Jump to content
joshuam

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

Recommended Posts

For the same reason Verizon sold off a good chunk of their FiOS business and why Google is looking at wireless for future gigabit deployments. Fiber is too expensive to build out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know funding is tight and I'm not trying to say I sprint should have their cake and eat it too but...

 

Is there a reason Sprint doesn't just slowly start to run their own back haul? Like get a crew or two going and working on it slowly? From tower to tower and eventually start to have their own fiber backbone? Like they say they're being surgical on how they spend CapEx to deploy the network in the future. Couldn't this same logic be applied to slowly running their own fiber back haul? Maybe it would take years (probably more like decades) to finish but I'd imagine it would eventually pay for it's self in the long run?

 

I seem to at least think that would be way more profitable in the long term than spending money on Tidal or pokemon go

 

Sprint's isn't a LEC, cannot just run fiber with no where to connect to. The current situation with backhaul involves AAV (alternate access vendors) or the LEC lighting up the fiber from the cell site to the switch. From there it runs on Sprint core fiber through their MPLS network.

 

https://www.sprint.net/lg/lg_start.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody wants to trench and run fiber, it's just one of those necessary evils that should honestly be neutral and government run.

 

But that's for another conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody wants to trench and run fiber, it's just one of those necessary evils that should honestly be neutral and government run.

 

But that's for another conversation.

I don't know how that would fix anything. The number one cost to running fiber is the government, just ask google. That is why had cities bid for google fiber, so they could hold local regulatory cost down. Just image if the government ran it and some politician had to choose shutting down part of a major city's road system during an election year. Not to mention all the other public choice problems.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how that would fix anything. The number one cost to running fiber is the government, just ask google. That is why had cities bid for google fiber, so they could hold local regulatory cost down. Just image if the government ran it and some politician had to choose shutting down part of a major city's road system during an election year. Not to mention all the other public choice problems.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

We are well beyond proper internet access being a luxury​, just like roadways are maintaned by the government so should fiber lines.

 

When a for profit company decides it's not in their best monetary interest to complete their own planned rollout, you have to start questioning whether it's at all a sustainable business model.

 

This also gives companies like Verizon more ammunination to argue against Title II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are well beyond proper internet access being a luxury​, just like roadways are maintaned by the government so should fiber lines.

 

When a for profit company decides it's not in their best monetary interest to complete their own planned rollout, you have to start questioning whether it's at all a sustainable business model.

 

This also gives companies like Verizon more ammunination to argue against Title II.

No it is not like roads. Roads cant be monetize that is why they are public good. The is no reason why fiber cant be monetized and it is successfully. They are not public goods, if you are in happy with the lack of choice you or wireless companies like sprint have blame the right people, your local government.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys want to continue this conversation, it'd probably be best to do it in another thread since it is not about Sprint.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys want to continue this conversation, it'd probably be best to do it in another thread since it is not about Sprint.

Well, its good Sprint at least isn't talking about spending on having a SprintFiber service, or else we'd be discussing the merits of that versus deployment and densification spending.

 

Actually, I'm glad to hear from earlier posts here about Sprint's CapEx spending being up. Perhaps Sprint/Softbank may be changing their mind about the T-Mobile merger possibility?

 

It is good to hear Sprint is doing very well in Lombard. That is very closeby to me and if Sprint had a $90 two-line HD included non-expiry offer, with either a tax inclusive offer or a 10%-20% discount to cover the tax, which either idea would meet the rate I'm getting from T-Mobile, I'd try out Sprint for a few days, and if as good as it sounds, I'd switch.

 

Two things I miss about Sprint is band 41 and VQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this guy,

 

Super pro NIMBLY, yet he has negative words for the "Magic Box"

 

https://twitter.com/DrJLKramer/status/861723064890871808

An ass. I really do hate NIMBYs, they are usually the first to complain about coverage but they complain about the infustructor need to get coverage. No one sees cell towers unless they are looking for them. Besides, they don't look any worse than powerlines. They should be ignored.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read mm wave can provide 10 gigabytes of backhaul. Cisco estimate by 2020 65 percent of backhaul provided by mm wave. So fiber is not really the only solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic you guys are discussing this, as I just today have been emailing a city utility network admin about fiber run to my home. Their nearest fiber is around 4500 feet from me, and he said it would cost around $22,000 for that to be ran. Also, if I can get 30 people to commit in the area between...they will do it (run the fiber and offer service). The footwork is on me though. I think it's worth it and I'll be going door to door in the next day or so.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite whatever disagreements we may have on certain issues, to all S4GRU members against NIMBYs, I'm with you in agreement on the issues they cause for us wireless enthusiasts, and even towards those general wireless consumers. I definitely don't blame wireless carriers such as Sprint for trying to densify their networks with cell sites, only to be met with opposition by these NIMBYs.

 

Their arguments over site appearance is ridiculous, especially since radio towers have been around for many years and have served the purposes they have, just as wireless cell sites do. Yet, I don't hear these NIMBYs demanding the kind of things towards radio towers as they do towards wireless cell sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic you guys are discussing this, as I just today have been emailing a city utility network admin about fiber run to my home. Their nearest fiber is around 4500 feet from me, and he said it would cost around $22,000 for that to be ran. Also, if I can get 30 people to commit in the area between...they will do it (run the fiber and offer service). The footwork is on me though. I think it's worth it and I'll be going door to door in the next day or so.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Good luck.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck.

 

Ditto.

 

Funnily enough, I have fiber to my house - about the only neighborhood in the area that has it - but I'm on cable because Windstream only provisions up to 75 Mbps here, at the same price that Cox will give me 150+ Mbps over coax. Go figure...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto.

