iDen only needs to stop

[Airb330]

Sprint's iDen side just got another tower in DE. This is ridiculous. They already have more sites than Sprint here. Down south, Sprint has added CDMA to 9 Nextel towers. That's wonderful for CDMA there. However, almost all new towers in my area have been iDen only. These are areas where Sprint could use a boost too. In fact, only iDen has increased in service in northern DE. It's just getting annoying, why can't they simply make them synergy sites? In the past 2 years, 4 new iDen only towers have been added from Dover to the C&D canal. No other carriers, just Sprint iDen.It doesn't show up online, but I know it's Nextel. No other carriers signal has improved there, and it has a 4 panel per sector arrangement like all Nextel sites except synergy.

[RJB]

Man that sucks tell them lol

[Andy]

See, I don't understand that either. IF Sprint goes through the trouble to add a new cell site for one side of the network and the other side is weak too, why not just make it a synergy site right up? That would just make sense. I mean making the site synergy from the beginning is not that much more costly when you compare it to the overall cost of building a cell tower, etc. I just don't get Sprint sometimes.

[larry]

Come on people just because it's IDEN only right now doesn't mean it will always be. I've seen a number of sites here in So. Cal that were put up and at first were IDEN only. But then got CDMA at a later time. Remember that it still costs more money to do a synergy site than an IDEN only. So if there's not a lot of customers on the CDMA side in that area they may decide not to do it. Plus all sites they want to do have to get approval from corporate in Virgina so the local people can't just put them up as they please.

[TelcomJunkie]

Just about every site you see getting built was designed pre merger. The whole synergy project took an analysis of EXISTING iDEN locations. So if the site wasn't physically built then it typically wasn't added as a synergy candidate. Give it some time and I'm sure you'll see CDMA show up.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by larry

Come on people just because it's IDEN only right now doesn't mean it will always be. I've seen a number of sites here in So. Cal that were put up and at first were IDEN only. But then got CDMA at a later time. Remember that it still costs more money to do a synergy site than an IDEN only. So if there's not a lot of customers on the CDMA side in that area they may decide not to do it. Plus all sites they want to do have to get approval from corporate in Virgina so the local people can't just put them up as they please.

Calm down, larry. All we are saying is that it would make more sense to just make new sites synergy right now, then to have to go back later, add equipment, exchange panels, etc. when everything could have just been done at once. IF Sprint knows that the area is weak on both sides and that, eventually CDMA will be added anyways, it would just make sense to add it right away. Approval wise, I don't see a problem approving a CDMA/iDEN site since the only difference really is a different panel per sector and a little more equipment which can easily be housed in the equipment shelter.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by TelcomJunkie

Just about every site you see getting built was designed pre merger. The whole synergy project took an analysis of EXISTING iDEN locations. So if the site wasn't physically built then it typically wasn't added as a synergy candidate. Give it some time and I'm sure you'll see CDMA show up.

Now that explanation makes perfect sense. Thank You for clarifying!

[larry]

It also depends on demand. If there's a whole bunch of IDEN subscribers in an area and very little CDMA it will most likely take longer before Sprint decides to add CDMA. These decisions are based on money as well. Eventually you'd have to think that every IDEN site where no CDMA site exists and is needed will have to get CDMA for when they finally do away with IDEN.

[chuikov]

Originally Posted by TelcomJunkie

Just about every site you see getting built was designed pre merger. The whole synergy project took an analysis of EXISTING iDEN locations. So if the site wasn't physically built then it typically wasn't added as a synergy candidate. Give it some time and I'm sure you'll see CDMA show up.

I agree completely, just getting them built as iDEN sites as quickly as possible will work out for the best anyway. Trying to add CDMA to the plans midstream would have caused some serious delays to leasing, zoning and ultimately on-air dates for the iDEN sites. It's best to go ahead with the iDEN plans and build the sites, then go back and amend leases and make separate zoning applications for the CDMA equipment once the sites are up - if they are in a location favorable to the CDMA network.

