Jump to content

small cells cost


laqn1283
 Share

Recommended Posts

Small cells range anywhere from 5 to 10 thousand per site!

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

My estimate was higher about 15 thousand per site.  The reason I ask is that then it will cost about 750 million (which is less than 1/5 of sprint's annual capital expenditure) to install 50 thousand small cells nationwide, why Sprint is so secretive about it? why it takes so long?  they started thinking about small cells more than 1 year already but so far very little is going on.  If the delay is about cost, then I think sprint is making a big mistake.  For  750 million, it can leap frog Sprint to the top ranking, the cost benefit ratio is just too obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My estimate was higher about 15 thousand per site. The reason I ask is that then it will cost about 750 million (which is less than 1/5 of sprint's annual capital expenditure) to install 50 thousand small cells nationwide, why Sprint is so secretive about it? why it takes so long? they started thinking about small cells more than 1 year already but so far very little is going on. If the delay is about cost, then I think sprint is making a big mistake. For 750 million, it can leap frog Sprint to the top ranking, the cost benefit ratio is just too obvious.

Sprint is being very strategic..... sprint is only rolling it out in main priority markets.... (which markets those are idk).....yes, sprint is cash strapped but i have no facts of course...

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My estimate was higher about 15 thousand per site. The reason I ask is that then it will cost about 750 million (which is less than 1/5 of sprint's annual capital expenditure) to install 50 thousand small cells nationwide, why Sprint is so secretive about it? why it takes so long? they started thinking about small cells more than 1 year already but so far very little is going on. If the delay is about cost, then I think sprint is making a big mistake. For 750 million, it can leap frog Sprint to the top ranking, the cost benefit ratio is just too obvious.

Small cells are usually installed every mile and a half... so im sure the cost is a lot higher!

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the number from fierce wireless. Each small cell cost about 10 to 20 thousand and sprint wants 50000 small cells and 20000 macro cells.

Where did you get the 20000 number. They haven't talked about macro sites for quite a while. If they do manage to add that many macro sites that would average 383 for each of there 52 markets. To me that would go far beyond densification and would indicate a network expansion, which I haven't heard sprint talk about at all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get the 20000 number. They haven't talked about macro sites for quite a while. If they do manage to add that many macro sites that would average 383 for each of there 52 markets. To me that would go far beyond densification and would indicate a network expansion, which I haven't heard sprint talk about at all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-382-sprint-planning-large-network-expansion-adding-9000-new-lte-sites-nationwide/

 

9,000 new sites, ~10k Wimax conversions.

 

EDIT: Here's second source.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-add-tens-thousands-small-cells-bring-800-mhz-and-25-ghz-lte-nearly-a/2015-08-04

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but I don't think sprint is still planning on executing this plan in its entirety. I think I can say with confidence that sprint hasn't mentioned macro sites specifically since the first quarter of last year. All their talk since then has centered around small cells. I could be mistaken but I don't think they will be adding that many Marco sites.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but I don't think sprint is still planning on executing this plan in its entirety. I think I can say with confidence that sprint hasn't mentioned macro sites specifically since the first quarter of last year. All their talk since then has centered around small cells. I could be mistaken but I don't think they will be adding that many Marco sites.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will.

Please tell me you have a source. I read my comments from over 6 months ago and nothing new has happened since I expressed my skepticism then. Still 0.8mbps on LTE around me and rootmetrics results has gone down on average.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me you have a source. I read my comments from over 6 months ago and nothing new has happened since I expressed my skepticism then. Still 0.8mbps on LTE around me and rootmetrics results has gone down on average.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

Please stay on tmobile and forget about sprint. You don't need to believe comments from a sprint apologist like me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My estimate was higher about 15 thousand per site.  The reason I ask is that then it will cost about 750 million (which is less than 1/5 of sprint's annual capital expenditure) to install 50 thousand small cells nationwide, why Sprint is so secretive about it? why it takes so long?  they started thinking about small cells more than 1 year already but so far very little is going on.  If the delay is about cost, then I think sprint is making a big mistake.  For  750 million, it can leap frog Sprint to the top ranking, the cost benefit ratio is just too obvious. 

 

Because Sprint doesn't have to tell everyone every time a bird craps on a cell site.

 

The changes will be a lot more transparent than the original NV project with hard customer issues. One morning coverage will magically get better. Today a user reported the second B41 carrier in NYC, overnight the capacity of that site doubled and it didn't need an announcement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will.

