Jump to content

Protection Site discussion devolving into whether Clearwire intentionally targeted ghettos


fubka
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, I just found out I have WiMax here now, speeds are about 2x better than 3g which is a huge welcome!

 

Does it take a while for Sprint to update there coverage maps on their own website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I just found out I have WiMax here now, speeds are about 2x better than 3g which is a huge welcome!

 

Does it take a while for Sprint to update there coverage maps on their own website?

 

It's probably a protection site, which wont show up on Sprint's maps only Clear's.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That't also what I have read, what is a "protection" site?

The FCC required clearwire to cover a certain percentage of potential users (pops) in the areas they hold licenses to in order to keep their licenses. Clear is a bunch of dirtbags so they have devised a system of researching demographics for areas with the large populations of people unlikely to use their service (ghettos) and set up towers there to say that they satisfied FCC requirements. AT&T does this kind of crap as well. If you look in the Dakotas and Nebraska you'll see little islands of native coverage in the same areas for Clear and AT&T.

 

This whole WiMax debacle left a really bad taste in my mouth. I hope clear goes under FAST so Sprint can pick up that spectrum cheap and deploy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That't also what I have read, what is a "protection" site?

 

See here for a comprehensive analysis of protection sites. Long story short, the FCC mandated that clearwire cover a certain percentage of population or percentage of the territory or they would lose the license to that spectrum. Clearwire deployed protection sites in densely populated areas with minimum downtilt so they would loosely meet the requirements. They don't care if the signal is usuable or not, and they didn't research demographics and deploy in "ghettos" so people wouldn't use the service. Believe it or not, Clearwire gets paid by customers using their service.

 

Personally, I do not want Sprint to acquire Clearwire. Not for a while. Their situation with Clearwire is perfect now. Way too many negatives if Sprint acquires all that spectrum. I have no doubt that if Sprint acquires Clearwire, the FCC will start stripping them of spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind, Scott just beat me to it. Good job! :tu:

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCC required clearwire to cover a certain percentage of potential users (pops) in the areas they hold licenses to in order to keep their licenses. Clear is a bunch of dirtbags so they have devised a system of researching demographics for areas with the large populations of people unlikely to use their service (ghettos) and set up towers there to say that they satisfied FCC requirements. AT&T does this kind of crap as well. If you look in the Dakotas and Nebraska you'll see little islands of native coverage in the same areas for Clear and AT&T.

 

Clearwire didn't seek thinly covered communities or ghetto neighborhoods hoping that no one would use Protection Sites. This is an opinionated statement. In reality' date=' Clearwire was not prepared to deploy any Protection Sites until the 3rd Quarter of 2010. Then they had to scramble at the last minute to deploy in time to protect their assets.

 

Protection sites were not selected for usable coverage. They looked for sites they could quickly and inexpensively deploy on for the benefit of maximum POP's covered. They weren't going to wait around and negotiate for prime location leases, or do ideal coverage studies. It was a blow and go situation.

 

As for small Nebraska towns, the purpose of the FCC Minimum Coverage Standards was exactly for communities like that to get coverages. I think the FCC would take exception to your comments about rural and inner city locations. They crafted these standards to better ensure that the consumers with the least choice get more options. And that carriers don't cherry pick which customers they prefer, especially given they are using a public resource.

 

I'm not defending Clearwire. Just explaining. I have spent more time on phones talking with engineers about Protection Sites than I have Network Vision. I still think that the Clearwire Protection Site deployment was still one of the most interesting moments in American wireless history.

 

This whole WiMax debacle left a really bad taste in my mouth. I hope clear goes under FAST so Sprint can pick up that spectrum cheap and deploy it.

 

Be careful what you ask for. If Clear went down at the wrong time during Network Vision deployment, it could be disastrous for Sprint. Where they lose Clearwire altogether, or have to stop NV deployment.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what you ask for. If Clear went down at the wrong time during Network Vision deployment, it could be disastrous for Sprint. Where they lose Clearwire altogether, or have to stop NV deployment.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy S-III 32GB using Forum Runner

 

FMrZ7.jpg?1

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clear is a bunch of dirtbags so they have devised a system of researching demographics for areas with the large populations of people unlikely to use their service (ghettos) and set up towers there to say that they satisfied FCC requirements.

 

Well it is a nice addition to my ghetto, I would have gotten a 4g WiMax phone a year ago had I known this, although I got this one for less than it costs for the insurance and deduction so I can't complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCC required clearwire to cover a certain percentage of potential users (pops) in the areas they hold licenses to in order to keep their licenses. Clear is a bunch of dirtbags so they have devised a system of researching demographics for areas with the large populations of people unlikely to use their service (ghettos) and set up towers there to say that they satisfied FCC requirements. AT&T does this kind of crap as well. If you look in the Dakotas and Nebraska you'll see little islands of native coverage in the same areas for Clear and AT&T.

