Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[WiWavelength]

Sprint could monetize parts of their 2600 spectrum to get their cell density up. It's a fairly good way, in my opinion, to get money for investment to densify their grid and get urban cell density up. Sprint is lagging in performance, in part, because their density isn't at the point of the other providers. Use the spectrum assets to get higher speeds, but if you can keep 80-100 MHz a market and still be speed competitive, do that.

 

Greater cell density is required, even with 8T8R.

Yep, it sounds like an accurate analysis, and sound decision to me.

 

But apparently that argument was already "rebutted" earlier in the thread. So it's no good now. 

 

Guys, here is the deal.  Provide some substantive evidence.

 

And do not give anecdotes from Chester, IL or western MI.  Who cares?  To illustrate, T-Mobile is shit in Omaha, but nationally, nobody cares.

 

What I want to see is that VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile have significantly greater site density than Sprint does -- in overlapping markets across the country.  I do not believe it, though I am willing to be convinced.

 

That is the "white elephant" everyone wants -- site locations and deployment dates on all four major operators.  S4GRU has kicked ass in that regard.  Nothing similar is available for the other big three.  Do you have that data?

 

But if Sprint already greatly lags the other three in site density, then mark my words.  Sprint is lost.  The damage is done.  The major domestic operator landscape will be down to three or even only two by 2020.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

First, you can rest assured I am not making any points about Chester here. If it were it would be Verizon, the only game in town.

 

Secondly, the T-Mobile site density of 60,000 is from T-Mobile's Braxton Carter.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobiles-carter-its-myth-sprint-needs-fail-us-succeed/2014-11-13

 

Sprint is at 55,000 post Clearwire, so that's a big reason why I am not saying Sprint is lost. Sprint is at 45,000 active LTE sites per S4GRU numbers so with 8T8R deployment they should be pretty close to the 55,000 number by the end of 2015.

 

Take another 10,000 macros and you can completely flip the script for Sprint. That's where my confidence comes from.

[maxsilver]

Guys, here is the deal. Provide some substantive evidence.

 

And do not give anecdotes from Chester, IL or western MI. Who cares? To illustrate, T-Mobile is shit in Omaha, but nationally, nobody cares.

 

What I want to see is that VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile have significantly greater site density than Sprint does -- in overlapping markets across the country. I do not believe it, though I am willing to be convinced.

You already have this.

 

You already know T-Mobile has something like 5,000 - 8,000 more active cell sites than Sprint has, based on each carriers own provided numbers (or using S4GRU's counts for Sprint, if you prefer).

 

And you already know that T-Mobile's actual footprint is slightly smaller than Sprint's in most areas. It's the most-often-repeated complaint about T-Mobile on this site (or you can simply compare the areas they claim to cover based on their own maps -- which aren't very accurate, but still claim the same disparity in miles serviced)

 

So, while tower-specific maps would be lovely and nice, there's no actual need for it. By definition, T-Mobile must have higher density, because "more sites in less area" requires it, and by numbers, that's what they have.

 

Edit: And that's before we include the propagation difference between 2100 and 2600, which should require even higher density than that 60,000 figure.

[payturr]

First, you can rest assured I am not making any points about Chester here. If it were it would be Verizon, the only game in town.

 

Secondly, the T-Mobile site density of 60,000 is from T-Mobile's Braxton Carter.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobiles-carter-its-myth-sprint-needs-fail-us-succeed/2014-11-13

 

Sprint is at 55,000 post Clearwire, so that's a big reason why I am not saying Sprint is lost. Sprint is at 45,000 active LTE sites per S4GRU numbers so with 8T8R deployment they should be pretty close to the 55,000 number by the end of 2015.

 

Take another 10,000 macros and you can completely flip the script for Sprint. That's where my confidence comes from.

1) Does the 60K include small cells?

2) Keep in mind Sprint doesn't exist in select markets (IE Virginias). This means that comparing the total number of sites doesn't prove greater density at all. It simply suggests that it's possible.

[Fraydog]

1) Does the 60K include small cells?

2) Keep in mind Sprint doesn't exist in select markets (IE Virginias). This means that comparing the total number of sites doesn't prove greater density at all. It simply suggests that it's possible.

It includes MetroPCS, most of which is now up and running save for some urban DAS installations. T-Mobile is also working on small cells, they have a test installation in conjunction with NSN at Arlington Heights, IL. I think T-Mobile is just keeping a lot of their small strategy private at this time.

