600 MHz auction results posted and transition schedule

[Arysyn]

If anything I'd argue that Sprint and T-Mobile should hold onto midband like crazy if they do merge.

 

Personally, I am of the view that with 5G spectrum coming up to bat, that Sprint and T-Mobile should be forced to divest nothing at all. What will really happen, likely is that additional spectrum over 225 MHz would get divested. If Sprint comes in with the potential to deploy 20x20 in PCS and AWS in large cities, then that's already going to push the theoretical max of spectrum to 800 Mbps without even throwing in B41 given deployment of 256 QAM and 4x4 MIMO. And even on 2x2 and 64 QAM existing handsets, the speed level would be up to 300 Mbps. Considering that handsets should very soon be able to do TD-FDD carrier aggregation, the potential exists that the merged carrier could be the fastest not just in America but also the world.

Of course now it is way too late for Sprint to make such a draatic shift in spectrum, which I had suggested the idea here if the circumstances were different in Sprint's thinking back when this auction was beginning in discussions, in which Sprint could have made deals with the other carriers who would have loved to get Sprint's PCS, even on the condition of sitting out on the spectrum auction or agreeing to trade.

 

Either way, it is unique to think about since Sprint has an amazing amount of high-band spectrum that is considered by Sprintbto be the beachfront variety of high-band spectrum in the 5g category. I agree with Sprint about this, and if Sprint went big on the 600mhz spectrum in the same or similar way they did with the 2.5ghz spectrum, they could have had a total of 240mhz of spectrum, based on what I read regarding the initial target for the 600mhz auction being 120mhz of it.

 

I would agree on the issue of this creating problems for Sprint to sell the PCS spectrum prior to establishing a more dense network. Sprint would need to get band 41 on more than half their network, probably at least 90% of it, in order to cover the major shortfalls in the distance-related issues band 41 has. It would need to have been done in a timely manner accordingly with the launch of the 600mhz network. However, once everything applied, wow!, what an amazing network it would be, and Sprint would be able to market a luxury network experience at a moderate price that would absolutely shame Verizon.

[red_dog007]

I think it was what was truly excited from this auction.

 

Broadcasters trying to take advantage of the AWS3 fiasco. To make any money 84MHz was the clearing spot.

 

Win win win win I think. Everyone gets their money and we get airwaves repurposed for a more worthy cause.

 

Compared to 700MHz though, it's not AS successful I'm sure. Though close I think.

[Fraydog]

I don't think the government was doing this solely for profit, mind you. If that was the aim of the prior Democratic administration, they'd just have no reserve, and Verizon and AT&T would be bidding away. In that situation, they'd be bidding things way up from where they are at now and they'd be LOCKING T-MOBILE OUT. 

[sgteq]

Spectrum availability maps. Thanks to Trip for improving accuracy and answering questions!

[JimBob]

U.S. Cellular submitted bids for $327M worth of spectrum in FCC’s 600 MHz incentive auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/u-s-cellular-submitted-bids-for-327m-worth-spectrum-fcc-s-600-mhz-incentive-auction

[Arysyn]

I don't think the government was doing this solely for profit, mind you. If that was the aim of the prior Democratic administration, they'd just have no reserve, and Verizon and AT&T would be bidding away. In that situation, they'd be bidding things way up from where they are at now and they'd be LOCKING T-MOBILE OUT. 

 

One of the best things for wireless carriers, is to have an FCC that not only is merger-friendly,but also willing to offer a lot of spectrum at reasonable purchasing rates.

[JustinRP37]

One of the best things for wireless carriers, is to have an FCC that not only is merger-friendly,but also willing to offer a lot of spectrum at reasonable purchasing rates.

 

Except the second thing you mention (merger-friendly) is typically NOT consumer friendly. Just keep that in mind. However, I do think the market is speaking and it cannot fully support 4 national carriers. Almost a full decade of losses with just a few quarters of positive revenue for one of the companies.

[Arysyn]

Except the second thing you mention (merger-friendly) is typically NOT consumer friendly. Just keep that in mind. However, I do think the market is speaking and it cannot fully support 4 national carriers. Almost a full decade of losses with just a few quarters of positive revenue for one of the companies.

 

Very true. Typically businesses do things that hurt customers after a merger, which the government doesn't do much about. There needs to be some restrictions regarding this happening to customers, which ought to be equally enforced, not just let certain agreements upon merger conditions silently expire without notice. Mergers could be a very good thing if this were to happen correctly. Unfortunately though, things do happen that are not good for consumers, and that is something which needs resolution.

