1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Cell Site Affordability

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Craig, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. "Craig" <cgafah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:2b522c03.0309041609.472e3138@posting.google.com...
    > With the above being said, it still fascinates me that they are able
    > to compete, having to build twice (conservative estimate) as many
    > sites as an 800mhz carrier in a lot of less populated areas. This
    > could really add up....


    The original financial argument of Sprint and other 1900MHz newcomers was that
    by avoiding all the legacy infrastructure (analog equipment, COBOL-written
    billing systems, etc.) and purchasing the latest-and-greatest from scratch, they
    could build out their networks economically and run them much more cheaply than
    the incumbent wireless carriers. T-Mobile (nee VoiceStream) made this same
    financial argument.

    Results so far are mixed. Neither Sprint PCS nor T-Mobile has gone bankrupt
    (yet). T-Mobile is still growing rapidly, but so was Sprint PCS at that stage
    in its life. Sprint PCS' subscriber growth rate is now rather small in
    comparison to Verizon Wireless. The latter is coming out the big winner here
    and may dominate the industry over the next ten years. Verizon has both the
    brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
    latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
    building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
    carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.



    › See More: Cell Site Affordability
  2. On 4 Sep 2003 10:35:48 -0700, cgafah@yahoo.com (Craig) wrote:

    >If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
    >safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
    >given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
    >Verizon 800mhz markets). I would expect this to be the case more in
    >rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
    >would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.
    >
    >If this is the case, how does Sprint stay competitive if their
    >networks operate in a less desirable part of the electromagentic
    >frequency spectrum, and they need to install more sites (higher equip
    >costs, higher lease payments, etc)?


    It depends on subscriber load. If Verizon Wireless has more peak
    subscribers in a certain cell they're likely going to have to "beef
    up" coverage (adding more towers or frequencies).

    If you look at Verizon's native coverage (not roaming partners) they
    cover fewer people than Sprint PCS, so they're paying more to roaming
    partners than Sprint PCS likely is.

    Sprint PCS also has advantages in that they have licenses for the
    entire US, and Sprint corporate can provide the fiber backbone for
    both voice and data over the entire US.
  3. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:vlga27pas5vv21@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    > <470b0e70bc9149890a06315147cb3bd4@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > > The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current

    existence
    > > of a 1900 MHz network.

    >
    > Really? Then Nextel's CEO really *didn't* mean it when he said, "...the
    > contiguous 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum -- which mirrors
    > networks from rivals Sprint PCS (NYSE: PCS) and VoiceStream -- may be
    > useful to Nextel in providing next-generation services, such as
    > high-speed
    > data capabilities."
    >
    > Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
    > about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
    > bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.


    He DID say that. Again, Nextel got what was available. He was happy to get
    ADDITIONAL bandwidth, even though some of the bandwidth was better than the
    other.
  4. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:vlga27pas5vv21@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    > <470b0e70bc9149890a06315147cb3bd4@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > > The *only* point/advantage of the article you post is the current

    existence
    > > of a 1900 MHz network.

    >
    > Really? Then Nextel's CEO really *didn't* mean it when he said, "...the
    > contiguous 800 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum -- which mirrors
    > networks from rivals Sprint PCS (NYSE: PCS) and VoiceStream -- may be
    > useful to Nextel in providing next-generation services, such as
    > high-speed
    > data capabilities."
    >
    > Hmm... then why was he cited as having said it? That's more than just
    > about pre-existing infrastructure, Justin. That's a question of
    > bandwidth. Which disproves all the other "schooling" you claim below.
    >
    > <dishonest "schooling" snipped>
    > --
    > -+-
    > RØß
    > O/Siris
    > I work for Sprint PCS
    > I *don't* speak for them


    You really should read up on your chosen profession's technology. You
    should be schooling me, but you can't.
  5. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    Craig wrote:

    > If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
    > safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
    > given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
    > Verizon 800mhz markets).



