Jump to content

Sprint wants to save $1B by relocating towers


JeffDTD
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 All the T-Mobile fanboys will be out in full force. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like major disruptions 2.0....Hope not because trolls are going to lose it and actual customers may lose it too. If its anything like network vision 1.0 it will not be pretty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 All the T-Mobile fanboys will be out in full force. 

And it begins... S.Ali "So now the public (taxpayer owned land) has to subsidize Sprint's capital structure. Unbelievable. Time to update their hashtag to #MoreHandouts"

 

I still hope Sprint will succeed and I understand why they are taking this route. To use an analogy of a sinking ship, they are trying ways to stop it from sinking. They have been plugging the holes and the ship isn't sinking anymore, but the ship isn't floating straight yet. They are now trying to find ways to get the water out of the ship to help right itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like major disruptions 2.0....Hope not because trolls are going to lose it and actual customers may lose it too. If its anything like network vision 1.0 it will not be pretty.

 

I disagree. Sprint has much more competent executives running this build now. Between John Saw and Günther Ottendorfer, and combined with Masa's and Marcelo's oversight, Sprint will handle the NGN project much better than Network Vision. I think this is all a bunch of FUD, honestly.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see an issue with relocating sites to cheaper locations if it can provide comparable coverage. Sites get relocated all the time for various reasons, saving money is a legitimate reason to do it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/

 

Hoping this flies under the radar, otherwise we are headed for troll territory

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is that a negative article? I don't see that as a negative. In fact, to me it explains the recent restructuring where Sprint went to a bunch of regional managers. If they are going to transition from private market tower leases to government properties then those Regional Managers essentially become lobbyists whose goal is to cozy up with local governments in order to secure great financial terms and easy approval processes for their equipment deployments.
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that a negative article? I don't see that as a negative. In fact, to me it explains the recent restructuring where Sprint went to a bunch of regional managers. If they are going to transition from private market tower leases to government properties then those Regional Managers essentially become lobbyists whose goal is to cozy up with local governments in order to secure great financial terms and easy approval processes for their equipment deployments.

I believe why people see it as a negative article is due to them thinking Sprint still has a sub-par network compared to the other carriers and thinking the only reason Sprint has to do this is because they don't know how to run a company and can't fund anything.

 

Though I could be wrong... I'm not a troll so I can't say for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a $1billioin savings this year, or is that over several years.  If it is $1billion this year, that is a lot of changing up of backhaul providers and relocating towers which I hope doesn't make holes in the network.  Only makes sense to move a tower to a government owned site if it is right next door.  Otherwise, might as well just be a brand new site. 

 

Maybe this is part of what Sprint is talking about too?  They said they want to add thousands of new sites, so maybe these savings is just coming from picking new sites that are owned/operated by government.

 

Im also sure a lot of the existing sites, prices are being renegotiated as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again.  Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers.  It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.  

 

No it won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again. Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers. It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.

I don't think the two companies mentioned have all of sprint's towers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is interesting but really lacks details.  For example, Sprint has leases in place with the tower companies (generally on a portfolio basis) and simply cannot walk away from those leases cost-free.  In addition, even assuming that they could reduce their operating costs by moving from privately-owned towers to public facilities, it would cost money to move the equipment.  Maybe they can execute the plan, but you have to be at least a little concerned about the ability execute a plan of this scale.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this report is not true because if it is it will be like NV1 all over again. Just imagine the tasks of moving equipments to 50000+ new towers. It will be even worse than NV1 debacle.

Stop fear mongering.

 

What the report is stating corresponds to recent sprint executive moves with hiring regional market managers.

 

This is no doubt a signal that sprints wants to do more vertical integration with regards to cell site deployments (cut off the expensive middle men like ATC etc) where they own the sites in question or deploy it on cheaper property like government owned antenna towers / structures which are mostly used for public safety antennas or right of ways like municipal owned light poles, traffic light poles, government buildings, government property where sprint can build their own towers / cell sites, and municipal owned telephone poles.

 

In this regard, I'm starting to seen the regional managers as more like semi lobbyists where they start getting deep local connections with cities and municipalities. This more close and direct touch can help sprint cut costs by streamlining the red tape process, cutting out intermediates, and being more efficient with network deployment.

 

Consider this fact for a moment.

 

For the first time in years.

 

Sprint corporations owns their own cell towers and plans to own more.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that.

 

Yup. Go here: http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/reuse_and_recycle

 

Under "Get a gift card online", select the applicable link. The iPhone, smartphone and iPad links take you to a Brightstar page:

 

i.e.: iPhone: https://reuserecycle.abbti.brightstarcorp.com/Iphonehome.aspx

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not fear mongering.  I have a lot riding on Sprint and its stock.  I am no engineer.  But from reading that article, my initial reaction "oh no this is not good".  The article implies that they are contemplating moving existing cells towers onto government sites not about building new towers on government owned properties.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure 'the source' is from a tower company. They would be negative about it all, would have seen many of the details of NGN and would have seen the NV debacle firsthand. The tower companies have the most to lose from this.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not fear mongering.  I have a lot riding on Sprint and its stock.  I am no engineer.  But from reading that article, my initial reaction "oh no this is not good".  The article implies that they are contemplating moving existing cells towers onto government sites not about building new towers on government owned properties.  

 

The article almost sounds like it is someone misinterpreting the small cell deployment plan, which would be utilizing government property (utility poles, street lights, other property like that) and is also focusing on using microwave backhaul. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article almost sounds like it is someone misinterpreting the small cell deployment plan, which would be utilizing government property (utility poles, street lights, other property like that) and is also focusing on using microwave backhaul. 

If existing cell towers remain the same, and it is about small cell deployment, then where is the 1 billion in cost saving coming from? I agree with you that whoever wrote that article is really confused.  It is almost impossible for Sprint to relocate current towers onto government properties without adversely affect service even more so than NV1.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://recode.net/2016/01/15/sprint-finalizes-plan-to-trim-network-costs-by-up-to-1-billion/


"Sources familiar with the initiative said Sprint plans to cut its network costs by relocating its radio equipment from tower space it has leased from Crown Castle and American Tower to spots on government-owned properties, which costs much less. This process could begin as soon as June or July."



Well, Sprint sold many of those towers to Crown Castle in the first place...

  • 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


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Some recent non-urban new builds in Utah, which are a mix of Sprint conversions and new site builds: Central Cedar City Enoch Parowan Beaver Wallsburg I'm also hearing of future new site builds in places that currently have weak / no signal on all carriers like Fountain Green, Oak City, Woodland, and along Hwy 191 in the canyon north of Helper by the Power Plant. There are also an unbelievable number of Sprint conversions happening in the urban Wasatch Front corridor as well. 
    • Only time I have gotten a free sim from them is when I "purchased" some "free" phones from T-Mobile, unless I go back to when they were a distant 4th carrier.  My four other MVNOs are feast or famine, so I try to keep several hanging around.  I have noticed different versions have different capabilities, and newer is not always better.  They typically force you to upgrade when you need to activate another discount period.  
    • Hard to imagine they're actually worth much as easy as they are to get free though.....they keep sending them out unsolicited like nuts.  We just got like a 3rd packet of them less than a month ago and got another email notifying "SIM card is on the way".  
    • E-bay.  The physical sims do have one advantage: they are not tied to your phone, thus you can change phones mostly without your carriers permission (except Sprint billing). Benefits signal hunters, travellers, and thieves.
    • Maybe in a museum? When the phone manufacturers follow Apple’s lead and go all eSIM it will be a moot point. At least in the states. 
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...