 

A major reason I see the need for more consolidation in the wireless industry, is not based on the "wireless fantasy" some people ignorantly accuse me of here, but rather on my legit viewpoint that spectrum is being sold at too high of cost. Others may see the cost of spectrum reasonable based on its value, which is fine for them to believe, just as my viewpoint is too. I see the value as being high too,but that doesn't mean the price is fair just being based on that. There are certain political views involved, and while I won't go into that, I think its fair to at least admit the government is playing the part of a merchant when they sell spectrum at auction.

 

Again, not to go into politics, but it simply is my view the government be in the role to help all people, individuals and those alike, not for a profit. Even money being sought by selling public airwaves for the benefit of the public, skirts on those debatable issues people do have, respectfully not on S4GRU. Just saying that they exist. However, what I can say is that my viewpoint for a resolution to this system, is to change away from auctioning spectrum to the highest bidder, to a fair trade based on leasing the spectrum equally among the wireless carriers.

 

I'd like to see a wireless carrier market of two or three strong national wireless carriers (I'm fine with three if U.S.Cellular decides to sell, which I think they ought to sell to either Sprint or Verizon), having each of the national carriers with equally strong spectrum portfolios where consumers who chose a certain carrier, would not need to investigate how much spectrum a carrier has in each market they are in most, especially if they travel often to places where while their carrier in one area has plenty of spectrum, does not have much spectrum in another, which they notice has an impact on their service. That impact, in my view, has a lot to do with the government, as it does with the carrier, based on the auction system which is not part of typical business competition.

 

What is typical business competition is a carrier's choice of adequately supplying sites to their customers, what technology they use on those sites, how they maintain those sites beyond what deals they have with tower companies, how many/where they are located approximately to key target areas and other useful positioning of these sites. Competition also is in pricing. These are aspects which customers should choose the best carrier for them that would at least give them equal levels of service between markets, so long as the carrier does what it needs to do to stay competitive, which they themselves have control over, not influenced by the government.

[JustinRP37]

 

 

I'd like to see a wireless carrier market of two or three strong national wireless carriers (I'm fine with three if U.S.Cellular decides to sell, which I think they ought to sell to either Sprint or Verizon), having each of the national carriers with equally strong spectrum portfolios where consumers who chose a certain carrier, would not need to investigate how much spectrum a carrier has in each market they are in most, especially if they travel often to places where while their carrier in one area has plenty of spectrum, does not have much spectrum in another, which they notice has an impact on their service. That impact, in my view, has a lot to do with the government, as it does with the carrier, based on the auction system which is not part of typical business competition.

 

What is typical business competition is a carrier's choice of adequately supplying sites to their customers, what technology they use on those sites, how they maintain those sites beyond what deals they have with tower companies, how many/where they are located approximately to key target areas and other useful positioning of these sites. Competition also is in pricing. These are aspects which customers should choose the best carrier for them that would at least give them equal levels of service between markets, so long as the carrier does what it needs to do to stay competitive, which they themselves have control over, not influenced by the government.

 

Actually the auction system is part of typical business competition, it is just not usually run by the government. Companies are always participating in an "auction" of some type. It is usually called supply-chain management. Companies evaluate and bid against other competitors for access to supplies all the time. As for your view on spectrum being too high priced, 'spectrum' is what these companies are using to generate their revenue. Since the top three carriers have been making great profits (and some have been making great profits) that would tell the government that maybe the spectrum was undervalued. 

 

When you say you want the carriers to all be equal with regards to spectrum, that removes most forms of competition. One of the biggest expenses to the companies is the spectrum. Remove that and they can build the network and or just co-locate all sites with the existing competition. There would be a stagnation in innovation. As an example of this just look at the set-top box market for cable TV. I am sure 95% have those god awful Motorola silver boxes, yet all cable companies charge about the same price for them per month. Just what would be the point of picking company A over company B if they have the same spectrum, speeds, etc. What would come next, the government making sure each carrier had relatively equal customers to make sure that the spectrum per user remains equally divided?

 

Further, if you think the average consumer is looking at spectrum for their wireless provider, then you are giving them way too much credit. Here is how it works for most consumers: "Root Metrics shows this company is number one nationwide, I'll pick them." Or they say "wait, they are way over my budget, let me see oh this company offers unlimited at half the cost, I can afford that and coverage is okay for my needs".