    It does cost them more at least in the near term, but not entirely
    because of penetration issues. That does have something to do with it.
    The other major part of the equation is that Sprint is still in
    build-out phase in a number of places, whereas incumbent cell carriers
    (such as Verizon) already had AMPS infrastructure in place that would
    simply be converted to a CDMA overlay.

    > I would expect this to be the case more in
    > rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
    > would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.


    FWIW, Sprint does NOT build out in rural areas. Secondary markets, as
    they're called in wireless industry parlance, are often given to
    affiliate companies to build out and license under Sprint's name (other
    companies do this as well, such as Nextel who has built a shell comany
    knowns as "Nextel partners" to build out rural areas). The idea behind
    this arrangement is that a smaller wireless company will assume the risk
    of investing in the network, and in return they get to market their
    services under a larger brand, with greater coverage than the smaller
    affiliate company provides by themselves, and not have to invest in a
    billing or collections system because the parent company is taking care
    of that.

    > If this is the case, how does Sprint stay competitive if their
    > networks operate in a less desirable part of the electromagentic
    > frequency spectrum, and they need to install more sites (higher equip
    > costs, higher lease payments, etc)?


    A 1900Mhz system won't demand a higher lease payment than that of an
    800Mhz system. they take up the same footprint and use largely similar
    equipment. You may however, need more towers.

    And FWIW, 800Mhz systems are now having problems of their own. In
    particular, they're coming under fire for interfering with adjacent
    police and emergency radio systems. As such, they too have to incur
    expenses to retuen their equipment at times to avoid degrading police
    radio systems.

    For info, see: http://tinyurl.com/mcdv . Nextel seems to be the
    company with the biggest problem.
  6. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in message
    news:Ko06b.19004$Ih1.7681425@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
    <snipped>

    > Verizon has both the
    > brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
    > latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
    > building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
    > carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.


    Lawrence ... SPCS has already said months ago that they would bypass going
    to 1xEV-DO and devote their resources to the next phase after that ...
    1xEV-DV. Nothing wrong with doing that ...

    Bob
  7. Dan W.

    Dan W. Guest

    If that's the case, then why can't they get decent native (no pun
    intended) coverage in Oklahoma!

    --
    Dan W.
    North Texas
    hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
    Provider: ATTWS-TDMA

    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in Verizon has both
    the
    > brains and the capital resources to do everything right, from the
    > latest-and-greatest technology (e.g., 1xEV-DO) to the best coverage (when
    > building penetration is considered) to the best customer service. Other
    > carriers lag in either technology, coverage, or service.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
  8. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "Isaiah Beard" <scaredpoet@scaredpoet.n.o.s.p.a.m.com> wrote in message
    news:3f58989a$1@rutgers.edu...
    > Craig wrote:
    >
    > > If 800mhz has better free space penetration than 1900mhz, would it be
    > > safe to say that it costs Sprint more money to maintain a network in a
    > > given area versus Verizon, all other things constant? (referring to
    > > Verizon 800mhz markets).

    >
    >
    > It does cost them more at least in the near term, but not entirely
    > because of penetration issues. That does have something to do with it.
    > The other major part of the equation is that Sprint is still in
    > build-out phase in a number of places, whereas incumbent cell carriers
    > (such as Verizon) already had AMPS infrastructure in place that would
    > simply be converted to a CDMA overlay.
    >
    > > I would expect this to be the case more in
    > > rural areas versus densely populated areas, as densely populated areas
    > > would rarely push the limits of transmission/reception distance.

    >
    > FWIW, Sprint does NOT build out in rural areas. Secondary markets, as
    > they're called in wireless industry parlance, are often given to
    > affiliate companies to build out and license under Sprint's name (other
    > companies do this as well, such as Nextel who has built a shell comany
    > knowns as "Nextel partners" to build out rural areas). The idea behind
    > this arrangement is that a smaller wireless company will assume the risk
    > of investing in the network, and in return they get to market their
    > services under a larger brand, with greater coverage than the smaller
    > affiliate company provides by themselves, and not have to invest in a
    > billing or collections system because the parent company is taking care
    > of that.


