Jump to content

How did Verizon & ATT deal with backhaul issue?


dnwk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am wondering how did Verizon & ATT deal with their backhaul, especially outside their ILEC territory. I don't think only Sprint and TMO have this problem. How did Verizon manage to get the nationwide coverage in such a short time? Did Verizon just reuse old T1?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering how did Verizon & ATT deal with their backhaul, especially outside their ILEC territory. I don't think only Sprint and TMO have this problem. How did Verizon manage to get the nationwide coverage in such a short time? Did Verizon just reuse old T1?

 

All new Verizon sites built in San Diego that had no back-haul in time (from our experience with AT&T it can take up to 1 year for delivery from date of order to closing ticket), Verizon will put microwave up along with it.  I am assuming, ride the microwave first until back-haul is delivered.

 

This nfo is from all permits that were issued in San Diego for existing and brand new sites.  They most likely would do the same outside all their ILEC territory because San Diego is Cox, Timewarner and AT&T territory.

 

Here are some examples:  

2012: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pdf/pcreports/2012/pcreports12020-120711.pdf

2013: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pdf/pcreports/2013/pc13075.pdf

2014: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pdf/pcreports/2014/14008.pdf

 

Those are existing sites, notice it was in 2012 and 2013.  Even in 2014 they did the same, installed with microwave first and possibly removed after the back-haul is in place.  I cannot confirm the removal of microwave for these sites.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, there are still VZW sites with no upgraded backhaul.  Not many, and they are largely redundant.  But there are.  Same with AT&T.  AT&T has A LOT more though.

 

Second, VZW could skip lots of sites up front where they had backhaul issues without customers noticing much because they were using a 10MHz wide channel on 700MHz frequency at a time when LTE device penetration was still relatively low.  Low frequency covers a lot of backhaul sins.  Then they could take their time filling in as backhaul became available.

 

Third, on sites that were critical to coverage and backhaul was going to take awhile, they used microwave to bridge a connection.  VZW also daisy chained a lot of rural sites on microwave.  Seen lots of this in rural Nebraska and New Mexico.  The site on the end of a long daisy chain may only run at 5-10Mbps and have a 150ms+ ping, but hey, it's way better than EVDO.  Sprint should have employed this option a lot, but was deemed a waste of money when they were financially strapped for something that would be temporary.

 

Fourth, the backhaul program by VZW was better funded and better managed.  VZW ordered backhaul early and managed it as well as possible.  They were willing to pay more to get a better backhaul provider in some instances.  Sprint had to go with the lowest priced, which sometimes sacrificed schedule ultimately.

 

Sprint, for financial reasons, just did not have the ability to order the backhaul in the same manner VZW did.  Granted, they could have managed it much better.  But Sprint tried to employ a 'just in time' backhaul delivery method.  So they wouldn't spend a billion it didn't have in advance.  It was a necessity of the times.

 

If Sprint had just been able to order all backhaul a few months before Network Vision started, 90% of the backhaul issues would not have existed and virtually every site with Network Vision complete would have LTE live now as well (barring some GMO's).  Since Masa and Saw have taken over, Sprint is clearing the logjam on backhaul and now mass releasing backhaul orders that Sprint was saving for later.  It all comes down to money, really, though.

 

Robert

  • Like 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth, the backhaul program by VZW was better funded and better managed.  VZW ordered backhaul early and managed it as well as possible.  They were willing to pay more to get a better backhaul provider in some instances.  Sprint had to go with the lowest priced, which sometimes sacrificed schedule ultimately.

This 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what is sprint going to do in the west mountain areas...Utah, idaho, wyoming, montana, colorado....etc in the wide open non populated ares, along the freeways???

 

Wire or microwave???

String's and tin can's

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coverage with better call quality than T-Mobile :P

 

Yes, I believe I saw that as a gradient on the T-Mobile coverage map tool.  It goes from "4G" in the city center to "3G" in the suburbs to "2G" outside the city limits to "strings and tin cans" in the country.

 

AJ

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot confirm the removal of microwave for these sites.

 

A lot of time, even if "they" remove the equipment, licensed microwave owners will not cancel their FCC license. They are required to within 30 days. That causes a lot of issues in metro areas and from Aurora, IL - NYC.