 

This whole WiMax debacle left a really bad taste in my mouth. I hope clear goes under FAST so Sprint can pick up that spectrum cheap and deploy it.

 

You're out of touch with reality. Why would Clearwire WANT to set up service where no one would use it? That only loses them money? Did you even think before you posted this? Also, the FCC would have a large say in what happens with the spectrum were Clearwire to go under, not to mention Sprint would need to bid on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick, someone cue Hall & Oates.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

 

Just when I was starting to miss you around here.. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're out of touch with reality. Why would Clearwire WANT to set up service where no one would use it? That only loses them money? Did you even think before you posted this? Also, the FCC would have a large say in what happens with the spectrum were Clearwire to go under, not to mention Sprint would need to bid on it.

 

They don't offer service in these areas officially. They only installed these sites to keep their license in these areas per fcc buildout requirements. It is in their best interest to put these sites in areas where only a few savvy sprint users will use it, so they don't have to deal with maintaining them.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't offer service in these areas officially. They only installed these sites to keep their license in these areas per fcc buildout requirements. It is in their best interest to put these sites in areas where only a few savvy sprint users will use it, so they don't have to deal with maintaining them.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

Clearwire had a VERY limited amount of cash available and was faced with either putting up protection sites or losing licenses. They won't have a reliable revenue stream until their LTE becomes available. What other choice did they have? Either put up protection sites in densely populated areas or lose licenses. No brainer to me...? Thats just called working within the bounds you're given. Apparently that didn't include where you reside, therefore it was a bad decision?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clearwire had a VERY limited amount of cash available and was faced with either putting up protection sites or losing licenses. They won't have a reliable revenue stream until their LTE becomes available. What other choice did they have? Either put up protection sites in densely populated areas or lose licenses. No brainer to me...? Thats just called working within the bounds you're given. Apparently that didn't include where you reside, therefore it was a bad decision?

Lose them to someone else who actually will build it out.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lose them to someone else who actually will build it out.

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

Corporations function as individuals and do the best they can to survive. I don't think a viable option was "let's let those licenses go so someone else can use them". Interesting thought though, explains alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Corporations function as individuals and do the best they can to survive. I don't think a viable option was "let's let those licenses go so someone else can use them". Interesting thought though, explains alot.

 

If they let those licenses go in the small towns they have more money to spend on what they're good at, urban areas. So maybe Phoenix, San Francisco, memphis, Detroit, OKC, Lansing, Tulsa and many others could get full wimax!

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearwire was never going to make it as a nationwide wireless WiMax broadband retailer, which was their initial intention. They had to go with protection sites to keep licenses so they would still be able to carry out their revised business strategy, providing wholesale offloading to mobile providers.

 

I don't know their full strategy, but I would assume it will go something like this:

Maintain WiMax footprint and attempt to wholesale whatever possible from it to pay for maintenance.

Start rolling out TD-LTE to Sprint identified sites that need to offload capacity and try to attract other mobile operators

Gradually add TD-LTE to existing sites with sufficient backhaul

Fill in the gaps in top markets to make their wholesale opportunity more attractive to customers

Expand to the top markets that they missed in WiMax rollout

(depending on success) Expand footprint outside urban areas to give opportunity for wholesalers to offer wireless broadband in rural areas

 

At some point in there, they will be shutting down the WiMax network.

 

I think they can eventually expand to be nationwide (except for the very low population areas), but at the 2.5Ghz frequency, they can't do it quickly. I also don't think that splitting up the spectrum for local operators to offer service at 2.5Ghz. 1 it wouldn't happen in a lot of areas or it would be attempted and be an absolute abortion. 2 it would have to be strictly retail, you can't wholesale a local operation to any company worth their salt. 3 if it was possible, the FCC would be scrutinizing these "protection sites" and be holding Clearwire accountable for those areas and the areas where they didn't even bother to deploy a protection site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per my sources, Clearwire paid approximately $30,000 per Protection Site on average...all costs. This is chump change to maintain licenses. It doesn't really make any sense to let any of the licenses go at this point.

 

Also, there really is no demand for these licenses. Especially in rural areas. Clearwire is not an investment company sitting on spectrum. They are a real company that ran into financial problems. They are using EBS/BRS spectrum in almost 100 markets (when you include Expedience markets). This is not a fly by night company.

 

If there is a legitimate company that wants Clearwire's unused spectrum in rural areas, I bet Clearwire will be more than happy to part with it at a fair price. But there really isn't anyone out there who wants it at this point. I do believe that in 2 years, Clearwire spectrum will be a much hotter commodity.