[Arysyn]

Actually the auction system is part of typical business competition, it is just not usually run by the government. Companies are always participating in an "auction" of some type. It is usually called supply-chain management. Companies evaluate and bid against other competitors for access to supplies all the time. As for your view on spectrum being too high priced, 'spectrum' is what these companies are using to generate their revenue. Since the top three carriers have been making great profits (and some have been making great profits) that would tell the government that maybe the spectrum was undervalued. 

 

When you say you want the carriers to all be equal with regards to spectrum, that removes most forms of competition. One of the biggest expenses to the companies is the spectrum. Remove that and they can build the network and or just co-locate all sites with the existing competition. There would be a stagnation in innovation. As an example of this just look at the set-top box market for cable TV. I am sure 95% have those god awful Motorola silver boxes, yet all cable companies charge about the same price for them per month. Just what would be the point of picking company A over company B if they have the same spectrum, speeds, etc. What would come next, the government making sure each carrier had relatively equal customers to make sure that the spectrum per user remains equally divided?

 

Further, if you think the average consumer is looking at spectrum for their wireless provider, then you are giving them way too much credit. Here is how it works for most consumers: "Root Metrics shows this company is number one nationwide, I'll pick them." Or they say "wait, they are way over my budget, let me see oh this company offers unlimited at half the cost, I can afford that and coverage is okay for my needs".

 

There needs to be a different functioning in how things operate between the business and consumer sides for my ideas to work, I admit. There is a lot of focus on different things that are beneficial to one thing, but leads to problems on another, and then ultimately some things will end up being favored that way over others in this society. I definitely acknowledge that,and am hopeful it could change. Perhaps if business were more in charge over their own spectrum away from government, say if there were a collaboration of sorts among carriers to get as much spectrum out of government in these auctions then more fairly auction it among themselves, or more accurately, push for spectrum swapping, this could help for a better distribution of spectrum. What I know is that it doesn't help for consumers to have to choose their carriers so carefully like this, where there level of service can vary so greatly over something not firmly in control of the carriers. Again though, that is really dependent on how people see the rate of spectrum and its value proposition to price ratio, and the whole thing over the entirety of it.

 

There are people who believe AT&T and Verizon have so much power and influence over the FCC. I only agree to that when it comes to them being U.S. based, that the FCC likes about them, but I do not believe there is some sort of overall favoritism involved. After all, Sprint is the most spectrum of all carriers by far, only AT&T starting to come close in certain areas where it has AWS-3 and WCS spectrum. Verizon is quite a bit behind that, and then T-Mobile at the end, which of course has resulted in John Legere calling out for auction protections for "smaller" carriers in the 600mhz auction, because he didn't want AT&T and Verizon to have much power over the others, especially since they have the majority of low-band spectrum already. So, that tellsmethere is one CEO wanting to change the auction system to be more fair.

 

I'm certainly in favor of that, and going further too, because of what I believe. I know it often clashes with the way things are, and if ever at least some of the ideas I present were to be considered, there would need to be close watch over the areas carriers could feel like they could take advantage. Such as in the concerns you presented, which are indeed valid observations. Its going to take a societal shift into trying to do more that benefits people in large, rather than the few, etc. I'll leave it at that not going into politics, but I have a suggestion for those interested in getting a better idea into my thinking. There is a large global activism project called the Zeitgeist Movement I've discovered to having much similarity to in what I believe ought to happen, particularly in terms of techncal innovation and society pursuing that ahead of profits through changes in the economic system.

[ericdabbs]

Looks like Tmobile is not wasting any time trying to get the 3GPP to approve a LTE band class for the 600 MHz spectrum.  The proposed B71 is in the works with the following Sponsoring members: T-Mobile USA, Ericsson, Intel, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, US Cellular, Skyworks Solutions, Deutsche Telekom, C-Spire, LG with the plan to support 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz bandwidths.

 

Surprise surprise that AT&T and Verizon are not present.  Lets hope the spec can be finalized by September 2017 and OEM equipment to be out by early 2018. 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/5xtszc/tmobile_initiates_work_on_the_specifications_for/

 

 

600 MHz Work Item Description

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjZWxsdWxhcmJpbmRlcnxneDo3MmNhNDJhNDQ0ZGNkOGM4

[Arysyn]

Looks like Tmobile is not wasting any time trying to get the 3GPP to approve a LTE band class for the 600 MHz spectrum.  The proposed B71 is in the works with the following Sponsoring members: T-Mobile USA, Ericsson, Intel, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, US Cellular, Skyworks Solutions, Deutsche Telekom, C-Spire, LG with the plan to support 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz bandwidths.

