Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fcc'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Blogs

  • The Wall

Categories

  • Announcements
  • Articles
  • Pages
  • Miscellaneous
  • Offsite Reading
  • Site Guidelines & Rules

Categories

  • New Features
  • Other

Categories

  • S4GRU Files
  • KMZ

Calendars

  • S4GRU Calendar

Forums

  • Read Me First, and other Important Items
    • Important Threads
  • The Network Forum
    • Network, Network Vision/LTE Deployment
    • WiMax
    • International Networks
  • The Device Forum
    • Smartphones
    • OS'es/ROM's & Themes
    • Tablets
    • Hotspots/USB Modems
  • The News Forum
  • The Everything Else Forum
    • Welcome
    • Suggestion Box
    • General Topics

Found 11 results

  1. Found an article on FierceWireless speculating that Sprint may not jump into the AWS auction...Thoughts? http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analyst-sprint-might-pass-fccs-spectrum-auctions/2014-04-04?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
  2. With the FCC and Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have agreed to this new unlocking policy. How does this effect sprint phones such as the IPhone. I have heard that Sprint can unlock your phone but you can not take it to other carriers such as Verizon and the IPhone can only be used overseas. (Correct me if I am wrong). I am glad that this has finally happened. But when it comes to Sprint how would this work?
  3. From GigaOM: Interesting excerpt from the AT&T public policy blog post: Details are thin on what that "software feature" is, or how it works to remove Ch. 51- 700 MHz B-block interference that the smaller carriers deny is even present. Also, if it's true that AT&T has been investing "considerable time" in modifying it's 700 MHz LTE equipment, you'd think they'd have tipped off Google (Nexus 5) or Apple (iPhone 5C/S) about that. Still, this seems like a step in the right direction toward LTE roaming, or at least a step away from further industry consolidation. Telecompetitor also has some nice maps that give an overview of where the major players own A and B block spectrum, and make the good point that after the upcoming 600 MHz incentive auctions, DTV Channel 51 will be the first to be cleared, rendering the A block interference controversy moot, and Band 17 entirely redundant. Perhaps that is why AT&T is making this move now.
  4. AT&T's Jim Cicconi has good things to say: Should we be afraid, very afraid? AJ
  5. Looks like it's pick on Sprint day. http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3928968/us-justice-department-asks-fcc-to-defer-sprint-softbank-merger
  6. So as most of you know, the FCC recently approved the deal to allow Clearwire, and sprint merge together to enhance sprint`s wireless experience. The merger between these two companies means that sprint will be able to take advantage of clearwire`s large swath of 2.5 Ghz spectrum, and eventually use it to enhance their LTE network. Also with this deal, sprint will become more competitive with bigger wireless companies such as Verizon wireless, or AT&T. Verizon is one of the carriers that has 10 x 10 Ghz blocks of spectrum deployed on most sites, meaning more spectrum available on these towers. With all this being said, Clearwire will now have the appropriate amount of funds to continue thier deployment of TD-LTE on the 2.5 Ghz spectrum, and eventually, sprint plans to use Clearwire`s LTE network to offload excessive data traffic off of Sprint`s LTE network, meaning excessive users on one LTE tower will be transfered over to Clearwires LTE network, where available, making towers less loaded down with data access. But in order for the offloading to work on phones, sprint will have to talk with phone manufacturers to create a dual-LTE phone with two seperate LTE radios (one for sprint`s LTE network, and one for clearwire`s LTE network.). But all this being said, one problem lies ahead of this possible LTE offloading plan. Sprint also stated that they are shutting down their iDEN network running on the 800Mhz SMR spectrum, and they will recycle it to be used with deploying LTE over the 800Mhz SMR spectrum instead, which will mean better geographical reach to more customers. But for that to happen, phone manufacturers will have to create an LTE radio that supports both spectrums of sprint`s LTE network, as well as a seperate LTE radio that will be used with Clearwire`s planned LTE deployment on the 2.5 Ghz spectrum. so The main question here is: Will the merger between sprint and clearwire be hurtful or helpful to sprint?
  7. Migrated from Original Forum. Originally Posted 01 August 2011 - 10:47 AM Protection Site Black List! These cities will not likely be getting protection sites. The reason is, in these cities Clearwire is already broadcasting on 2.5GHz. So they are meeting FCC licensing requirements for minimum coverages already in this spectrum. The problem for Sprint users, is that they are broadcasting their legacy Pre-WiMax signals here. Not WiMax. So your Sprint devices don't detect it! Aberdeen/Hoquiam WA Anchorage AK Anderson CA Bend OR Carson City NV Central Point OR Chico CA Chippewa Falls WI Clarkston WA Cohasset Beach/Wesport WA Corning CA Dayton OH Duluth MN Eagle River AK Eau Claire WI Fernley NV Grants Pass OR Hermantown MN Klamath Falls OR Incline Village NV Jacksonville OR Lewiston ID Longview TX Madras OR Medford OR Middletown OH Minden/Gardnerville NV Moscow ID Myrtle Creek OR Orland CA Paradise CA Prineville OR Proctor MN Pullman WA Red Bluff CA Redding CA Redmond OR Reno/Sparks NV Roseburg OR St. Cloud MN Shasta Lake CA Sisters OR South Lake Tahoe CA Springfield OH Stateline/Kingsbury NV Superior WI Wenatchee WA When Clear first started deploying their WiMax networks, they started with their Pre-WiMax markets first. Many, like Boise, Idaho and Jacksonville, Florida had their towers coverted from pre-WiMax to WiMax. However, about halfway through these conversions, Sprint started releasing WiMax devices and pressuring Clear to switch to major metro areas (which of course makes a lot of sense). And then, as we all know, about halfway through the major market rollout, Clear started running into financial problems. Since they were running out of time to meet FCC Minimum Coverage Standards, they have largely abandoned Major Market Rollouts and running around and setting up Protection Sites. However, the cities listed above are likely not to ever get protection sites. The Old Clearwire Pre-Wimax signals are still being broadcast in these cities, and they have pretty substantial coverage areas. So Clearwire is just going to jump right over them. And since Sprint (and likely Clear too) are migrating toward LTE, it is likely these cities WILL NEVER see WiMax signals. Sad! Cities the size of Dayton, Anchorage and Reno are secondary markets. This is a major oversight by Clear and Sprint. Tsk, tsk! Not to mention the major oversights of the primary markets of San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit, Memphis, Indianapolis, Birmingham...
  8. 900Mhz Spectrum

