A Tale of Two Small Cell Providers – Part Two

Last year in April, we wrote about how Crown Castle and Mobilitie respectively approached the City of Orlando regarding small cells.    In that post, we described how each company approached the application process and why the City approved the Crown Castle small cells while it determined that the Mobilitie applications were incomplete.

We recently came across some data from Montgomery County, MD.   If you have followed wireless siting news, there have been a number of stories about Montgomery County and the opposition for small cells from NIMFYs.

Interestingly, the data shows a similar story happening in Montgomery County as that which happened in the City of Orlando.  Of the 171 small cell or DAS installations submitted by Crown Castle, 81 have been approved or recommended for approval.   90 are under review currently.   Of these 171 poles proposed by Crown, only 20 are new poles as opposed to installations on existing utility structures.   The average height of all Crown poles/antennas is 28 feet.   Another interesting statistic regarding the Crown DAS poles is that 26 of them have two carriers coming out of the ground.   Almost all include Verizon- but some include T-Mobile.

Mobilitie has taken a different tact and not surprisingly, NONE of the 141 small cells that Mobilitie has applied for have been recommended for approval as of the date of the file we reviewed which appears to be October of last year.   The average height of the Mobilitie poles- 66 feet.   The number of new poles vs attachments to existing poles is 117 to 24 respectively.

Lastly, Verizon has submitted 15 small cell applications of their own.

Below is a map we created in Google Maps showing the various DAS and small cell providers and the submitted infrastructure.   You can click on the individual points for further details on who is where and whether the sites have been approved.  (here is a link to the map itself in Google Maps)

 

Wave of NIMFY (Not In My Front Yard) Small Cell Ordinances and Litigation Coming

Small Cell Drawing
Construction drawing page showing a small cell submitted to a municipality for approval

Over the last year, we have seen a significant jump in the number of municipalities revising their land use ordinances in response to the increasing tide of proposals for new small cells to be installed within the right of way. Residents and communities typically dislike having wireless equipment located close to their homes, and many view the possibility of new poles with small cells being erected in their front yards to be even more objectionable. Public opposition is significant, and municipalities are lawyering up to determine what rights they have to oppose these new small cell poles. The industry has historically referred to this faction of tower opponents as “NIMBY”s – an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. Because these proposed small cells are to be installed in the right of way – in front yards – we will refer to this subgroup as “NIMFY”s – Not In My Front Yard. [Read more…]

Verizon Small Cell for Comparison

As an addendum to our earlier article about Crown Castle and Mobilitie small cell proposed installations in Orlando, we thought it would be helpful to include a drawing of a Verizon proposed small cell from Massachusetts.   In this case, Verizon is installing a Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) with two small cells to augment their coverage and capacity in the vicinity of an existing Verizon macrocell which is collocated on an existing SBA Communications tower. [Read more…]

Crown Castle (CCI) Small Cell Initiatives and Reporting

Crown Castle DAS Node
Picture of Crown Castle DAS Node from FCC Presentation by Crown

So as a clear indication that Wall Street is very focused on small cell initiatives by the public tower companies, Crown Castle
started reporting their small cell financials separately from their tower financials in the Q1 2016 quarterly earnings and call.   They must have been receiving a significant number of questions from the analysts because the earnings call presentation is carefully crafted to show a rosy picture even though Crown hasn’t been completely transparent on their small cell financials.

SOME VISIBILITY- BUT QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN

In general, we are excited to see them Crown add this reporting, as we have been suggesting to the various analysts that retain us that it is difficult to measure how successful their small cell efforts are without this breakdown. Unfortunately, Crown still isn’t distinguishing between small cells and DAS in the breakdown preferring to treat all DAS nodes and small cells as if they are the same and have similar financial attributes.  Interestingly, an analyst from Bank of America specifically asked this same question in the Q&A without getting a substantive answer.

What we do know from the earnings call is that Crown’s small cell business still amounts to approximately 12% of their consolidated site rental revenue similar to what it was in late 2015.  Crown indicates that new small cell builds amount to 75% of their small cell systems’ incremental revenue – while 25% is additional collocation on existing fiber routes/DAS networks. They suggest that they have 16,500 miles of fiber, but don’t disclose how many miles are actually used for small cell nodes or DAS.   CCI says they are focused on the top 25 markets which isn’t surprising given the location of Sunesys fiber in these same cities. This suggests a few obvious questions for CCI that were partially addressed in this call and should be expanded upon in future calls:

1.  How do they expect to grow once those 25 markets are complete?

2.  Now that the world is fully aware of the value of dark fiber and surplus capacity, is it reasonable to expect another fiber company acquisition?

3.  How many nodes are in top 25 markets or Central Business Districts (CBD) as opposed to non urban core areas? [Read more…]

Tale of Two Small Cell Proposals – Crown Castle vs. Mobilitie

The City of Orlando, Florida recently received two separate applications for two separate sets of DAS nodes and/or small cells. The applications were submitted by Crown Castle and Telemobilitie, both of whom purport to request planning approval for new poles and/or the replacement of existing poles. We believe that Telemobilitie is a “Doing Business As” name for Mobilitie – the applicant who submitted the plans to the City on behalf of Telemobilitie has a LinkedIn page indicating she works for Mobilitie, a company which is purported to be assisting Sprint with the development of 70,000 “mini-macro” small cell sites. [Read more…]

Sprint’s Network Overhaul- Radical Impact on AMT, CCI, and SBAC?

The website Re/code posted an unconfirmed article on Friday re: Sprint’s Next Generation Network which stated “sources familiar with the initiative said Sprint plans to cut its network costs by relocating its radio equipment from tower space it has leased from Crown Castle and American Tower to spots on government owned properties which costs much less.” [Read more…]

Our Complimentary Website: Cell Tower Info Has Been Revamped

Cell Tower Info was created in 2005 and has recently been updated with a new skin, new features and more information for clients and cell tower landlords.

If you’re interested in the cell tower leasing process – from acquisition to deployment and leasing, please take a look!
At Cell Tower Info, you can learn tips about: [Read more…]

FirstNet could be a clever turtle.

FirstNet or the First Responder Network Authority, is a multi-billion dollar effort to construct a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network, which is meant to provide a seamless, high-speed (LTE), coverage for emergency responders and 911 callers.  It is moving forward – perhaps at a turtle’s pace, but that might not be a bad thing, provided that it’s deployed in a clever and comprehensive way.  [Read more…]

Supreme Court to Determine Process Regarding Municipalities Approving Tower Builds

On May 5th, he U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case between T-Mobile and the city of Roswell, GA during its Fall term, which will determine the level of authority local governments’ zoning divisions will retain with regards to approving wireless carriers’ applications to build new towers – specifically regarding whether or not municipalities will be required to provide detailed documentation to wireless who seek permits on municipal property. [Read more…]