Jump to content

Sprint wants to save $1B by relocating towers


JeffDTD

Recommended Posts

Link?

 also did hear this.... that there's been certain municipalities and districts that they are having trouble negotiating with, but I was also told a significant number of approvals have been granted though in some major cities. Light poles seam to be getting the higher approval rate, building's and other structures seam to be harder to deal with because it requires dealing with the people who own those properties.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far it is working. The tower company's stocks are plummeting from the news.

Anyone care to comment.... if you have 0 lte plus in your city currently..... n im really talking about anywhere ..... what are your chances of getting it by the end of this year???

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point about backhaul that I'm not sure people are aware of. The fiber used from the cell sites is not routed the same way your home internet would be. In order to get fiber backhaul, the link has to go directly to the switch site, not touching the Internet along the way. Usually that's where the AAVs and LECs come into play, since they have last-mile fiber and can provide point to point connections. 

You can use MPLS or CE to provision cell site backhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone care to comment.... if you have 0 lte plus in your city currently..... n im really talking about anywhere ..... what are your chances of getting it by the end of this year???

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

In a city your size, pretty darn good. Probably sooner.

 

Sent from my LG G4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a city your size, pretty darn good. Probably sooner.

 

Sent from my LG G4

In theory... we are both thinking the same way...now with me only having 3 wimax sites....sprint would have to build b41 on to the network vision sites.. how long does it take sprint to do so.... let's say to at least cover 70% with b41

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory... we are both thinking the same way...now with me only having 3 wimax sites....sprint would have to build b41 on to the network vision sites.. how long does it take sprint to do so.... let's say to at least cover 70% with b41

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure that once work begins on a tower to install the 8T8R panels that it's like max 3-4 days per tower, IIRC. Someone else feel free to chime in if I'm wrong :) .

 

-Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that once work begins on a tower to install the 8T8R panels that it's like max 3-4 days per tower, IIRC. Someone else feel free to chime in if I'm wrong :) .

 

-Anthony

What do you think is the biggest hold back? Is it site approvals, low funds, or a little of both?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think sprint is that far off from completing the nationwide roll out

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Some say Sprint could be around 40-50% complete. It's only been about a year since they strated rolling out 8t8r on sites, so they're not making too bad of progress.

 

-Anthony

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a screenshot from a buddy he was shocked that speeds were that fast

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

tell your buddy to be careful, unless he is on an unlimited plan those speed tests burn tons of data...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capture+_2016-01-21-05-11-091.jpg would these speeds be considered enhanced LTE or still 700 mhz10 by 10 for at&t

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Wanna say that's definitely CA. I don't think 10x10 could get that high in reality as that speed is right about where the max theoretical for 10 MHz FDD lies. I don't think AT&T really has a marketing name for its CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how these stories of network plans can have such detailed analyses of how bad the situation will be with vague rumors. Interesting. Everyone assumes that Sprint will decommission macro sites before small cells are live to replace them and verified. That is a mighty big assumption.

 

Hear rumors from people with ulterior motives (tower companies) and then come up with detailed doomsday scenarios. And yet, if Tmo did the same thing, it would be called innovative and they'd be given every benefit of the doubt. But if Sprint does anything new, they'll fail.

 

No matter if that small cell planning is just large scale supplemental for macro sites or a macro site replacement scenario, this will be Marcelo and Masa's deal. It could save Sprint. Or it could kill it. Time will tell. And it's their company to run.

 

Personally, I wouldn't replace the macro network. But I sure would supplement and possibly expand it using small cells in Public ROW. I sure won't rush to judgment until I hear more from Marcelo and Saw. I'm definitely intrigued.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sprint needs to start suing these people. Dr saw debunked the RE/Code article in the Willy Episode , and now these jokers keep coming with the same type of articles. I am starting to feel these people are being paid by the other 3 carriers to put out misinformation out there. 

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.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

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