 

Sprint should have employed this option a lot, but was deemed a waste of money when they were financially strapped for something that would be temporary.

 

Few network managers would consider proper redundancy a waste of money. I fault the project management..  a lot. In my area, most towers already had backhaul from someone or it was extremely nearby. Rarely did they capitalize on that. At least four towers near me have fiber at the tower or at the street that Sprint did not use.

 

so what is sprint going to do in the west mountain areas...Utah, idaho, wyoming, montana, colorado....etc in the wide open non populated ares, along the freeways???

 

Wire or microwave???

Both? There's a lot more fiber out there than you'd think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

When Verizon rapidly covered my area with LTE (AT&T ILEC) they heavily used microwave. Verizon towers that previously didn't have microwave dishes suddenly had one. One Verizon-only tower near me has 3 of them pointing at different towers.

 

Apparently Level 3 helped them out with that.

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/level-3-wins-hybrid-fibermicrowave-wireless-backhaul-deal-verizon-wireless/2011-04-21

 

On the other hand, T-Mobile already had fiber backhaul on most urban market towers (to power their 42Mbps HSPA+ 3G/4G), so that really helped them quickly deploy LTE in cities. It was just a matter of paying $4 billion (AT&T breakup money) to Ericsson and Nokia to upgrade those 37,000 towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Verizon rapidly covered my area with LTE (AT&T ILEC) they heavily used microwave. Verizon towers that previously didn't have microwave dishes suddenly had one. One Verizon-only tower near me has 3 of them pointing at different towers.

 

Apparently Level 3 helped them out with that.

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/level-3-wins-hybrid-fibermicrowave-wireless-backhaul-deal-verizon-wireless/2011-04-21

 

On the other hand, T-Mobile already had fiber backhaul on most urban market towers (to power their 42Mbps HSPA+ 3G/4G), so that really helped them quickly deploy LTE in cities. It was just a matter of paying $4 billion (AT&T breakup money) to Ericsson and Nokia to upgrade those 37,000 towers.

Tmobile lte: brought to you by att. Lol

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that what made it very difficult for Sprint to project manage the whole thing is that NV was vendor financed. Their money, their schedule. Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile would only release money when a milestone was met. That's a powerful incentive. When it's vendor financed, other consideration come into play besides meeting milestones like maximizing crew utilization, just in time delivery of backhaul and equipment, etc.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that what made it very difficult for Sprint to project manage the whole thing is that NV was vendor financed. Their money, their schedule. Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile would only release money when a milestone was met. That's a powerful incentive. When it's vendor financed, other consideration come into play besides meeting milestones like maximizing crew utilization, just in time delivery of backhaul and equipment, etc.

The effects of vendor financing is becoming more and more clear. Good post.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they just announced more vendor financing. Is that bad?

 

I would necessarily say bad, however it does have ramifications that can affect the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that what made it very difficult for Sprint to project manage the whole thing is that NV was vendor financed. Their money, their schedule. Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile would only release money when a milestone was met. That's a powerful incentive. When it's vendor financed, other consideration come into play besides meeting milestones like maximizing crew utilization, just in time delivery of backhaul and equipment, etc.

Vendor financing isn't always a bad thing though if the vendor plays nice. Samsung did pretty alright and there's no way in hell Nokia is going to screw up.

 

Both wants to succeed dearly as sprint is their major showpiece for their equipment and expertise in network deployment.

 

Now Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent.... Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would necessarily say bad, however it does have ramifications that can affect the project.

 

Sprint really has no choice but to accept vendor financing because their own credit rating is bad and the interest rate they pay is much higher compared to the vendors. It's like financing an iPhone by charging it on the credit card vs Sprint or Verizon. The interest rate will be lower.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vendor financing isn't always a bad thing though if the vendor plays nice. Samsung did pretty alright and there's no way in hell Nokia is going to screw up.

 

Both wants to succeed dearly as sprint is their major showpiece for their equipment and expertise in network deployment.

 

Now Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent.... Meh.

Why wouldn't ALL vendors do their best?

ALU almost died and Ericsson had to have gotten the message when they were thrown out of 2.5ghz.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has reminded me just how big a disaster Gary Forsee was. Sprint, once upon a time, had a lot of influence with some back haul providers because of partnerships or ownership. Those relationship were trashed under Forsee.

  • Like 1
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...