Sprint Nextel sells off "nearly all" of its towers to TowerCo for $670 million
By Darren Murph 
posted Jul 24th 2008 11:43PM
posted Jul 24th 2008 11:43PM
[Via InformationWeek]
posted Jul 24th 2008 11:43PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's actually not totally uncommon to do so. All carriers own some towers and lease others. In this case Sprint needed the cash so it got rid of basically all of them.
I bet they got a sweetheart lease deal out of too.
I agree... I used to have AT&T and T-Mobile...
since my move to 100% Sprint, I had perfect reception, crystal clear calls and not one call dropped.
I can't say the same with the GSM networks and did I mention Sprint is much much cheaper?
@aledc:
$40/month for 450 minutes on Sprint is cheaper than $40/month for 450 minutes on ATT? I'm confused by your logic good sir.
And for $30/month on T-Mo, you can get 300 minutes. $40/month gets you 300 minutes and MyFaves. You sir, need to do your calculating better.
This is true, yes. Sprint needed the cash. The problem, as a consumer, is WHY does Sprint need this cash? Why isn't my monthly payment of $rape.99 enough to keep them afloat? I read the writing on the wall under a month ago (July 11th, to be exact ;)) and took that opportunity to bail on Sprint.
um..... sprint is the only one that has SERO plans that are easily obtainable :)
$30/month for 500 min, unlimited data, unlimited txt, pix, roaming. I don't think u can get that with t-mo.
Am i missing anything?
@hello
READ: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/expired-deals/680568
SERO is gone dude. As an employee of a semi-popular retail electronics chain, I get Sprint for $20/month, 3k minutes, unlimited everything else. I still use the more expensive ATT.
I'm not so sure this is negative, haven't most operators already done the same? Pretty sure T-mobile and AT&T sold theirs to Crown Castle years ago, and I'm surprised it took Sprint this long to dump them.
Doesnt Sprint have around 25,000 towers and not 3,300?
Sprint like many of the other wireless companies has been selling off its towers for years.
Found it:
Sprint sold 6500 towers in May 2005 to Global Signal.
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2007/03/01/0000950133-07-000866/Section4.asp
If sprint goes, there goes any chance of real competitive pricing.
That went away last week when SERO was dropped. Thankfully I picked it up two weeks before.
last time I checked the sero site worked for me
http://www.sprint.com/sero
and the last time was like 3 minutes ago
You need an employee CID now.
Even with the CID, someone told me that the deal is actually more expensive, around $60 for what was originally the $30 plan. Please let me know if I'm wrong, though. :)
Will this have any effect on Sprint customers?
I recently signed up for Sprint because they have flawless reception in my area (shocking, I know). Does this mean that some of their towers will no longer be in use?
Sprint has flawless reception where you live.
Wow...are there unicorns there?
The lease is probably secured by some kind of contract. It would be funny as hell (but unfortunate for Sprint and its customers) if another company could come in with a higher bid for the lease and sweep out the towers from underneath Sprint.
Er, Sprint has flawless reception where I am too. I hacked up an internal WWAN for my t60p out of a 595u aircard - no longer am I bound to wifi~
Sprint has the best coverage of the big four in my area. Verizon is in second followed by T-Mobile. I sure love my iPhone, the useless device sitting on my bed right now with No Service thanks to AT&T's wonderful coverage. I am not so sure why people complain about Sprints coverage, they have by far been the best in my experience. Im in Kansas though, which is where Sprint is headquartered, so that is probably why. :-)
You couldn't get a sprint signal if you were leaning against their tower here in the OC. Nextel used to be the worst signal around until Sprint bought that honor.
I don't understand how Sprint can have great coverage. When I look at the map for Illinois/Indiana/Michigan/Ohio area I see shitloads of roaming. Generally, I get pretty good coverage with ATT but I swear my coverage was better with Verizon. The thing is, no matter what service you have you are going to have dropouts. Certainly there are areas where Sprint must be superior and I understand that supposedly Sprint has the largest 3G network. But coast to coast, north to south I'm just not seeing where Sprint can compare to ATT or Verizon when it comes to getting a phone signal. I have to be able to get a phone signal and I can't afford all the roaming I see on Sprint's own map in the states I need coverage.
