Jump to content

Sprint wants to save $1B by relocating towers


Recommended Posts

Posted

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper? 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me. 

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers. 

  • Like 1
Posted

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.

Cost saving is a little nebulous, it could mean savings from existing expenses or it could mean future savings compared to using the tower companies for their ngn effort. It's very open ended.
  • Like 1
Posted

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper?

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me.

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers.

Agreed. This is a cost cutting measure, but the cost to have them moved up front is going to be large. Not to mention the service disruptions and bill credits they'll be giving out as a result. T-Mobile has way more macro towers and they're pulling a profit. Sprint needs to trim the costs elsewhere.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

  • Like 1
Posted

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.  

Cost savings could be about getting rid of some of the macro sites that only exist for capacity and switching entire areas to small cells on light poles.  If there are dense small cells blanketing much of the area the macro site covers, they may not need the macro site for capacity over the top any longer and can remove it while providing the macro overlay by tuning nearby sites.

  • Like 3
Posted

Your market does not speak for the other markets, However moving to Microwave backhaul sounds like a good move to me.

 

With all the NGN talk coming up, Sprint could utilize Microwave as cheaper means of getting backhaul to small cells. And because they aren't paying AT&T and Verizon huge fees for fiber line access they can possibly get with another provider for fiber.

 

They have stated that they will focus on Microwave and also LTE (B41) backhaul deliveries to small cells rather than fiber or other wired AAV.

  • Like 3
Posted

Your market does not speak for the other markets, However moving to Microwave backhaul sounds like a good move to me.

 

With all the NGN talk coming up, Sprint could utilize Microwave as cheaper means of getting backhaul to small cells. And because they aren't paying AT&T and Verizon huge fees for fiber line access they can possibly get with another provider for fiber.

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.
  • Like 1
Posted

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.

 

I still maintain that somewhere somehow the information was misconstrued or misreported. I do not see this as an actual plan for cost cutting. Maybe cutting ties with a few expensive towers if there is a good alternative, but not ripping up and moving half the network. It seems like there are some details more related to small cell deployment getting mixed into this report that maybe don't belong. 

 

Moving to microwave in a some instances may save a good chunk of change, and it can still deliver 1 Gbps+ speeds. I could definitely see them going the microwave route on new sites.

  • Like 2
Posted

I'm only talking about existing sites. It seems silly to use microwave when fiber is already there. Unless the new sites they plan on using would have no fiber, then it makes sense. but that comes back to the original problem - relocating sites in the first place. Will take a lot of resources to do that. Microwave on new builds makes perfect sense.

Maybe their plan is to convert an existing site that already has like gigabit fiber running to it and simply convert existing sites with fiber running to it with microwave to lessen the bill?

Posted

Here's some interesting thing Sprint could do in places with lots of sunshine all year long such as Hawaii

 

Pico/Micro Cell site + Solar powered with Microwave backhaul. BOOM!

 

I'm pretty creative and stuck a 10W solar panel with a small 12V UPS battery powering a DD-WRT router as a range extender outdoors at my lawn.

 

What makes Sprint from doing the same?

 

solar-powered-telephone-call-box-along-t

Posted

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

Posted

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

 

 

Any licensed backhaul links that Sprint uses have sub-ms latency like 0.2ms per link so the latency increase is negligible.

  • Like 2
Posted

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

Just deployed a network at a clients site with a 2gb Microwave and pings were less than 1ms. Don't think its an issue. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Will microwave hurt pings though? It's a brilliant idea, I just am not sure about what its impact will be on pings.

Microwave can have lower pings than fiber, so that's not really an issue.

  • Like 4
Posted

Does anyone still believe that sprint will be number 1 or 2 in 80% of the top 100 markets? According to what marcelo said.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Yes! Sprint is already going in that direction.
Posted

A) Given Verizon's small and decreasing ILEC footprint, I doubt there is much backhaul money going to Verizon.
B) I've seen Sprint pass up competitive backhaul providers just to purchase from the incumbent. They have a lot of room to work.
C) Most of their microwave link budgets are crap. Way too small of antennas...  fixing that increases tower rent.
D) 10G backhaul isn't significantly different in price from 1G backhaul, so they could aggregate towers via microwave fairly reasonably...  at an increase in tower rent.
E) Verizon is moving to dark fiber backhaul instead of DWDM or MPLS\CE, but dark fiber can be expensive. I don't know if Sprint has the cash to do the same.
F) Sprint should probably just put me in charge of their backhaul and it'd be done right.  ;-)

  • Like 7
Posted

A) Given Verizon's small and decreasing ILEC footprint, I doubt there is much backhaul money going to Verizon.

B) I've seen Sprint pass up competitive backhaul providers just to purchase from the incumbent. They have a lot of room to work.

C) Most of their microwave link budgets are crap. Way too small of antennas... fixing that increases tower rent.

D) 10G backhaul isn't significantly different in price from 1G backhaul, so they could aggregate towers via microwave fairly reasonably... at an increase in tower rent.

E) Verizon is moving to dark fiber backhaul instead of DWDM or MPLS\CE, but dark fiber can be expensive. I don't know if Sprint has the cash to do the same.

F) Sprint should probably just put me in charge of their backhaul and it'd be done right. ;-)

What is sprint biggest problem currently?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Posted

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

If this is true, then there doesn't seem to be a good case for four national carriers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

Also, there are typically penalties for breaking long term contracts. That's just wastes money.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Posted

I think their biggest issue isn't technical. Their race to the bottom is hurting.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Could sprint be anymore aggressive then they are, or are they trying to be great too fast?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Posted

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

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assure you they don't. There's existing municipal structures as well as Vertical Bridge Communications for one.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Posted

Could sprint be anymore aggressive then they are, or are they trying to be great too fast?