Do you have more information such as which markets are the priority markets?  You don't have to tell us which markets, but a yes or no will suffice.  :tu:

 

I'm in Houston and Sprint has always taken care of Houston early.  I hope that trend continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because Sprint doesn't have to tell everyone every time a bird craps on a cell site.

The changes will be a lot more transparent than the original NV project with hard customer issues. One morning coverage will magically get better. Today a user reported the second B41 carrier in NYC, overnight the capacity of that site doubled and it didn't need an announcement.

I agree with you they don't have to make an announcement but so far channel checks by analyst reveal little movement in small cells densification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me you have a source. I read my comments from over 6 months ago and nothing new has happened since I expressed my skepticism then. Still 0.8mbps on LTE around me and rootmetrics results has gone down on average.

Sprint's (S) CEO Marcelo Claure on Q3 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

 

 

 

We’ve been very clear that we’re going to do that without jeopardizing the customer experience. And the way we’re expanding network is we’re utilizing something that we call the lowest cost structure.

 

But for all the new structures that we need, we basically look at what is available to us in order for us to deploy our equipment. We look at towers. We look at build-to-suit. We look at rooftops. We look at our own monopoles and we look at different pole attachments, and then we choose what is the most efficient way for us to expand.

The other opportunity is obviously roaming. We intend to overbuild high roaming areas and reduce our roaming cost that way. We are also working with our CCA partners in the rural markets for extending LTE footprints.

 

As Marcelo has mentioned, we are going to be very opportunistic to look at opportunities to optimize our antennas on lower cost infrastructure to reduce operating costs. This could include pole attachments, rooftops, macro sites or public infrastructure that delivers similar or better performance and lower costs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you they don't have to make an announcement but so far channel checks by analyst reveal little movement in small cells densification.

 

But absence of checks does not mean absence of work done.

 

There could be 20 small cells on air right now in NYC helping capacity and no one would know it other than the users there who now have a more functional device.

 

That's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have more information such as which markets are the priority markets? You don't have to tell us which markets, but a yes or no will suffice. :tu:

 

I'm in Houston and Sprint has always taken care of Houston early. I hope that trend continues.

Nobody really knows even these tech blogs don't know 100%.

 

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but I don't think sprint is still planning on executing this plan in its entirety. I think I can say with confidence that sprint hasn't mentioned macro sites specifically since the first quarter of last year. All their talk since then has centered around small cells. I could be mistaken but I don't think they will be adding that many Marco sites.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marcelo went to Japan last year to get funding for it...

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

    • Mine is still working fine here in Raleigh.   There were some outages related to the snow storm.    I have seen it take a couple of days to recover from storms.   It is not among the highest priority services.  
    • Looks like my MB gold at my office was finally decommissioned sometime last week. It was working the previous week and I was out of town last week. I came in today and it was powered down. I unplugged it and plugged it back in but it just keeps looping through trying to establish a connection. Looks like it's time to add it to our ewaste pile.
    • I did spot some NRCA in Crown Heights last weekend. Sadly because I'm using an iPhone I can't see the exact carrier combo but it did report that it was seeing 2 NR carriers. At first I thought it was a glitch or some weird stale data because my phone was still reporting NSA 5G and the primary NR carrier was the 80MHz n41 carrier but reading Sascha's article it's quite possible that my phone was using B2+B66 +n41+n41.  — — — — — On another note, it looks like someone found n5+n77+B2+B66 on Verizon:   
    • This entire FAA argument is stupid with no evidence at all that there is an issue with C-band.  You may be right that there is some conspiracy nut involved. The guard-band between what aircraft altimeters use and cellular C-band is 220MHz.  If any safety critical aircraft altimeter is reading signals from 220MHz away from the frequencies it is designed to use, that is a very broken safety critical device and should have been replaced it long ago.  Everything in an aircraft is designed and certified for precision and is checked regularly.  The aircraft is not designated as airworthy for instrument flight if the systems in it are not certified to be precise and in good working order.  If an altimeter is so broken that it is off by more than 220MHz from the frequencies it is designed to use, it could just as easily be off by 1GHz or more which would likely cause it to fall into other frequencies that are also already in use. 
    • https://www.pcmag.com/news/exclusive-we-found-t-mobiles-secret-weapon-against-c-band Seems like he's seeing: B2+B66 +n41+n41 n71+n41 Not that it really matters, I suppose:  
  • Recently Browsing

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