I dont get the Sprint smack talk. I switched from Cingular (AT&T) to Sprint for a VERY appealing SERO plan. I know pay half as much and get double which includes unlimited text & evdo rev. A data.
My reception and call quality is great and I never have issues. In fact, I noticed that a dropped calls MORE frequently with my AT&T service. This was right outside CHI. In more rural areas in the midwest (parts of MO) AT&T may have a slight coverage advantage. However, near any City/Town I would prefer the Sprint coverage with its EVDO. In summary, I'm happier with my Sprint service. WiMAX coming down the pipeline is neat as well. My only complaint about Sprint is that AT&T (Cingular) did seem to have slightly better customer service.
I dont get the Sprint smack talk. I switched from Cingular (AT&T) to Sprint for a VERY appealing SERO plan. I know pay half as much and get double which includes unlimited text & evdo rev. A data.
My reception and call quality is great and I never have issues. In fact, I noticed that a dropped calls MORE frequently with my AT&T service. This was right outside CHI. In more rural areas in the midwest (parts of MO) AT&T may have a slight coverage advantage. However, near any City/Town I would prefer the Sprint coverage with its EVDO. In summary, I'm happier with my Sprint service. WiMAX coming down the pipeline is neat as well. My only complaint about Sprint is that AT&T (Cingular) did seem to have slightly better customer service.
I've got Sprint here in Columbus, OH, and I get GREAT coverage! I can't opt for any of the other companies, but it sure is a HECK of a lot better than T-Mobile, and no other plan can beat SERO that's for sure :D
@Jack : You're a douche bag. I've had 4 to 5 bars with Sprint in the OC pretty much everywhere I go and it's been that way since 1999... And I drive all over the OC for my work, so obviously you're full of shit and among the ones that think bashing Sprint for no valid reason is cool.
@Happy_Penguin
"I can't afford all the roaming I see on Sprint's own map in the states I need coverage."
I don't know when the last time you looked at the Sprint plans probably about 2005 or so, roaming is included and you won't get charged for it, it went the way of long distance calls on mobiles.
Also it might be helpful to note that Verizon actually cheats with the "Perception of Coverage" they have actually messed with the PRL (Preferred Roaming Lists) and have removed the roaming icon from being displayed on their end devices when their customers Roam on Sprint's network, giving the customers perception of GREAT coverage.
I have Sprint, and while it's not perfect, it's coverage is excellent in my experience, and the EVDO network is fantastic. I can do things on my Mogul that the general public doesn't even realize is possible on a cell phone.
Devices have as much to do with signal quality as coverage....
I get flawless reception in Nashville too.
Far better than my TMobile in overall coverage areas in the parts of town Ive travelled to thus far.
@Nathan
I'm looking at the map right now. I see roaming and a lot of it. If the roaming is included they should be more clear about that. Does the phone actually go into roaming mode? If it doesn't, they need to update their maps and if it does they should tell you right on the map that the roaming is included. It's misleading.
From my experience, Sprint has much better coverage than AT&T where I am (Bay Area, CA) and I frequently go up down and around the Bay for work and personal stuff, so I have a pretty good idea of the coverage.
Pretty much solid EV-DO everywhere (honestly), dropping down to 1x on very rare occasions and when I'm in the basement of my house. I hadn't had a dropped call in years.
I just switched to AT&T (for a user study) and I'm so rarely on 3G (comparatively), it's not even funny. Sure in the middle of San Jose and San Francisco I have it, but in all the towns in between it's a coin toss (with a higher preference for 3G). For instance, 3G at the mall like a mile away from me, but no 3G in my house or even in the neighborhood around my house, only EDGE and GPRS (!), with zero penetration to my basement. So, I personally really don't get the Sprint hate rampant in the comments. Whatever.
On topic with the original article, this is basically non-news. I see how you guys (Engadget) were REALLY trying not to make this sound like a Sprint doom-and-gloom piece, and I respect that. You should try just a little harder next time. ;P
"Jack Scalfani @ Jul 25th 2008 2:19AM
You couldn't get a sprint signal if you were leaning against their tower here in the OC. Nextel used to be the worst signal around until Sprint bought that honor."