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Sprint's biggest enemy is their historical selves. These way cheap plans don't do them any favors.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Posted

That seems like unnecessary work, basically doing a new build out after already doing a new build out, in areas that have already been built out... Instead they could be focusing the resources on expanding instead??? Unless those leases are actually that expensive that going backwards is actually cheaper? 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

 

Moving to microwave backhaul also seems like a backwards move to me. 

 

Several of their sites by me are already on government owned property, mainly water towers. 

Much of their backhaul is backend fiber run to ATT or verizon.  one thing you have to realize is verizon owns more of the tier 1 backbone in the us than anybody and is in the top 5 in the entire world.  We have seen how vz prices it's wireless assets their backbone pricing is high as well and i am sure they are not giving sprint any kind of volume break either.  If they use microwave for their backhaul they can send the backhaul to places where they own the backbone fiber...drastically cutting their backhaul costs.  From a network engineering perspective this is something i thought sprint should have done long ago.  Leverage their own existing backbone assets.  using microwave backhaul allows them to do just that.,

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

    • Vinegar Hill is getting the Brooklyn Heights treatment now with regard to small cells. I mapped two more small cells in the neighborhood in the past few days so now T-Mobile is up to 8 of them in such a tiny neighborhood. While it's cool they're doing this since it means outdoors you get a consistent 400Mbps+ almost everywhere, it sucks because they're obviously deploying so many of them to make up for their lack of a macro site in the entire neighborhood. Because there isn't a macro, the small cells have a greater coverage area than you see in other neighborhoods and you often connect to them while indoors but coverage and speeds fall off indoors much faster on small cells than on macros in my experience.  Even Dish has better coverage than T-Mobile in Vinegar Hill since they added the site on top of the Extra Space Storage building alongside AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile needs to get in line with their competitors there.
    • It seems like that is the smallest Google Play System change that google releases. I see 12 MB updates really regularly. 
    • Went back to Greenville last week and what an insane change 4 years has made! Every site in the city has n25/41/71 now and T-Mobile has even added new sites in the city since the last time I was there. As a result, their coverage and speeds are great everywhere. Unfortunately I don't have my Verizon line anymore so I'm unable to compare their performance to T-Mobile but they definitely had better coverage and speeds than AT&Tin my testing.  On the LTE side of things, T-Mobile has 5MHz Band 71, 10MHz Band 66, and 5MHz Band 2 deployed. On the 5G side, they have 190MHz n41, 15MHz n25, and 15MHz n71 deployed. As you'd expect 5G is several times faster than LTE here because of that. One thing I noticed though is that T-Mobile's speeds pretty much never go above 1Gbps here. I'm not sure if it's a backhaul limitation or if they're seriously pushing their 5G home internet product here but on most sites I was seeing 500-600Mbps with some sites having peaks in the high 800s-low 900's. I also noticed that upload speeds weren't nearly as good as they were in NYC. I attribute this to the fact that site spacing often cause the phone to drop to n25 or n71 for uploads as opposed to using n41. I have a handful of high (>100Mbps) upload speed tests but that was with me virtually right next to a site. Since I drove my own car instead of riding with family, I used the opportunity to map a ton of rural roads outside to Greenville to see what kind of coverage I'd get. T-Mobile has stepped up their game a ton in this regard as I found that coverage matched and in many cases surpassed what I was seeing on AT&T. areas where AT&T dropped to 1 bar or even no signal, I held onto weak n71 and was still able to place calls using VoNR. There are still areas where I would drop signal but those were areas where I'm certain the only carrier available was U.S. Cellular since they still have a ton of macros that they're the only tenant on. The U.S. Cellular merger won't add much to T-Mobile's spectrum coffers there; they'll increase 600MHz from 20MHz to 30MHz, gain another 10MHz of AWS, and acquire the rest of the 24GHz band, but they'll gain a ton new sites to bolster their rural coverage in this area and make it pretty much the best in the region.  — — — — — I also mapped Dish while down there. Dish's doesn't have much spectrum in Pitt County, they only have 5MHz n71, 25MHz n70 and 5MHz n29. This lack of spectrum combined with what is pretty much a skeleton/license protection network meant that in most cases I was only on 1-2 bars of n71 indoors and while outdoors I wasn't seeing speeds nearly as good as I get in NYC. While directly in front of a site I could get over 300Mbps but in most cases while out and about I wasn't seeing over 100Mbps. In fact, at my hotel I was only able to get about 5Mbps down and 2Mbps up on n71. Maybe as they densify I'll see more consistently high speeds but their lack of spectrum will remain a huge bottleneck much like it was for T-Mobile pre-Sprint merger. — — — — — AT&T and Verizon are the only carriers with small cells in Greenville. Verizon has a significantly larger deployment than AT&T though, with AT&T having it along some roads where they have weaker coverage while Verizon seems to be using them for added capacity Uptown and especially around ECU. They started being installed around 2019 but none of them have 5G as far as I can tell, only LTE. AT&T also has C-band and DoD deployed on every site in the city, giving me speeds in the range of 350-400Mbps in most areas. — — — — — Here are some photos of small cells in Greenville.  
    • Just checked and found a 12MB Google Play System update ready to download.    Still October 1 for the date after however. 
    • Looks like my little area finally has some decent mobile connectivity. Still have a few dead spots on both tmo and firstnet... https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/10549791800  
  • Recently Browsing

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