[milan03]

It includes MetroPCS, most of which is now up and running save for some urban DAS installations. T-Mobile is also working on small cells, they have a test installation in conjunction with NSN at Arlington Heights, IL. I think T-Mobile is just keeping a lot of their small strategy private at this time.

T-Mobile has literally a few SmallCells. That's it. In addition to 60,000+ sites, they do have 12,000 MetroPCS DAS nodes in dense urban areas they're keeping according to Neville Ray, as of yesterday. And obviously, they're expanding the overall footprint this year, and that's additional site count. It's unclear what's going to be the total amount.

 

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/citigroup/imt2015/67205536707.cfm

 

"- I mean if you think about, my biggest goal this year is the footprint expansion, the 300 million pops of LTE. From capacity perspective, I've done that work for '15. So our capital profile is not going through incremental intensity for capacity because of the density that we have, the sites that we have... I'm not running around saying that "we're adding thousands of SmallCells", I have a couple. Literally, right? Because I have such a strong macro network in the ground already today and I'm pouring spectrum on top of it, I'm filling the rain barrels of capacity that we have out there. So my major goal is on footprint expansion, not so much on the capacity piece. And again, you've got to think how the other guys are playing, their invests are around capacity and how to catch up. We've already built that asset."

 

"- If you look at the density of the cell network that we have because we've only had mid-band assets, combining that with MetroPCS 12,000 nodes of DAS, we've combined where it really makes sense to drive cell density and capacity. We're adding more and more spectrum."

[Johnner1999]

except for the top 10 large metro areas -- b41 seems like its a "fail" in most areas where Sprint has issues with penetration issues.  

 

I'm still longish on Sprint -- but I think TMO will beat Sprint only in metro areas on speed!  And the real bells will keep customers on QoS.   

[lou99/maximus1987]

First, you can rest assured I am not making any points about Chester here. If it were it would be Verizon, the only game in town.

 

Secondly, the T-Mobile site density of 60,000 is from T-Mobile's Braxton Carter.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobiles-carter-its-myth-sprint-needs-fail-us-succeed/2014-11-13

 

Sprint is at 55,000 post Clearwire, so that's a big reason why I am not saying Sprint is lost. Sprint is at 45,000 active LTE sites per S4GRU numbers so with 8T8R deployment they should be pretty close to the 55,000 number by the end of 2015.

 

Take another 10,000 macros and you can completely flip the script for Sprint. That's where my confidence comes from.

He also said 50k fiber to tower which probably means 50k non-slow backhaul and 10k 2g.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

He also said 50k fiber to tower which probably means 50k non-slow backhaul and 10k 2g.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm going to guess that would be most of the sites in the T-Mobile system that are rural GPRS/EDGE installs. 

[greencat]

First, you can rest assured I am not making any points about Chester here. If it were it would be Verizon, the only game in town.

 

Secondly, the T-Mobile site density of 60,000 is from T-Mobile's Braxton Carter.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobiles-carter-its-myth-sprint-needs-fail-us-succeed/2014-11-13

 

Sprint is at 55,000 post Clearwire, so that's a big reason why I am not saying Sprint is lost. Sprint is at 45,000 active LTE sites per S4GRU numbers so with 8T8R deployment they should be pretty close to the 55,000 number by the end of 2015.

 

Take another 10,000 macros and you can completely flip the script for Sprint. That's where my confidence comes from.

 

10,000 Towers/sites is A LOT. Especially when you have approx 7,000 sitting out there right now without upgraded backhaul.

 

I think Sprint needs to be within 10% of the average between the #1 & #2 companies with the most towers. That would go a long ways to clearing up holes in coverage and it would make Sprint competitive for most people.

 

There are thousands of racks/towers out there that Sprint has just decided it doesn't need to be on - to try and save money, but that needs to change.

[bigsnake49]

I have to respectfully disagree with AJ. Sprint only owns BRS leases EBS. If they can sell their leasing rights to it to say Verizon, it becomes Verizon's problem when those leases expire. If they can secure roaming for very low cost + low cost back haul from Verizon plus some money in the bank, that will be great. They could turn around and lease Dish's 25x5 spectrum adjacent to PCS G. They need to something with EBS since it is lying fallow and unused. I don't see them using much above a 3x20MHz aggregation. Sprint needs to improve their network and if this helps them improve their network or their financial position then by all means, they should do it.

 

The big unknown is what is Dish going to do with their spectrum. If they sell it to Verizon or AT&T then Sprint will not be able to sell theirs. It might be a preemptive strike against Dish.

