Jump to content
lilotimz

Sprint Organic Network Expansion Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

I think the 20,000 number that the Fierce source references includes Clearwire sites that Sprint is keeping and not decommissioning. An inadvertent double up of numbers. I was solely focusing on new site adds to the network. S4GRU already counts all the existing unique Clearwire sites in our totals. So I just see the Fierce article as further corroboration to our story.

 

I was actually given exact numbers of sites, but rounded the numbers to protect my source. Since the numbers are always in flux, by a few sites here and a few sites there, if I used the exact numbers it would clue Sprint on exactly the date the info was provided, allowing for easier discoverability of who provided the info. But it is right around 9,000 total.

 

Not to say Sprint couldn't expand it further. By my estimate, 9,000 new macro sites would be around $2B-$3B. Since ~3,000 of them are gong to be small cells, that number could be even lower. I have no idea how much small cell sites cost each.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,000 new towers in the Lower Central Valley market should boost coverage nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 20,000 number that the Fierce source references includes Clearwire sites that Sprint is keeping and not decommissioning. An inadvertent double up of numbers. I was solely focusing on new site adds to the network. S4GRU already counts all the existing unique Clearwire sites in our totals. So I just see the Fierce article as further corroboration to our story.

 

I was actually given exact numbers of sites, but rounded the numbers to protect my source. Since the numbers are always in flux, by a few sites here and a few sites there, if I used the exact numbers it would clue Sprint on exactly the date the info was provided, allowing for easier discoverability of who provided the info. But it is right around 9,000 total.

 

Not to say Sprint couldn't expand it further. By my estimate, 9,000 new macro sites would be around $2B-$3B. Since ~3,000 of them are gong to be small cells, that number could be even lower. I have no idea how much small cell sites cost each.

Small cells cost $2-3k a pop each but because they're so compact and low profile you don't have to drag it through city zoning or permitting and etc or need people with extensive training to install it as they're plug and play.

 

In comparison,a typical network vision antenna or 2.5 antenna cost $3000-$5000 each alone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited to see what their network will look like in 2 years.  :-)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay!

 

Sent from my SM-N910P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small cells cost $2-3k a pop each but because they're so compact and low profile you don't have to drag it through city zoning or permitting and etc or need people with extensive training to install it as they're plug and play.

 

In comparison,a typical network vision antenna or 2.5 antenna cost $3000-$5000 each alone.

No permits needed? Really? That's good to hear for sf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No permits needed? Really? That's good to hear for sf.

 

Look up at your light poles and gaze upon the hundreds of small cells deployed by cable co for public wifi and verizon that was never discovered in building permits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Small cells cost $2-3k a pop each but because they're so compact and low profile you don't have to drag it through city zoning or permitting and etc or need people with extensive training to install it as they're plug and play.

 

In comparison,a typical network vision antenna or 2.5 antenna cost $3000-$5000 each alone.

In a macro site (at an existing tower/site), equipment cost is about 1/4 of the total cost of a new site. Then other 3/4 is install labor, design/planning and backhaul. So if we take $4,000 and quadruple it, we come out to around $16,000. Which is a steal to a macro site which runs $100-$250k depending on types and locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up at your light poles and gaze upon the hundreds of small cells deployed by cable co for public wifi and verizon that was never discovered in building permits.

Yeah I att has a ton of small cells here in sf. And Verizon just announced they are launching a ton of them. I thought they all had permits. http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/21/verizon-small-cell-san-francisco/

 

Bring it on Sprint bring it on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fiercewireless has copy the news from s4gru but change the number of new towers from 9000 to 20k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to know what Sprint plans to do with Clear sites in cities like Las Vegas, where the old Motorola equipemt was not used in a dual network conversion. B41 was build on new 8T8R radios only. Will Sprint retain all towers or select the best and let the rest go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to know what Sprint plans to do with Clear sites in cities like Las Vegas, where the old Motorola equipemt was not used in a dual network conversion. B41 was build on new 8T8R radios only. Will Sprint retain all towers or select the best and let the rest go?

 

This I know the answer to this.  ALU will switch out Motorola equipment to their own at most non-colocated sites.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to know what Sprint plans to do with Clear sites in cities like Las Vegas, where the old Motorola equipemt was not used in a dual network conversion. B41 was build on new 8T8R radios only. Will Sprint retain all towers or select the best and let the rest go?

 

 

This I know the answer to this.  ALU will switch out Motorola equipment to their own at most non-colocated sites.

 

ALU has already filed for a Clearwire conversion to a full build Sprint site in Las Vegas. The first one is on top of The Westin on East Flamingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This I know the answer to this.  ALU will switch out Motorola equipment to their own at most non-colocated sites.

 

That would be nice because I know of 4-5 Clearwire sites that are very close to current Sprint sites.

 

ALU has already filed for a Clearwire conversion to a full build Sprint site in Las Vegas. The first one is on top of The Westin on East Flamingo.

 

Clear was never very good around the strip but it should help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be nice because I know of 4-5 Clearwire sites that are very close to current Sprint sites.

 

 

Clear was never very good around the strip but it should help.

 

As I'm looking, I'm finding a lot of Clear sites that could be converted to Sprint sites for massive fill in in the Las Vegas Valley.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang they're gonna surpass TMO with num sites

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Possibly, but unlikely. All carriers are adding small cells with pretty good fury. AT&T will have added close to 40,000 small cells during 2014-2015. Verizon just started adding them at a rapid clip, and T-Mobile has said they are going gung-ho on small cells this year too.

 

If 5,000 of the 9,000 are small cells, that's only 4,000 incremental macros...which isn't going to allow Sprint to surpass T-Mobile's 50k+ macros (and counting) anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a macro site (at an existing tower/site), equipment cost is about 1/4 of the total cost of a new site. Then other 3/4 is install labor, design/planning and backhaul. So if we take $4,000 and quadruple it, we come out to around $16,000. Which is a steal to a macro site which runs $100-$250k depending on types and locations.

By that math, sounds like everyone should just use small cells going forward.

What's the downside?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, but unlikely. All carriers are adding small cells with pretty good fury. AT&T will have added close to 40,000 small cells during 2014-2015. Verizon just started adding them at a rapid clip, and T-Mobile has said they are going gung-ho on small cells this year too.

 

If 5,000 of the 9,000 are small cells, that's only 4,000 incremental macros...which isn't going to allow Sprint to surpass T-Mobile's 50k+ macros (and counting) anytime soon. 

 

Link on the AT&T numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that math, sounds like everyone should just use small cells going forward.

What's the downside?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that but if it takes less $/acre using small cels …

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can sure as hell try but good luck having a dozen small cells try and cover multi mile radius zones when theyre designed to cover a few hundred meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that math, sounds like everyone should just use small cells going forward.

What's the downside?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It would take dozens to cover a macro site.  Macro sites can handle more carriers and frequencies.  If the math shifts to where small cells provide a solution superior to macros, it will change.  And the technology may improve costs for macros, or small cells.  It's not currently there, though.  And it may never get there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link on the AT&T numbers?

 

Google? Haha. But, seriously, this is old news. 

 

Here's one: http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2013/11/at-to-deploy-40000-small-cells-as-part.html

 

AT&T said on their recent conference call they are ahead of schedule. And it's 40,000 small cells and 10,000 new macros for Project VIP (the 2014-2015 network investment)

 

The point is that Sprint's investment is very welcome--and will help a great deal---but it's not going to alter the landscape materially when their competitors are doing even more.

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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...