    Sprint sure advertises in rural areas.
  9. O/Siris .

    O/Siris . Guest

    Actually, Larry, I didn't mean to imply that there's any inherent
    advantage. I was responding to what I still think is a wrong statement
    that it's an inherent DISadvantage. I disagree that it is.

    --
    -+-
    RØß
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
  10. O/Siris .

    O/Siris . Guest

    "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    <vlh5v3i0jo2t4c@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    > You really should read up on your chosen profession's technology. You
    > should be schooling me, but you can't.


    There's nothing to school, Justin. You reported something incorrectly:
    that there's an inherent disadvantage. There isn't.

    Each technology is different, and it's apples to oranges trying to
    compare them that way. More penetration, but also more susceptibility
    to EMI, and on and on and on.

    You were the one trying to make a point, Justin. I was simply pointing
    out it's not accurate. Not arguing the opposite.

    --
    -+-
    RØß
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
  11. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:vll5pfb14f6p5d@corp.supernews.com...
    > Actually, Larry, I didn't mean to imply that there's any inherent
    > advantage.


    You didn't?

    >>Next time, know what you're talking about. There are many reasonsfor

    using
    >>1900 MHz. Even Nextel is fighting to get some spectrum up in that range.
  12. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:vll600e01o27c3@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    > <vlh5v3i0jo2t4c@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > > You really should read up on your chosen profession's technology. You
    > > should be schooling me, but you can't.

    >
    > There's nothing to school, Justin. You reported something incorrectly:
    > that there's an inherent disadvantage. There isn't.
    >
    > Each technology is different, and it's apples to oranges trying to
    > compare them that way. More penetration, but also more susceptibility
    > to EMI, and on and on and on.
    >
    > You were the one trying to make a point, Justin. I was simply pointing
    > out it's not accurate. Not arguing the opposite.


    I'm not talking about the technologies, moron. The frequencies. God you're
    a dumbass.
  13. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:vll600e01o27c3@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    > <vlh5v3i0jo2t4c@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > > You really should read up on your chosen profession's technology. You
    > > should be schooling me, but you can't.

    >
    > There's nothing to school, Justin. You reported something incorrectly:
    > that there's an inherent disadvantage. There isn't.
    >
    > Each technology is different, and it's apples to oranges trying to
    > compare them that way. More penetration, but also more susceptibility
    > to EMI, and on and on and on.
    >
    > You were the one trying to make a point, Justin. I was simply pointing
    > out it's not accurate. Not arguing the opposite.


    Here you go again. Saying something's not accurate, but yet you're not
    arguing.
  14. David S

    David S Guest

    On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0000, askme@askme.com (Mark F) chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >> Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so your
    >> signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will benefit
    >> from multipath dB gain.

    >
    >Incorrect, 1900 has greater pathloss and multipath can be detrimental
    >more than additive as it is usually received out of phase from the
    >target signal. All of this will decrease the usable signal at the
    >target phone. You can't get gain by bouncing a signal,


    Ordinarily, you'd be right, but I probably won't be the only one to tell
    you that CDMA actually *benefits* from multipath. See the CDMA FAQ at:

    http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/index.shtml

    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    --
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Newt loves animals. As a child he wanted to be a zookeeper."
    - Newt Gingrich spokesman Mike Shields responding to environmentalists
    upset that Gingrich was named to the board of the Wildlife Conservation
    Society, quoted in the New York Post.
  15. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    news:9jmmlv8amr97aib1937bvksh50dnj6ndf5@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0000, askme@askme.com (Mark F) chose to add
    > this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >> Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so

    your
    > >> signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will

    benefit
    > >> from multipath dB gain.

