread "potential" for good reason.

 

AJ