 

Funnily enough, I have fiber to my house - about the only neighborhood in the area that has it - but I'm on cable because Windstream only provisions up to 75 Mbps here, at the same price that Cox will give me 150+ Mbps over coax. Go figure...

 

Windstream sucks. are you sure it's actually fiber to home -or- fiber to 'almost' home?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know funding is tight and I'm not trying to say I sprint should have their cake and eat it too but...

 

Is there a reason Sprint doesn't just slowly start to run their own back haul? Like get a crew or two going and working on it slowly? From tower to tower and eventually start to have their own fiber backbone? Like they say they're being surgical on how they spend CapEx to deploy the network in the future. Couldn't this same logic be applied to slowly running their own fiber back haul?

Sprint doesn't need to deploy fiber to every cell site, there are other options that they currently utilize such as fiber to microwave bridges and AAV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint doesn't need to deploy fiber to every cell site, there are other options that they currently utilize such as fiber to microwave bridges and AAV.

Or you know.... LTE UE Relay...

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you know.... LTE UE Relay...

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Sprint's godsend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not like roads. Roads cant be monetize that is why they are public good. The is no reason why fiber cant be monetized and it is successfully. They are not public goods, if you are in happy with the lack of choice you or wireless companies like sprint have blame the right people, your local government.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

Roads can certainly be monetized. Tolls roads is how they're monetized whether they're built by a public or a private entity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roads can certainly be monetized. Tolls roads is how they're monetized whether they're built by a public or a private entity.

Not intercity roads. Freeways can and that is a great argument for privatization. In any case the problem with lack of fiber is the government not private ownership is the point.

Roads can certainly be monetized. Tolls roads is how they're monetized whether they're built by a public or a private entity.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Portland, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Denver ready for 10x10/15x15? (10+5)?

 

Sprint and ATT sure is ready to make that happen! =)

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Tim any more details on this or time frames?    Especially Portland?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint just announced this:

 

Sprint Announces Cash Tender Offers for up to $1 Billion Aggregate Principal Amount of its 9.000% Guaranteed Notes due 2018 and its 8.375% Notes due 2017

 

 

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (BUSINESS WIRE), May 09, 2017 - Sprint Corporation (NYSE:S), today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sprint Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), has commenced tender offers (collectively, the “Tender Offers”) to purchase for cash up to an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000,000 (the “Aggregate Maximum Amount”) of its 9.000% Guaranteed Notes due 2018 (the “2018 Notes”) and its 8.375% Notes due 2017 (the “2017 Notes”), each as described further in the table below (collectively, the “Notes”). The Tender Offer with respect to the 2018 Notes is also subject to a maximum aggregate principal amount sublimit of $500,000,000 (the “2018 Notes Sublimit”).

 

The terms and conditions of the Tender Offers are described in the Company's Offer to Purchase, dated May 9, 2017 (the “Offer to Purchase”), and the related Letter of Transmittal. The Tender Offers are intended to lower the Company’s current overall interest expense and decrease current debt levels. The Tender Offers will be funded by the Company from available cash on hand.

 

 

Interesting move. 9% is a pretty high interest rate.

 

Sprint's Investor Relations Page has a good breakdown of Sprint's Upcoming Debt Maturities.

 

FY '18 shows $6.032 Billion due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprint just announced this:

 

Sprint Announces Cash Tender Offers for up to $1 Billion Aggregate Principal Amount of its 9.000% Guaranteed Notes due 2018 and its 8.375% Notes due 2017

 

 

Interesting move. 9% is a pretty high interest rate.

 

Sprint's Investor Relations Page has a good breakdown of Sprint's Upcoming Debt Maturities.

 

FY '18 shows $6.032 Billion due.

Good sign. This shows they are in a good position financially.  This also makes me believe they could have positive net income this quarter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know funding is tight and I'm not trying to say I sprint should have their cake and eat it too but...

 

Is there a reason Sprint doesn't just slowly start to run their own back haul? Like get a crew or two going and working on it slowly? From tower to tower and eventually start to have their own fiber backbone? Like they say they're being surgical on how they spend CapEx to deploy the network in the future. Couldn't this same logic be applied to slowly running their own fiber back haul? Maybe it would take years (probably more like decades) to finish but I'd imagine it would eventually pay for it's self in the long run?

 

I seem to at least think that would be way more profitable in the long term than spending money on Tidal or pokemon go

 

 

I agree with you that at this point, the Tidal investment and Pokemon Go campaign hasn't really seemed to do anything substantial... or at least it seems that way.

 

We haven't heard a word about Tidal since Sprint's investment, except for some free subscription codes, which don't generate any revenue to either company directly.

 

The way I would look at Pokemon Go is: How much was spent on the Pokemon Go Campaign (ads, in-store displays, etc.) and how many customers came on board because of it? I don't think those numbers add up favorably.

 

For what my opinion is worth, Sprint should have put that Tidal and Pokemon Go money into fixing the worst performing cell sites according to Sprint's original "Top 10 S-- List": https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-fix-sprint/

 

 

Shortly after arriving, Claure began daily meetings about Sprint’s worst-performing cell sites—what the network team called the Top 10 S--- List. With about 20 executives around a table or dialing in, Claure brought up each site responsible for large numbers of dropped calls and asked how it would be fixed within 24 hours.

 

If a site was still on the list the next day, Claure would ask again: Should an antenna be tilted up or down or sideways, so it points toward more customers? Does Sprint need to add antennas, or use antennas with more bandwidth? “It was painful,” says John Saw, Sprint’s chief technology officer. “But it was good for getting the network fixed.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...