 

Surprise surprise that AT&T and Verizon are not present.  Lets hope the spec can be finalized by September 2017 and OEM equipment to be out by early 2018. 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/5xtszc/tmobile_initiates_work_on_the_specifications_for/

 

 

600 MHz Work Item Description

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjZWxsdWxhcmJpbmRlcnxneDo3MmNhNDJhNDQ0ZGNkOGM4

 

Has the auction for carriers purchasing this spectrum happened yet? If so, I'm curious what the results are. Hopefully T-Mobile has, or will go for at least 10x10, although it seems likely to be 5x5 from what I've read in the past.

[ericdabbs]

Has the auction for carriers purchasing this spectrum happened yet? If so, I'm curious what the results are. Hopefully T-Mobile has, or will go for at least 10x10, although it seems likely to be 5x5 from what I've read in the past.

 

The spectrum block assignment phase are set to start today, March 6th and will last through the end of March.  So hopefully by early April, we will know what spectrum blocks Tmobile received.  I am hoping they are trying to get the E, F, G blocks (according to the diagram link below) so that it can be next to the 700 A block.

 

600 MHz band plan

http://imgur.com/1xHDfPb

[WiWavelength]

I am hoping they are trying to get the E, F, G blocks (according to the diagram link below) so that it can be next to the 700 A block.

 

Why?  What would be the advantage of that?

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Why?  What would be the advantage of that?

 

AJ

 

Interference !

[ericdabbs]

Nokia wasting no time testing 600 MHz LTE equipment.  Good news in taking the first steps for carriers to be able to deploy 600 MHz LTE.

 

http://www.telecompetitor.com/nokia-claims-600-mhz-lte-equipment-first/

[IamMrFamous07]

Nokia wasting no time testing 600 MHz LTE equipment. Good news in taking the first steps for carriers to be able to deploy 600 MHz LTE.

 

http://www.telecompetitor.com/nokia-claims-600-mhz-lte-equipment-first/

Dying to see who got what. Hope the big red got a nice chunk

[derrph]

Dying to see who got what. Hope the big red got a nice chunk

Same since I'm with them now. I it would be awesome if Sprint did get some 600 but under a different name. That may get me to come back.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IamMrFamous07]

Same since I'm with them now. I it would be awesome if Sprint did get some 600 but under a different name. That may get me to come back.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here bro. We'll see how all of this will play out. Curious to see who Sprint will try to merge witj

[kg4icg]

Read this before you get your hopes up to much about 600 mhz, have a ways to go before you see anything.

 

repackready.com/page/3

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

[kg4icg]

Basically you have 7 blocks, 5x5mhz lte-fdd a-g, 14mhz of gaurd bands, and bid winners announced next month, TV stations have up to 39 months to move.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

[ericdabbs]

Basically you have 7 blocks, 5x5mhz lte-fdd a-g, 14mhz of gaurd bands, and bid winners announced next month, TV stations have up to 39 months to move.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

Same ole crap that has been spewed over and over. People have said that it would take years and years before 700A could be used and that it had to wait until the 600 mhz auction to finish before it can even be used.

 

None of that came true. Broadcasters want to get paid and they wont get paid until they relocate

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[kg4icg]

Your not getting it, the FCC hasn't made the bids final yet at all until the end of April, direct from there schedule. It isn't something that is going to happen overnight just because the auction ended. Be 2020 before you actually get to use 600 mhz devices at all.

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

[kg4icg]

Only 84mhz of spectrum was auctioned off, broadcasters have 39 months starting May 1st to start transition or loss of license. 70 mhz of spectrum in 5 mhz blocks are assigned a-g at 5x5mhz up /down. It is fdd, no one involved yet knows what blocks they have, 14 mhz will be used as gaurd bands and special innovations. Basically you looking at the same setup as 700 mhz

 

Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk

[ericdabbs]

600 MHz auction results are up.  Looks like Tmobile got 15x15 block in Los Angeles/OC with the C, D, E blocks.

 

Spectrum Gateway summarized the results with this map.

http://maps.spectrumgateway.com/t-mobile-600-mhz.html

 

FCC website if you want to look up which specific blocks your market received.  Turn on Search and search by Market Name.

https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/1000/reports/assignment-results_by_license