Jump to content

FCC Announces Two Spectrum-Sharing Agreements With Mexico


irev210
 Share

Recommended Posts

Public release by fcc:

http://transition.fc...OC-314532A1.txt

 

 

Washington D.C. – Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski participated in high-level discussions

with U.S. and Mexican telecommunications officials at the State Department where the United States

signed two Protocols with Mexico for sharing spectrum in the 800 MHz and 1.9 GHz bands along the

U.S.-Mexican border. The signing of these documents marks the beginning of the final phase for

rebanding in the 800 MHz band across the country. These actions will help support commercial

broadband services and public safety mission-critical voice communications along the U.S.-Mexico

border and throughout the United States.

 

“These agreements with Mexico will unleash investment and benefit consumers near the borders by

enabling the rollout of advanced wireless broadband service and advanced systems for critical public

safety and emergency response communications,” Chairman Julius Genachowski stated. “I appreciate

the commitment and dedication of agency staff and those at the State Department who made these

important agreements possible.”

 

The United States and Mexico also signed a high-level expression of support, or “Joint Statement,” for

continued coordination of spectrum along the border and cooperation on telecommunications policy issues as

well as an ambitious work plan, or “Directory of Bilateral Issues,” for 2012-2014.

Specifically, the new 800 MHz Protocol: (1) allots band segments between the United States and

Mexico, (2) specifies the technical parameters for operation on these band segments within 110

kilometers (68 miles) of the common border, and (3) creates a bi-national Task Force to support the

transition of incumbent operators along the border to the new allotment plan.

 

The Protocol for 800 MHz replaces a previous agreement and paves the way for completion of 800

MHz rebanding by U.S. public safety and commercial licensees operating along the U.S.-Mexico

border. The FCC ordered rebanding to alleviate interference to public safety licensees in the band

caused by commercial cellular licensees.

 

The new Protocol for the 1.9 GHz band allows Sprint Nextel Corporation to deploy CDMA service

along the border with Mexico. Sprint obtained access to the 1.9 GHz band in 2004 as compensation for

vacating its spectrum holding in the lower segment of the 800 MHz band in accordance with the

rebanding project.

 

 

cliff notes:

Allows for sprint to deploy "G" block along the border

800MHz is in "final" phase of rebanding

Edited by S4GRU
Put FCC Press Release in quotation bubble for readability.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending upon the specifics of the agreement, this new spectrum sharing protocol with Mexico could allow Sprint to deploy the full complement of 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in near border markets, specifically San Diego, where Sprint is currently limited at best to 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending upon the specifics of the agreement, this new spectrum sharing protocol with Mexico could allow Sprint to deploy the full complement of 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in near border markets, specifically San Diego, where Sprint is currently limited at best to 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE.

 

AJ

 

That's immediately where my mind went to. I would like to know more details about if Sprint would get to access more of its spectrum along the border. This release is short on that info. :(

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WiWavelength, is that in the G Block or in ESMR that they would otherwise be limited to 3x3?

 

Only ESMR. Sprint will be able to deploy a single CDMA1X 800 carrier everywhere, including the international border coordination zones. However, under current guidelines, Sprint may be able to deploy only a 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE carrier in the Mexican border zone and no LTE at all in certain areas (e.g. Seattle) of the Canadian border zone. The reason for this is that 800 MHz public safety rebanding is a US endeavor, not necessarily conducted in parallel by Canada and Mexico. In short, within a specified distance of the international boundary, Sprint cannot operate broadband LTE across the same frequencies that Canadian or Mexican carriers/agencies operate iDEN or other narrowband airlinks. Otherwise, Sprint LTE could interfere with those narrowband operations.

 

I have no idea what Mexico is doing (if anything at all) with its equivalent to the PCS G block. In the US, the PCS G used to be part of BAS (Broadcast Auxiliary Service), which provides microwave link style spectrum for TV broadcasters' remote pick ups. Sprint had to foot the bill for relocating BAS from ~2000 MHz up to ~2100 MHz as one of its conditions of being granted the PCS G block nationwide.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's immediately where my mind went to. I would like to know more details about if Sprint would get to access more of its spectrum along the border. This release is short on that info. :(

 

Robert

 

Press release points us here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/

 

Hopefully they will post the agreement soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only ESMR. Sprint will be able to deploy a single CDMA1X 800 carrier everywhere, including the international border coordination zones. However, under current guidelines, Sprint may be able to deploy only a 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE carrier in the Mexican border zone and no LTE at all in certain areas (e.g. Seattle) of the Canadian border zone. The reason for this is that 800 MHz public safety rebanding is a US endeavor, not necessarily conducted in parallel by Canada and Mexico. In short, within a specified distance of the international boundary, Sprint cannot operate broadband LTE across the same frequencies that Canadian or Mexican carriers/agencies operate iDEN or other narrowband airlinks. Otherwise, Sprint LTE could interfere with those narrowband operations.