    > >
    > >Incorrect, 1900 has greater pathloss and multipath can be detrimental
    > >more than additive as it is usually received out of phase from the
    > >target signal. All of this will decrease the usable signal at the
    > >target phone. You can't get gain by bouncing a signal,

    >
    > Ordinarily, you'd be right, but I probably won't be the only one to tell
    > you that CDMA actually *benefits* from multipath. See the CDMA FAQ at:
    >
    > http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/index.shtml
    >
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > --
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "Newt loves animals. As a child he wanted to be a zookeeper."
    > - Newt Gingrich spokesman Mike Shields responding to environmentalists
    > upset that Gingrich was named to the board of the Wildlife Conservation
    > Society, quoted in the New York Post.



    You're exactly right, but I think some people in this thread are confusing
    technologies with the frequnecies.
  16. David S

    David S Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:43:44 -0500, "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com> chose
    to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >"David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    >news:9jmmlv8amr97aib1937bvksh50dnj6ndf5@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0000, askme@askme.com (Mark F) chose to add
    >> this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >>
    >> >> Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so your
    >> >> signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will benefit
    >> >> from multipath dB gain.
    >> >
    >> >Incorrect, 1900 has greater pathloss and multipath can be detrimental
    >> >more than additive as it is usually received out of phase from the
    >> >target signal. All of this will decrease the usable signal at the
    >> >target phone. You can't get gain by bouncing a signal,

    >>
    >> Ordinarily, you'd be right, but I probably won't be the only one to tell
    >> you that CDMA actually *benefits* from multipath. See the CDMA FAQ at:
    >>
    >> http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/index.shtml
    >>

    >You're exactly right, but I think some people in this thread are confusing
    >technologies with the frequnecies.


    They are, but not in this case, I think. The person Mark quoted (Paul) said
    the greater amount of multipath inherent in 1900 would help SPCS service.
    Mark said no, it would hurt. He just failed to consider that we are
    discussing companies that use CDMA. Further back in the thread, there was
    mention of Nextel, which would indeed (I assume -- I don't pretend to be an
    expert) get poorer performance from multipath with its TDMA air interface.

    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    --
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Wanna see if we can get a two-fer outta this medicine?" - Andy Sipowicz,
    in his first post-coital cuddle following prostate surgery
  17. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    news:rjunlvs5a72u7lnmd5nubm6e6vnpb1e43i@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:43:44 -0500, "Justin Green" <justin@cjteam.com>

    chose
    > to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    > >"David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    > >news:9jmmlv8amr97aib1937bvksh50dnj6ndf5@4ax.com...
    > >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:27:49 -0000, askme@askme.com (Mark F) chose to

    add
    > >> this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    > >>
    > >> >> Also, 1900 bounces off trees, buildings, etc better than 800, and so

    your
    > >> >> signal will propagate even further. Your Sprint PCS handset will

    benefit
    > >> >> from multipath dB gain.
    > >> >
    > >> >Incorrect, 1900 has greater pathloss and multipath can be detrimental
    > >> >more than additive as it is usually received out of phase from the
    > >> >target signal. All of this will decrease the usable signal at the
    > >> >target phone. You can't get gain by bouncing a signal,
    > >>
    > >> Ordinarily, you'd be right, but I probably won't be the only one to

    tell
    > >> you that CDMA actually *benefits* from multipath. See the CDMA FAQ at:
    > >>
    > >> http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/index.shtml
    > >>

    > >You're exactly right, but I think some people in this thread are

    confusing
    > >technologies with the frequnecies.

    >
    > They are, but not in this case, I think. The person Mark quoted (Paul)

    said
    > the greater amount of multipath inherent in 1900 would help SPCS service.
    > Mark said no, it would hurt. He just failed to consider that we are
    > discussing companies that use CDMA. Further back in the thread, there was
    > mention of Nextel, which would indeed (I assume -- I don't pretend to be

    an
    > expert) get poorer performance from multipath with its TDMA air interface.
    >
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > --
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "Wanna see if we can get a two-fer outta this medicine?" - Andy Sipowicz,
    > in his first post-coital cuddle following prostate surgery



    Yeah, there's really just one person confusing frequencies with technologies
    here.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?