Jump to content

FCC Announces Two Spectrum-Sharing Agreements With Mexico


irev210

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

People live on the canadian border?

 

Someone who lives in St. Cloud, MN making fun of people who live near the Canadian border is like someone with an IQ of 80 calling a person with an IQ of 75 a "dummy."

 

:P

 

AJ

  • Like 2
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.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • The S21U was very spotty with connecting to 6E. It would only see it on a router reboot. I thought it was more the router than the S21U, however my laptop would solidly connect to the 6E network, so it must have been the S21U. Since I'm on WiFi7 with the S24U, I haven't kept track of it. I will flip over and check it out later. 
    • Wi-fi 6e missing (6 GHz on one of two ultras). Perhaps coming from an app?  Wifi analyzer can see the 6ghz, just can't see them to connect.  May try wifi reset, although communications reset could have been the source of this problem.  Others have reported it, so not an isolated issue. Edit: Fixed: Rebooted into safe mode. Wifi 6e worked. Normal boot back. No wifi 6e in available nerworks.  Unistalled Asus Router app. Checked for Wifi 6e being visible in wifi available networks. Nothing. Deleted Netgear Genie app. Then saw networks. of mine I had not connected to in wifi available networks. Forgot the desired 2.4&5&6 SSID that did not show 6E. Connected to it again. 6e now works.
    • I noticed today while I was out and about in Louisville that b30 has been widened back to 10x10. They reduced it to 5x5 back in Sept 2018 presumably due to satellite radio interference. Not sure how long ago the change happened but it couldn't have been too terribly long ago. I noticed the different earfcn in the neighbor list, I don't usually see b30 as pcc much but I wonder if that will change now. I locked my phone to b30 only on my drive home from work and noticed the new(old?) earfcn on every site, so it wasn't just a 1 or 2 site fluke. It also looks like they've been doing some fiber or other cabling work around the b2/b46 small cell nodes, I wonder if they are about to start adding c-band radios to those. 
    • Should trade it for some low-band there or elsewhere. AT&T dominates lowband.    
    • I checked existing spectrum holdings and selling 5x5 PCS to each of VZW and AT&T in Kauai would get them to 20x20 apiece there, which should make them happy. In Maui it makes more sense to sell 5x5 each of PCS and AWS to get VZW 20x20 AWS and AT&T 15x15 PCS. I figure it would be a sale rather than a swap, as neither of the other two have spectrum T-Mobile would want that's high-frequency enough to avoid the spectrum screen. Honestly, T-Mobile is strong enough in Hawaii from a capacity perspective that cutting down PCS/AWS holdings won't hurt, particularly in exchange for finally unlocking 2.5 (though in Maui I saw 140 MHz n41 regularly in September if I remember correctly).
  • Recently Browsing

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