 

I have no idea what Mexico is doing (if anything at all) with its equivalent to the PCS G block. In the US, the PCS G used to be part of BAS (Broadcast Auxiliary Service), which provides microwave link style spectrum for TV broadcasters' remote pick ups. Sprint had to foot the bill for relocating BAS from ~2000 MHz up to ~2100 MHz as one of its conditions of being granted the PCS G block nationwide.

 

AJ

 

Let me rephrase: can Sprint use a G-block 5x5 carrier nationwide, even near border areas (sounds like that's a question mark at this point)? If not, does this agreement change that? I'm aware of the ESMR issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase: can Sprint use a G-block 5x5 carrier nationwide, even near border areas (sounds like that's a question mark at this point)?

 

For Sprint, the 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE carrier possibility is relevant only to SMR 800 MHz (bands 18/26), not to PCS 1900 MHz (G block; band 25). Ask Robert to confirm, but I know of no Network Vision sites anywhere that are precluded from LTE 1900 in the G block.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Sprint, the 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE carrier possibility is relevant only to SMR 800 MHz (bands 18/26), not to PCS 1900 MHz (G block; band 25). Ask Robert to confirm, but I know of no Network Vision sites anywhere that are precluded from LTE 1900 in the G block.

 

AJ

 

I do not know of any. I would assume there is no such preclusion. And I think my assumption is solid. For instance, I have seen several Sprint documents and maps relating to limitations to LTE 800 deployment because of spectrum/border area limitations, etc. But I have not once seen any mitigation plans or maps relating to issues deploying LTE 1900 in border areas.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending upon the specifics of the agreement, this new spectrum sharing protocol with Mexico could allow Sprint to deploy the full complement of 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in near border markets, specifically San Diego, where Sprint is currently limited at best to 3 MHz x 3 MHz LTE.

 

AJ

 

I hope this is true. I would love to see 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in San Diego. Now all that needs to happen is for the FCC to sign the same sharing agreement with Canada so that those cities near the Canadian border can get in on this action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this is true. I would love to see 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE in San Diego. Now all that needs to happen is for the FCC to sign the same sharing agreement with Canada so that those cities near the Canadian border can get in on this action.

 

People live on the canadian border?

 

I kid, I kid...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People live on the canadian border?

 

I kid, I kid...

 

Yes I am worried about cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Seattle, etc that won't be able to get 800 MHz LTE. Seattle might just be limited to 3x3 MHz LTE but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public release by fcc:

http://transition.fc...OC-314532A1.txt

 

 

 

 

 

cliff notes:

Allows for sprint to deploy "G" block along the border

800MHz is in "final" phase of rebanding

 

great news for San Diego, I can look out from the hills and see Mexico where I am standing at the moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm at least a 3 or 4 hour drive from the border. :D

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I think this is where we need one of our 49th staters to chime in and tell us how they can see Russia from their house :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am worried about cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Seattle, etc that won't be able to get 800 MHz LTE. Seattle might just be limited to 3x3 MHz LTE but who knows.

 

Isn't Cleveland across lake Erie from Canada? And Seattle is a LONG way from the border. How far from the border do they have to worry about interference? Anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Cleveland across lake Erie from Canada?

 

Lake Erie is part of the issue -- no obstructions, signals can propagate a long way. Plus, the spectrum sharing zone extends from the international boundary, which is in the middle of the lake, not at the shore. So, Cleveland is really only ~20 miles from the border.

 

Interesting aside, US cellphone users along the south shore of Lake Erie have been known to pick up unintended international roaming charges from Rogers or Bell sites on the north shore.

 

And Seattle is a LONG way from the border.