    I was browsing Cellular Spectrum over at Wikipedia (great source, i know ) and I noticed that ITU recommended using the 900Mhz spectrum for wireless services in 2003. Band FQ Band UL DL Channel # UL Channel# DL VIII 900 880 - 915 925 - 960 2712–2863 2937 - 3088 What is the 900Mhz band used for in the US? Is this something that the FCC could auction off to wireless providers? It would be another lower frequency band that would offer great rural coverage or building penetration. However, it would require new devices and network build out. What say ye oh great minds of wireless spectrum?
  9. So Verizon wants all phones with locked bootloaders.....ya dont say. lol Source: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/02/29/letter-from-verizon-to-fcc-details-their-stance-on-bootloaders/#more-63166 also on Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/29/verizon-lets-loose-its-stance-on-locked-bootloaders-in-letter-to/
  10. NOTE: This thread is outdated. Protection Sites are no longer being deployed since Sprint and Clearwire have both announced they are migrating to LTE for it's 4G technology. The information below is no longer accurate and should not be used. It is being retained just for historical purposes... BTA's Not Meeting FCC Minimum Service Mandates (where more Protection Sites are anticipated...) by Sprint 4G Rollout Updates on Friday, August 19, 2011 at 9:39 pm I've created this thread as a way to track upcoming Protection Sites. I will keep this thread updated, removing BTA's (Basic Trading Areas) once they meet FCC Minimum Service Requirements, or change categories. See BTA listings below... High Likelihood of Protection Site These BTA's do not have any 2.5GHz service from Clearwire and thus do not meet FCC Minimum Service Requirements. These are highly likely to get at least one tower of service between now and the FCC Extended Deadline of November 1, 2011. Arkansas > Harrison (BTA #182) California > El Centro/Imperial (BTA #124) California > San Luis Obispo (BTA #405) Idaho > Idaho Falls/Rexburg/Salmon and Jackson WY (BTA #202) Idaho > Pocatello/American Falls/Soda Springs (BTA #353) Idaho > Twin Falls/Burley/Sun Valley (BTA #451) Iowa > Burlington/Ft. Madison/Keokuk (BTA #61) Iowa > Cedar Rapids (BTA #70) Iowa > Dubuque (BTA #118) Iowa > Fort Dodge/Storm Lake (BTA #150) Iowa > Iowa City (BTA #205) Iowa > Mason City (BTA #285) Iowa > Ottumwa/Oskaloosa (BTA #337) Iowa > Sioux City (BTA #421) Kentucky > Corbin/London (BTA #98) Kentucky > Pikeville (BTA #474) Kentucky > Somerset (BTA #423) Michigan > Alpena (BTA #11) Michigan > Battle Creek (BTA #33) Michigan > Escanaba/Manistique (BTA #132) Michigan > Mt. Pleasant (BTA #307) Michigan > Midland/Saginaw/Bay City (BTA #390) Michigan > Petoskey/Cheboygan (BTA #345) Michigan > Traverse City (BTA #446) Minnesota > Brainerd (BTA #54) Minnesota > Willmar/Montevideo (BTA #477) Missouri > Poplar Bluff (BTA #355) Missouri > West Plains (BTA #470) Montana > Bozeman/Belgrade (BTA #53) Montana > Butte (BTA #64) Montana > Missoula (BTA #300) Nebraska > Hastings (BTA #185) Nebraska > McCook (BTA #270) New Hampshire > Keene & Brattleboro VT (BTA #227) New Mexico > Clovis/Portales (BTA #87) New Mexico > Gallup and St. John's/Eagar, AZ (BTA #162) New Mexico > Hobbs/Lovington (BTA #191) New Mexico > Roswell/Ruidoso (BTA #386) New York > Glens Falls/Lake George (BTA #164) New York > Jamestown/Dunkirk and Warren PA (BTA #215) New York > Oneonta/Delhi (BTA #333) New York > Plattsburgh (BTA #352) North Dakota > Dickinson (BTA #113) North Dakota > Grand Forks/Devils Lake and Thief River Falls MN (BTA #166) North Dakota > Minot (BTA #299) North Dakota > Williston (BTA #476) Ohio > Chillicothe (BTA #80) Ohio > Lima (BTA #255) Ohio > Zanesville (BTA # 487) Pennsylvania > Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton (BTA #10) Pennsylvania > Johnstown/Somerset (BTA #218) Pennsylvania > Meadville (BTA #287) Pennsylvania > Stroudsburg (BTA #435) South Carolina > Anderson/Toccoa GA (BTA #16) South Carolina > Greenwood (BTA #178) South Dakota > Aberdeen/Mobridge (BTA #1) South Dakota > Watertown (BTA #464) Tennessee > Cookeville (BTA #96) Texas > Del Rio/Eagle Pass (BTA #121) Texas > San Angelo/Brady/Ozona (BTA #400) Utah > Logan/Preston ID (BTA #258) Utah > St. George/Cedar City (BTA #392) Vermont > Rutland/Bennington (BTA #388) Virginia > Charlottesville (BTA #75) Virginia > Staunton (BTA #430) Virgin Islands > All Areas (BTA #491) Washington > Longview/Kelso (BTA #261) West Virginia > Beckley/Lewisburg (BTA #35) West Virginia > Clarksburg/Elkins (BTA #82) West Virginia > Fairmont (BTA #137) West Virginia > Logan (BTA #259) West Virginia > Morgantown (BTA #306) West Virginia > Princeton/Bluefield, VA/WV (BTA #48) West Virginia > Weirton/Steubenville OH (BTA #430) West Virginia > Wheeling/St. Clairsville OH (BTA #471) Wisconsin > Wisconsin Rapids/Stevens Point (BTA #432) Moderate Likelihood of Additional Protection Site(s) These BTA's have some 2.5GHz service deployed, but definitely not enough to meet the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal. California > San Diego County (BTA #482) Puerto Rico > Mayaguez/Ponce (BTA #489) Slight Chance of Additional Protection Site(s) These BTA's have a decent amount of 2.5GHz service deployed, but appear slightly below meeting the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal. Alaska > Juneau (BTA #221) American Samoa > All Areas (BTA #492) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse. California > Fresno (BTA #157) California > Santa Barbara/Santa Maria (BTA #406) Guam > All Areas (BTA #490) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse. Hawaii > Kauai/Lihue (BTA #254) Northern Mariana Islands > All Areas (BTA #493) - I have this one as slight because they may allow this license to lapse. Oregon > Coos Bay/North Bend (BTA #97) Not Likely any Additional Protection Site(s) These BTA's appear to meet the FCC Minimum Service Requirement of 30% of BTA Population covered with useable signal. Alaska > Anchorage (BTA #14) Alaska > Fairbanks (BTA #136) California > Bakersfield (BTA #28) California > Chico/Paradise (BTA #79) California > Eureka/Crescent City (BTA #134) California > Los Angeles (BTA #262) California > Merced (BTA #291) California > Modesto (BTA #303) California > Redding/Red Bluff (BTA #371) California > Sacramento/Northern Sierras (BTA #389) California > San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland (BTA #404) California > Stockton (BTA #434) California > Visalia (BTA #458) California > Yuba City/Marysville (BTA #485) Hawaii > Hawaii/Hilo & Kailua (BTA #190) Hawaii > Maui/Molokai/Lanai (BTA #222) Hawaii > Oahu/Honolulu (BTA #192) Idaho > Boise (BTA #50) Idaho > Lewiston/Moscow and Clarkston WA (BTA #250) Nevada > Reno/Carson City/Elko and Mammoth Lakes CA (BTA #372) Oregon > Bend/Redmond/Prineville (BTA #38) Oregon > Eugene (BTA #133) Oregon > Klamath Falls/Alturas CA (BTA #231) Oregon > Medford/Grants Pass (BTA #288) Oregon > Portland (BTA #358) Oregon > Roseburg (BTA #385) Oregon > Salem/Corvallis (BTA #395) Puerto Rico > San Juan (BTA #488) Washington > Aberdeen/Hoquiam (BTA #2) Washington > Bellingham (BTA #36) Washington > Bremerton (BTA #55) Washington > Olympia (BTA #331) Washington > Port Angeles (BTA #356) Washington > Seattle/Tacoma (BTA #413) Washington > Spokane/Pullman and Coeur d' Alene ID (BTA #425) Washington > Walla Walla/Pendleton OR (BTA #460) Washington > Wenatchee (BTA #468) Washington > Yakima (BTA #482) The Sprint 4G/Clearwire FCC BTA Map as of August 19, 2011. A full resolution image of this map can be found at: http://4g.herronweb....TAmap081911.jpg
×