Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon, AT&T Announce Plans To Build and Share Hundreds of New Cell Towers (fiercewireless.com)

Posted by msmash on from the next-up dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Verizon and AT&T announced a joint venture with Tillman Infrastructure to build and share hundreds of cell towers in more in a move that is sure to be seen as a threat to more established tower companies. The companies said the new structures "will add to the overall communications infrastructure in the United States," filling gaps in current tower footprints, but will also enable the nation's two largest network operators to relocate equipment from towers they're currently using. Construction plans on the first towers will begin early next year and will come online "quickly" as they are completed.

34 comments

  1. Yes, yes, merge, my pretties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ma Bell how I've missed you. I yearn to see the Daughter Bells in a lesbian incestuous affair together.

    1. Re:Yes, yes, merge, my pretties! by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      A merger of AT&T and Verizon would pretty much do it.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Yes, yes, merge, my pretties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Daughters Bell grabbing each other by the pussy, making the Bell System great again.

      Captcha: nuptial

    3. Re:Yes, yes, merge, my pretties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ma Bell how I've missed you. I yearn to see the Daughter Bells in a lesbian incestuous affair together.

      Only people that wear tinfoil hats and constantly worry about being watched will believe.

      The rest of us know better, understand the concept of "joint partnerships", and think both of those types mentioned above "ought to be watched for their own safety".

  2. Perhaps I'm the only one by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But it seems like this summary - and the article itself - would be more useful if it supplied additional information.

    I certainly know very little about how cellular towers are managed - until a few minutes ago, I assumed the carriers themselves owned them. Apparently that is wrong...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Perhaps I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tower owners typically lease space to multiple companies. Ownership models vary. There are utilities that own some, there are middle men who scout out locations and get lease deals before they build. etc.

    2. Re:Perhaps I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a complex mixture of who owns what - land, building, tower, right of way to access the site, leases and agreements.

      Carriers will indeed own some sites, and may even be the only one at some of their sites, or co-exist with another carrier where they agreed to build the site together to share costs.

      Larger sites will have many other tenants with their various radio services jammed into every last spare space.

    3. Re:Perhaps I'm the only one by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      a lot of towers are owned by third party companies and lease capacity to all carriers. some of these companies are public companies themselves

  3. Fire sale on existing tower capacity by gtarthur · · Score: 1

    Attention Sprint, T-Mobile, US Cellular, etc. - fire sale on well placed existing communication towers will soon be available for your ramp up to compete with Big 2 networks. The law of unintended consequences shows no mercy.

    --
    Every change is not progress, but there is no progress without change.
    1. Re:Fire sale on existing tower capacity by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. AT&T and VZ are gearing up for 5G expansion which is going to require them to have denser tower footprints. They'll still need all their existing tower locations as well, and will be using those existing towers in many cases as part of their fronthaul for the new towers.

      The other carriers are going to have to solve this problem as well, which is one reason T-Mobile and Sprint were looking at getting hitched.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. All the better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to shaft you with, my dear.

    1. Re:All the better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demand for Blue Boxes suddenly increases.

  5. I don't see this as a "good thing" [tm] by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    Many Cell towers are owned by tower companies who lease out space in the tower.
    Im sure there area certain levels of services that are contractually included, power, internet feed, etc.
    SO now the providers are trying to cut corners and deal out the middle man by putting up their own towers.
    This means that the providers will supply ancillary services that were previously contracted.
    This would it seems cause a degradation in these areas as there is no longer contractual support and the providers are known for cutting corners or trying to monetize these.
    Walled gardens or paying for tower access, over selling subscriptions or under demand capacity equipment, etc.

    Lame example - Remember when Usenet server access was an integral part of an internet account.

    "Sorry your account does not include enhanced service you are not authorized access to this tower, press #XXX for an account upgrade."
    or
    "All circuits are busy, please try another time"

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:I don't see this as a "good thing" [tm] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Cell towers are owned by tower companies who lease out space in the tower.
      Im sure there area certain levels of services that are contractually included, power, internet feed, etc.
      SO now the providers are trying to cut corners and deal out the middle man by putting up their own towers.
      This means that the providers will supply ancillary services that were previously contracted.
      This would it seems cause a degradation in these areas as there is no longer contractual support and the providers are known for cutting corners or trying to monetize these.
      Walled gardens or paying for tower access, over selling subscriptions or under demand capacity equipment, etc.

      Lame example - Remember when Usenet server access was an integral part of an internet account.

      "Sorry your account does not include enhanced service you are not authorized access to this tower, press #XXX for an account upgrade."
      or
      "All circuits are busy, please try another time"

      A clueless post by "Grand Facade", who probably has no respect for "market economies" nor can be bothered to RTFA, or is possibly a shill for a tower operator.

      What I got out of the article was this: It costs a lot of money to operate a cell site. The companies that lease cell towers probably make money on all of the services that they offer. So in a "market economy" there is money to be saved if you can "cut out the middle man". I know from personal friends in the business that operating cell sites at leased towers is an expensive part of their business, what with power, permits, property taxes, tower inspections (FAA regulations), annual tower maintenance & repair, and whatever else is needed.

      Is this a "bad thing" for tower operators? Only the "marginal players" in any given market. The "large players" will still have demand for their products & services, and in some places it might make more sense to stay with an existing operator "for a while". In some places it might make sense for multiple carriers to ask for 1 tower permit where having them all asking separately results in "a forest of antennae" which is an "eyesore" to most of us. Alternatively there could be places hwere these 2 major carriers cannot find a big tower operator, or want to pay it's price, that will operate out in the middle of nowhere or in the "urban canyons" of major US cities.

      Where I see the "interesting part" of this plan shaping up will be those communities that take an "active stance" against cell towers, yet their citizens suffer from poor cell coverage because of that politicial position. I am looking at those towns & cities in Northern California, and I can name one specifically based on "first hand" knowledge; it's an "east bay" community where adding a new cell site in it's downtown district requires "much more than an act of god" before it would have any hope of succeeding, yet service SUX in it's downtown district (go figure). Imagine the "leverage" of the joint partnership saying to the town/city: "We can add cell sites to improve cell coverage for all and all while having the 2 biggest carriers using the exact same site. So there's no need for "a forest of antennae" to serve just these 2 carriers."

  6. Anti-Trust Action, Please! by crow · · Score: 0

    This is exactly the sort of thing competitors shouldn't be doing. The two largest competitors are teaming up to further marginalize their competitors instead of competing with each other.

    While this may have short-term coverage improvements for consumers, the long-term impact if they succeed in squeezing out Sprint would be horrible.

    So how exactly is this legal?

    1. Re:Anti-Trust Action, Please! by Darkk · · Score: 2

      I fail to see why this would be an anti-trust issue? If anything it FORCES Sprint to improve their network and compete for their customers.

    2. Re:Anti-Trust Action, Please! by swb · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      To me this is kind of like a statement that what we really need is just one common cellular network, and that "competition" between carriers mostly just results in duplication of facilities and underutilized spectrum.

    3. Re:Anti-Trust Action, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an anti-trust issue when the 2 big companies frame the "deal" such that the tower company won't sell capacity to any of their competitors at a reasonable price or terms.

    4. Re:Anti-Trust Action, Please! by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      why aren't existing tower companies building in these places where AT&T and Verizon plan to build?

      How dare cell carriers improve their product

  7. What a difference two years makes? by jonatha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In March 2015 Verizon essentially sold off over 11000 cell towers to American Tower....

    --
    The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
    1. Re:What a difference two years makes? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In March 2015 Verizon essentially sold off over 11000 cell towers to American Tower....

      Neither VZ nor ATT really cares who owns the towers, so long as the towers exist and someone is maintaining them. You can be sure that they will have kept the towers which are lucrative to operate, and dropped the ones where they have the least subscribers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:What a difference two years makes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and..

      AT&T sells and leases towers to Crown Castle in $4.85B deal

      http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-sells-and-leases-towers-to-crown-castle-4-85b-de

  8. the oligarchy wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Critical strike!

  9. We definitely need them here. by gsilver0 · · Score: 2

    At my office (30 miles south of Salt Lake City, Utah, just off a major freeway, and in a county of over half a million) my reception is so bad on Verizon to be practically unusable. I tried to do a speedtest, and the first one resulted in: 816ms ping 0.00 mbps down 0.25 mbps up Subsequent runs either failed to complete or failed to run.

    1. Re:We definitely need them here. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      You live in Utah...I'm sorry.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:We definitely need them here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, 22 miles northeast of SLC in an otherwise undeveloped remote and forested deep mountain canyon i was hiking in yesterday I get LTE with AT&T. Your first problem is living in Utah County.

  10. hipwful by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Im sitting here roght now on att without lte. I want a better carrier

  11. This is to be expected by williamyf · · Score: 1

    The cost of building and maintaining ever faster telecoms networls (celullar and otherwise), paired with smaller cell sizes, and NIMB syndrome were communities reject cell towers (but demand service nonetheless) for aesthetic or "health" reasons (in the case of celullar), lead to this.

    Fisrt came the sharing of the long range towers (think microwave repetition and concentration points), then came the sharing of rural cell towers, then urban cell towers.

    The next step is RAN Sharing. And is being baked in 5G standards (and backported to 4G).

    [Carefull, PDF]
    https://www.gsma.com/publicpol...

    For more info on the topic, and in particular, specific provider cases, google is your friend.

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:This is to be expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NIMB

      Ñ-gger In My Butt

    2. Re:This is to be expected by williamyf · · Score: 1

      Not In My Backyard

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  12. in more in a move by trevc · · Score: 1

    Lost me there..

  13. Totally inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bean counters look at the list of towers by how much the tower owner is charging for rent, and then start putting up cheaper towers to replace them and lower costs. That's a strategy for Verizon, which has good coverage, and AT&T which bought a lot of politicians, but the lower tier carriers are still in the mode of looking for cheap rents on other people's towers. Perhaps they will lease space on some of the new ones.

  14. New Vendor improve price competition by spinitch · · Score: 1

    ATT & Verizon will partner with a smaller private Partner Tillman Towers since apparently the main existing suppliers terms are beatable by the new vendor. Bringing in a new vendor hopefully helps drive down costs across industry. Low balling typically a short term market capture tactic but hard to sustain if poor margins/cash flow. Maybe Carriers can hop around getting prices leaving the investors at Tower Coâ(TM)s With lower returns. Interesting since SoftBank and LendLease also Entering market. Wonder if other carriers beside Sprint will patronize. Guess depends on pricing. This should also increase price competition. The big 3 public traded Tower Coâ(TM)s have fairly high PE ratios. Will see how long lasts. Curious how more competition helps prices on towers but scale often the case for consolidation and less providers on services side;)