I'm in OC. Live North and work South. Have GREAT reception all across. I switched to Sprint late last year, and the reception I get is actually better than what I had with AT&T.
Let me put this in simpler words for everyone.
This is a good thing.
Not only is Sprint saving money, they now don't need to worry about maintaining the towers.
Please NOTE that this will not effect Sprints field techs, nor customers, it's saving money, because Sprint sold the property for a money, and now operation fee's are much less.
Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T sold majority of them as well.
Sprint is just.. kinda late.
it's not really saving money. it just give them cash NOW (when they need it).
People say leasing cars is idiotic (and I agree for the most part).
It would be like selling your car which is your property for one sum of cash and then starting to pay for a monthly car lease.
They should have called JG Wentworth.
@adonisxtreme: it's like that only if by leasing your car, the dealership also agreed to maintain your car without you having to pay for it, which if I'm not mistaken doesn't exist anywhere.
bout time sprint gave up
At first i thought it was a bit negative as if i owned a company i would like more control over my network, but i suppose now that i think about it more detail is it really worth dealing with local and state ordinances for structures (cell towers) and dealing with communities that don't want a tower (where you make it look like a tree or similar) is really worth it?
I say....let someone else deal with it
and as for how many towers they have
US area: 3,794,066 sq mi
3,300 * whatever distance = X
I'm going to assume 2 sq mi's per tower on average...that might be a bit of an over kill but that would only be 6,600 sq miles....which is nothing so that can't be right......
So unless sprint decides to add an additional cellular technology to "their" towers i doubt this will have any impact on them or reception....
From Wikipedia
The maximum range of a mast (where it is not limited by interference with other masts nearby) depends on the same circumstances. Some technologies, such as GSM, have a fixed maximum range of 40km (25 miles), which is imposed by technical limitations.[citation needed] CDMA and iDEN have no built-in limit, but the limiting factor is really the ability of a low-powered personal cell phone to transmit back to the mast. As a rough guide, based on a tall mast and flat terrain, it is possible to get between 50 to 70 km (30-45 miles). When the terrain is hilly, the maximum distance can vary from as little as 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) to 8 kilometres (5.0 mi).[2] The concept of "maximum" range is misleading, however, in a cellular network.
It say's as little as 8 miles but as large as 45 miles apart.
So, min 3300*8=26400 sq miles
max 3300*45=148500 sq miles
so not all there towers and they dont cover all of the US.
Montusama & Karl Bates
Both yalls math seems off.
Ok, let's say the range is 8 km .. that is actually a circle of radius 8 km .. the area of which is pi (3.141592653589blahblah) times 2r (16) = around 50
so that means it covers an area of about 50 sq km.
3300 x 50 = 165,000 sq. km on the low end
as for tghe high end pi times (2 x 45) = around 282
3300 x 282 = 930,000 sq. km on the high end
http://www.towerco.com/news/07_23_08.htm
"TowerCo will provide Sprint Nextel with wireless communications towers to support the company’s CDMA, iDEN and WiMAX networks."
Wait I made a mistake i should have done pi times r^2 .. duh that makes it a much larger area covered.
Umm somebody else do that math.
Great thing now they have $670 million to invest in new technology and broadband.
*sigh*...
I thought it was always better to own equipment that you used unless you're going to constantly upgrade it (like leasing a new car). But something like cell phone towers stay up for quite some time, no?
Or maybe I don't understand this at all. Maybe engadget can do an article over it?
The great part about leasing is it wont be up to sprint to have to maintain the towers!.
In my opinion, I think the government or some private firm should own all towers, and the providers only have one tower to put their cells. Looking out my window and seeing 3 cell towers within a few thousand feet from eachother is very unsightly.
You think the GOVERNMENT should own the towers? Are you serious?
No, not them owning them, but some law against having three towers in one area ust so all the providers can have coverage. Actually, out of the three, one was Cingular and one was AT&T, but now I get one bar with AT&T, figure that one out. Government was probably the wrong word, lol.
sure, why not have the government own and maintain the towers....after all, wer only almost 10 trillion in debt