Edited January 9, 2015 by bigsnake49

[centermedic]

1) Does the 60K include small cells?

2) Keep in mind Sprint doesn't exist in select markets (IE Virginias). This means that comparing the total number of sites doesn't prove greater density at all. It simply suggests that it's possible.

And this is why inference from data that is assumed to be correct can surprisingly be faulty. I would like to see the actual tower density of the other three national providers not just raw numbers.

[JeffDTD]

Lets hope that frantic "swinging the bat" (as said by a feathery pink magpie) in fear of being #4 in size doesn't come at the expense of speed improvements or organic network growth.  Both are "must have"  writing on the wall for Sprint, but cost cutting always affects the future. Always.   I'm ready to hear timeframe plans for the remaining sites that lack B26 and 2016/2017 plans.  Those years are now closer to us than 2015 was when we started talking about NV. 

[JossMan]

1) Does the 60K include small cells?

2) Keep in mind Sprint doesn't exist in select markets (IE Virginias). This means that comparing the total number of sites doesn't prove greater density at all. It simply suggests that it's possible.

Sprint has native coverage in Virginia, just opposite ends of Virginia somewhat.  Sprint's sites end once you leave Atkins, VA and they pick back up just south of Harrisonburg, VA and just about the entire Virginia coast is covered with native coverage.  West Virginia however is a different story.

[kg4icg]

South of Harrisonburg along I81 and running east to Lynchburg and Charlottesville isn't Sprint, it is NTelos. Sprint does have the I95 corridor but the western part of Virginia is it's partners with the exception of Bristol and you can guess why that is.

[S4GRU]

I think many of you are putting words in AJ's mouth. To me it seems clear that he is saying that Sprint needs to do more than just a cost benefit analysis of selling some EBS assets. It must factor in what it looks like when Company A, Company B and/or Company C gets them. Then that has to be weighed in the analysis as well. It may make sense all things considered, but the issue is not as simple as some here would suggest. I believe that's what he's saying. And if so, I agree. That's my take too.

 

But God forbid they sell any BRS assets that they own. Only EBS leases above the market needs for the forseeable future should be on the table. And it's quite possible those may not be very valuable yet.

 

To pick up 20MHz here and there of LEASED Band 41 spectrum in a band your network and devices do not currently support just may not be very valuable on the open market. There are not many parallels between free and open AWS-3 and remnant pieces of Leased EBS.

 

It still may be too early to leverage those assets for a big pay day. Leased EBS full value may not be paid by the market until after the 600MHz auction. Or when 600MHz is finally pulled as unfeasible.

 

The big problem with Leased EBS is that when the leases come up for renewal, these schools now will want to be a big part of the pay day. EBS value per megahertz has increased probably 100x its original value when lease negotiations began a decade ago. Expect fights, canceled leases, renegotiations and lawsuits. EBS licensee schools are already discussing these things and banding together. They know they are getting the shaft as the value climbs.

 

The next lessee that Sprint sells to all know this, be it Verizon, AT&T, DISH or whomever. No one really wants that fight. This is the least valuable spectrum to them. Not just in propagation, but in future liability. So they'll avoid it as long as they can and they will pay as little for it as possible if they do move on it. For the long term ownership costs, EBS is volatile. No one knows where this train is going to derail. But I hear the Railroad is pretending it's not on the itinerary.

[payturr]

I think many of you are putting words in AJ's mouth. To me it seems clear that he is saying that Sprint needs to do more than just a cost benefit analysis of selling some EBS assets. It must factor in what it looks like when Company A, Company B and/or Company C gets them. Then that has to be weighed in the analysis as well. It may make sense all things considered, but the issue is not as simple as some here would suggest. I believe that's what he's saying. And if so, I agree. That's my take too.

 

But God forbid they sell any BRS assets that they own. Only EBS leases above the market needs for the forseeable future should be on the table. And it's quite possible those may not be very valuable yet.

 

To pick up 20MHz here and there of LEASED Band 41 spectrum in a band your network and devices do not currently support just may not be very valuable on the open market. There are not many parallels between free and open AWS-3 and remnant pieces of Leased EBS.

 

It still may be too early to leverage those assets for a big pay day. Leased EBS full value may not be paid by the market until after the 600MHz auction. Or when 600MHz is finally pulled as unfeasible.

 

The big problem with Leased EBS is that when the leases come up for renewal, these schools now will want to be a big part of the pay day. EBS value per megahertz has increased probably 100x its original value when lease negotiations began a decade ago. Expect fights, canceled leases, renegotiations and lawsuits. EBS licensee schools are already discussing these things and banding together. They know they are getting the shaft as the value climbs.