 

Not as far as you think. You are forgetting Vancouver Island. And, again, the international boundary is in the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, not at the shore.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lake Erie is part of the issue -- no obstructions, signals can propagate a long way. Plus, the spectrum sharing zone extends from the international boundary, which is in the middle of the lake, not at the shore. So, Cleveland is really only ~20 miles from the border.

 

Interesting aside, US cellphone users along the south shore of Lake Erie have been known to pick up unintended international roaming charges from Rogers or Bell sites on the north shore.

 

 

 

Not as far as you think. You are forgetting Vancouver Island. And, again, the international boundary is in the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, not at the shore.

 

AJ

 

Hmm, well I guess I stand corrected. I thought with careful planning and downtilt, cities like Cleveland would be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By EmeraldReporter
      IBEZ will be solved SOONER, rather than later.
       
      Which is a good thing. I would have liked for SoftBank to join the fight, because EVERYONE knows that their roaming rates are going to be abysmal with Sprint customers traveling to Mexico.
       
      Is this a raw deal? Your thoughts?
       
      Via GigaOM:
      https://gigaom.com/2015/01/26/att-to-buy-nextel-mexico-continuing-continental-expansion/
    • By BlackBerryRulez
      The closest Sprint tower to my house is about 3.5 miles away. In between are hills, trees, a handful of houses, and fields. However, I do have line of sight. I can see the blinking light of the tower in the distance at night. I do not think Sprint has deployed any LTE at this tower. When they do, is it possible that the LTE signal would reach my house?
       
      Right now I have a Moto X, but I may go back to the Q10. I do pick up eHRPD at my house. What frequency is that on? I'm thinking Sprint's 800ish mhz LTE band might. Not sure about 1900 though..
       
      Thanks
    • By EmeraldReporter
      Will 1900 be reframed for LTE only? Or is 1x Advanced not worth it at such a high frequency?
    • By EmeraldReporter
      Supporting article: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/06/4461371/international-expansion-for-sprint.html
       
      If SoftBank/Sprint were to expand into Canada and Mexico, and offer Unlimited Roaming Data, with a an industry first Transnational voice+text+data Plan, wouldn't that be the most amazing thing ever?
       
      What would those specifics be? Isn't there still a CDMA1x network still in operation in Canada? Couldn't Sprint buy out that network?
       
      Rundown of Canadian Wireless Industry = Not Good - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6803/125/
       
      And in Mexico, a CDMA1x/EV-DO carrier is still active, with an iDEN network as well...
       
      The 2.5Ghz frequency is has been open for business in Mexico for quite some time... Will Sprint buy that too? It it available for telecom use in Canada?
       
      My post is not well thought out. I don't want to take the time to research compatible frequencies.
       
      So help me out. I have the idea, now as a community, help build out this transnational vision!
    • By matt2k12
      Hello all,

      Well I waited and waited for LTE to hit my area whence I could cut the cable cord. Well the rollout came and .... not so much. So I am looking at a signal booster / repeater. I came across some good info, mostly here on s4gru but I was wondering since those threads are outdated by the rollout and the date posted I thought I would post up and see if anyone had some recent experience with Wilson electronics and LTE service? I am mostly only interested in the 1900 mhz band as the 800 band will come later.
       
      (http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/881-signal-amplification-i-want-to-install-a-booster-at-my-house/?hl=%2Bsignal+%2Bbooster)

      At one point it was only the Wilson 801247 amplifier that for sure confirmed amplified the G band. I also came across this (http://blog.3gstore.com/2012/07/sprint-4g-lte-amplifiers-wilson.html) :


       
      I find this interesting because Wilson doesnt market a Sprint LTE amp like they do for Verizon. I assume it works in the 1900 band like they say it does. Although on the product descriptions they say explicitly that the products do not work on LTE including Sprint. Is this clever marketing on their part to drive sales to the Quad band amplifier? Obviously they would rather sell the $1000 amp than the $200 amp that is only 5mhz or less away from Sprint's band?

      Does anyone have any more hands on experience? The Wilson 801247 kit is a Desktop (DT) model and not made for a larger home or area which I am trying to cover. So I want to confirm if a different amp they offer will amplify the 1900 mhz G band of Sprint LTE.

      If you have a working signal repeater setup that receives the 1900 mhz Sprint LTE please let me know the model of antenna, amp, etc...

      Thanks in advance.
       
  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...