Nextel started using larger shelters shortly after the merger to make synergy easier, but trying to throw CDMA into the mix in the middle of the process would have caused development delays to the sites.

[larry]

Originally Posted by chuikov

It's best to go ahead with the iDEN plans and build the sites, then go back and amend leases and make separate zoning applications for the CDMA equipment once the sites are up - if they are in a location favorable to the CDMA network.

Nextel started using larger shelters shortly after the merger to make synergy easier, but trying to throw CDMA into the mix in the middle of the process would have caused development delays to the sites.

Actually it isn't even that complicated. Nextel has always used the larger shelters even long before the Sprint merger. That's part of the reason Sprint wanted to do this merger because they knew they could quickly and easily expand coverage on the CDMA side with Nextel's larger shelters. As far as I know they just go right in and add the CDMA equipment. No extra leases or zoning applications required because they aren't adding anything new in the way of a structure. Sure there might be exceptions to this but for the most part it's a lot easier than what you're saying they have to do. I've watched many of these synergy sites go up and not once did I ever see any zoning applications go before the city commissions. None of their exisiting shelters had to be made larger and I'm willing to bet that most landlords were not even informed of the changes because there's probably a clause in most leases that allows equipment technology changeouts at will. Now if they were adding a new set of panels there would have to be new zoning permits and lease deals. But they use the same array as the IDEN panels

[chuikov]

Actually it isn't even that complicated. Nextel has always used the larger shelters even long before the Sprint merger.

Nextel switched from typically using 10'x20' shelters to using 12'x20 as a standard since the merger. The extra 40 sq ft comes in handy when adding equipment, and some of the older sites do not have room both CDMA and WiMax.

...I'm willing to bet that most landlords were not even informed of the changes because there's probably a clause in most leases that allows equipment technology changeouts at will.

You would lose the bet. Landlords are notified. For rooftop sites, changes are often permitted by the lease, but the owners are at a minimum notified. Sometimes it requires a consent letter to be signed - which can be a time-consuming hassle. Other buildings require an amendment.

As far as I know they just go right in and add the CDMA equipment. No extra leases or zoning applications required because they aren't adding anything new in the way of a structure.

In cases where iDEN antennas are being replaced by CDMA antennas, an additional coaxial cable is added to each sector because the CDMA antennas are dual pole whereas the iDEN antennas are single pole. This triggers a lease amendment and a structural analysis on almost all tower sites. This means serious delays - especially with the big tower companies. (by "serious" I mean several months to a year - it's ridiculous)

I've watched many of these synergy sites go up and not once did I ever see any zoning applications go before the city commissions.

This is likely true, but contentious meetings and NIMBYs aren't the problem in this case. Changing a Nextel application in midstream to accomodate CDMA would cause a delay. Like I said before, in a case where everything is already in process, it's best to go ahead with the plans and add changes under a different application, or else everything risks being delayed because some vogon at city hall starts nitpicking this or that or simply puts the application at the end of the line because it has been changed.

[larry]

I think it all depends on the situation, city, landlord, lease, etc and there's no way to really generalize anything when it comes to this. It's good that they are building the new shelters larger but here in So. Cal I have yet to see one in my area that didn't have room for CDMA as it was. I'm sure sometimes they can just do it without anyone knowing or caring and other times they might have to sign a new lease. I have heard of a few cases where there wasn't enough room such as one apartment building site in Santa Monica, CA. They apparently had to can that one due to lack of room even though they had planned for a CDMA addition. I carefully monitor all of the local planning/zoning meetings and have yet to see even a single case where Sprint had to obtain a CUP to do a synergy.

[chuikov]

The ones that have already been built are the easy ones that don't require things like amendments and/or zoning relief - usually rooftops/tanks with liberal leases or on Nextel-owned towers.

Others will take more time and money, which is why they aren't built yet.

[larry]

Right. I figured that because I know of some that look more complicated than others to do such as flagpoles or installations on power company lattice towers. The ones that are on freestanding monopoles and building rooftops have mostly been completed already here in the LA market.