 

The next lessee that Sprint sells to all know this, be it Verizon, AT&T, DISH or whomever. No one really wants that fight. This is the least valuable spectrum to them. Not just in propagation, but in future liability. So they'll avoid it as long as they can and they will pay as little for it as possible if they do move on it. For the long term ownership costs, EBS is volatile. No one knows where this train is going to derail. But I hear the Railroad is pretending it's not on the itinerary.

NYC is screwed then. According to the FCC, Sprint only has EBS out here. If that's true, this entire Spark market is gonna be doomed come the end of the lease. I'm onboard with not touching EBS leases now.

[S4GRU]

NYC is screwed then. According to the FCC, Sprint only has EBS out here. If that's true, this entire Spark market is gonna be doomed come the end of the lease. I'm onboard with not touching EBS leases now.

 

In places where Sprint only has EBS spectrum, they will do anything to keep it.  Especially in primary markets.  They are likely just going to have to pay a lot more for it.  But it will be hard to quantify at this point how much that's going to be.  They may only keep what they need, though.  It's going to be highly variable from lease to lease.  And Sprint leases from several institutions in big markets, like NYC.

[S4GRU]

Also, Sprint has BRS in NYC according to this reference:  http://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

 

EDIT:  Here specifically:  http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2593563

Edited January 9, 2015 by S4GRU
Added NYC BRS License

[WiWavelength]

I think many of you are putting words in AJ's mouth. To me it seems clear that he is saying that Sprint needs to do more than just a cost benefit analysis of selling some EBS assets. It must factor in what it looks like when Company A, Company B and/or Company C gets them. Then that has to be weighed in the analysis as well. It may make sense all things considered, but the issue is not as simple as some here would suggest. I believe that's what he's saying. And if so, I agree. That's my take too.

 

But God forbid they sell any BRS assets that they own. Only EBS leases above the market needs for the forseeable future should be on the table. And it's quite possible those may not be very valuable yet.

 

My intuition is that Sprint needs to hoard BRS/EBS like gold.  The spectrum has gotten the knock -- especially from trolls and other provider fanboys -- for being too high frequency, for having poor propagation characteristics.  But here is the irony.  Compared to what is coming in the future, BRS/EBS is relatively low in frequency.

 

Envision the BRS/EBS band as the lowest frequency large plot of undeveloped land remaining.  And the future will not stop at just 20 MHz FDD/TDD bandwidth.  Much as Wi-Fi has expanded to 40 MHz TDD, then 80 MHz TDD, now 160 MHz TDD, LTE will see larger bandwidth carriers.

 

We cannot think 3x 20 MHz TDD carrier aggregation in band 41 is the end of the road.  If anything, it is just the beginning.  To deploy larger bandwidth carriers, other operators will have to jump up to band 42/43 (3500 MHz) or LTE-LAA (5800 MHz).  Yet, if Sprint retains as much BRS/EBS as it can, it will be able to deploy those future larger bandwidth carriers in band 41, turning the tables and giving Sprint a propagation advantage.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

Also, Sprint has BRS in NYC according to this reference: http://specmap.sequence-omega.net/

 

EDIT: Here specifically: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2593563

do you know if these leases have any kind of clause giving sprint first crack at resigning? Also do we have any idea when the leases end?

[S4GRU]

do you know if these leases have any kind of clause giving sprint first crack at resigning? Also do we have any idea when the leases end?

 

I would imagine they have renewal clauses.  They probably even have the renewal rates in there already too.  But the EBS license holders are planning to fight even the renewal terms they have agreed to because the market has materially changed so drastically.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I would imagine they have renewal clauses. They probably even have the renewal rates in there already too. But the EBS license holders are planning to fight even the renewal terms they have agreed to because the market has materially changed so drastically.

What basis would they use to renege?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

What basis would they use to renege?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am fully expecting EBS license holders to sue to get out of renewals if they are not offered more money, somewhere much closer to fair market value.  And the leases are highly variable in terms.  EBS is a mess.  That makes the BRS portion of Band 41 so much more valuable and manageable.  

[lou99/maximus1987]

I am fully expecting EBS license holders to sue to get out of renewals if they are not offered more money, somewhere much closer to fair market value. And the leases are highly variable in terms. EBS is a mess. That makes the BRS portion of Band 41 so much more valuable and manageable.

Ok they'll sue but unless there's a clause enabling them to break the contract… tough luck.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk