said by BK:I think that this agreement is about the tower structures, not the antennas hanging on the towers and the base station equipment. It's this stuff that would have to upgraded to WiMax, not the tower structures. It seems that in these discussion, the distinction between "tower" and "cell site" often gets lost. Sometimes a cell site doesn't even have a tower, such as when the antennas are mounted on top of a building.
now who pays for the upgrading up the towers to WiMAX ?
Re: Good going
said by FFH5:Exactly! One thing we both agree upon. said by BPLSUCKS9:
Exec 1:"Don't worry we will lease them back and end up paying more in the long run than if we kept them ourselves!"
There are tax advantages leasing versus owning. State & local taxes can be eliminated and federal taxes can be reduced as leases are operational expenses that reduce taxable income.
Re: Good going
said by amigo_boy:That would all be taken in to account with the terms of the lease. Obviously the tower company would want all their costs( + a profit) covered in the lease. So the localities aren't losing anything, but Sprint gets advantages by having the costs covered "above the line" in the lease. said by FFH5:
State & local taxes can be eliminated and federal taxes can be reduced as leases are operational expenses that reduce taxable income.
Doesn't the new owner of the towers have the same tax consequences that the towers previously caused for Sprint? Won't they just pass that along to Sprint?
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
| |fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
| Without knowing the terms of the lease, what empowers you to make a comment like that? Its' quite possible that as part of the lease, and is common, the owners maintain the towers, permit them, etc. It reduces labor costs, ownership costs, etc.|
I think you don't know what you're talking about. But, in the spirit of, well, many others, your cute remark fits in here.
Towers Sprint was the only cell co. that owns most of their tower sites. All the telcos either own or lease their tower sites from Tower Co. or American Tower Corp. who buy, erect and maintain most of the communications towers in the USA.
Sprint isin't going anywhere, it may merge with SK Telecom in the future but it still generates huge amounts of income and has 50 million customers.
As for Wimax, one single tower and antenna can cover hundreds of square miles so a lot of towers isin't necessary for coverage.
Don't diss these guys, a new CEO and management and the customer service is getting better, they never had a problem with coverage. Now ATT on the other hand.....
Re: Sprint towers
said by Jim_in_VA:I agree Jim. We have great coverage with our Non-Sprint owned towers.
keep in mind what they OWN vs. what they are co-located on are two different things. Example: Sprint is on 5 towers in my little county... but SBA owns them all. I have great coverage.
This is just another attempt to trash Sprint and start some unfounded hysteria. It doesn't matter who owns the tower.
| |kapilThe Kapil
The Truth Most wireless carriers already lease, not own, the towers the hang their equipment on.
The difference is that Sprint was the first company to build out a nationwide PCS network and back then it decided to build its own tower network because leasing wasn't always an option where it needed towers.
There is actually a Sprint subsidiary that leases out space on Sprint towers to other interested parties.
So, this is more about shedding a business that is not a core competency so that it can better focus on its core business than it is about getting rid of assets to raise cash...although cash from the sale is a welcome benefit.
Sprint has always been very good as an engineering company...always first to market with new technology and always very good at making that new technology work. PCS, 1x, EVDO, REV A, ION, Sprint Wireless Broadband, and now WiMax...Sprint is on the cutting edge and should really get a lot more credit for getting things right than it does.
Sprint's downfall has been poor management on the business end. A management team that ran the company by looking at spreadsheets, putting customer service last, a poorly executed merger with Nextel, allowing credit challenged customers to become a sizable chunk of its customer base...the list goes on.
But that doesn't change the fact that Sprint's core network is one of the best, if not the best.
The new CEO and management are making a lot of right moves. Simplifying rate plans so they generate fewer calls to customer service, placing emphasis on customer service, expanding service options and handsets that customers actually want.
negative customer perception is a tough boat to turn around...any fool could tell you that.
I sincerely hope that Dan Hesse and company can do it for Sprint before it's too late. A marketplace without Sprint is certainly going to be bad for consumers...with only ATT, VZ and TMO left as major nationwide carriers.