 

Forfeiting a license that didn't meet FCC Minimum Coverage Requirements is not a minor thing. It is a violation by the FCC and could hinder their ability to bid in future auctions. When the FCC takes your license back because you did not meet build out requirements is a punitive/disciplinary action. Not only would Clearwire lose that license, but they would NEVER be allowed to regain it in the future.

 

At $30,000 per site, it's a no brainer to do the Protection Sites. The entire Protection Site operation was approximately $20M. But it is protecting over a $1B in spectrum assets and keeps Clearwire from running afoul with the FCC.

 

I think the only criticism I have in all this is that the FCC Minimum Coverage Standards were too low on this spectrum. I think even they realized it, because the build out requirements on 700MHz is tougher.

 

Robert

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're out of touch with reality. Why would Clearwire WANT to set up service where no one would use it? That only loses them money? Did you even think before you posted this? Also, the FCC would have a large say in what happens with the spectrum were Clearwire to go under, not to mention Sprint would need to bid on it.

 

Actually he's kinda on the right track, but it may not have been clear enough. What he was saying is Clear has to have a certain amount of people covered with their network so that they won't lose the license in that particular area. So Clear put up a lot of towers all over the place without formally launching the service. Perfect example would be the tower that's at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI it covers people and the speeds on Wimax are good but it wasn't a formal launch in Detroit. They even have a tower up by my house but it only broadcasts about 3 square miles. And the speeds are terrible but the wimax phones connect to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only criticism I have in all this is that the FCC Minimum Coverage Standards were too low on this spectrum. I think even they realized it, because the build out requirements on 700MHz is tougher.

 

Generally speaking, FCC license construction requirement standards are inversely proportional to frequency (i.e. the lower the frequency, the greater the buildout requirements, and vice versa). Also, licensed bands <1 GHz (e.g. Cellular 850 MHz, Lower 700 MHz) are more likely to have geographic area based buildout requirements, whereas licensed bands >1 GHz all have population based buildout requirements. In my opinion, these are largely well designed regulations.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually he's kinda on the right track, but it may not have been clear enough. What he was saying is Clear has to have a certain amount of people covered with their network so that they won't lose the license in that particular area. So Clear put up a lot of towers all over the place without formally launching the service. Perfect example would be the tower that's at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI it covers people and the speeds on Wimax are good but it wasn't a formal launch in Detroit. They even have a tower up by my house but it only broadcasts about 3 square miles. And the speeds are terrible but the wimax phones connect to it.

 

What he said is they put up towers specifically where people wouldn't use it, also, in ghettos? I don't think covering as many POPs possible is quite synonymous with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, FCC license construction requirement standards are inversely proportional to frequency (i.e. the lower the frequency, the greater the buildout requirements, and vice versa). Also, licensed bands <1 GHz (e.g. Cellular 850 MHz, Lower 700 MHz) are more likely to have geographic area based buildout requirements, whereas licensed bands >1 GHz all have population based buildout requirements. In my opinion, these are largely well designed regulations.

 

AJ

 

This may be hard to believe, but I have never really thought about the difference in frequency when considering the difference in build out requirements. This makes a lot of sense.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that everyone can at least be informed on the matter before making assertions or passing judgment, see the official BRS/EBS 2600 MHz construction requirements from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47:

 

(o) BRS and EBS licensees originally issued a BRS or EBS license prior to November 6, 2009 must make a showing of substantial service no later than May 1, 2011. With respect to initial BRS licenses issued on or after November 6, 2009, the licensee must make a showing of substantial service within four years from the date of issue of the license. Incumbent BRS licensees that are re- quired to demonstrate substantial serv- ice by May 1, 2011 must file their sub- stantial service showings with their re- newal applications. ‘‘Substantial serv- ice’’ is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.

 

Substantial service for BRS and EBS licensees is satisfied if a licensee meets the requirements of paragraph (o)(1), (o)(2), or (o)(3) of this section. If a li- censee has not met the requirements of paragraph (o)(1), (o)(2), or (o)(3) of this section, then demonstration of sub- stantial service shall proceed on a case-by-case basis. Except as provided in paragraphs (o)(4) and (o)(5) of this section, all substantial service deter- minations will be made on a license-by- license basis. Failure by any licensee to demonstrate substantial service will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.

(1) A BRS or EBS licensee has pro- vided ‘‘substantial service’’ by:

(i) Constructing six permanent links per one million people for licensees providing fixed point-to-point services;

(ii) Providing coverage of at least 30 percent of the population of the li- censed area for licensees providing mo- bile services or fixed point-to- multipoint services;

(iii) Providing service to ‘‘rural areas’’ (a county (or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census data) and areas with limited access to tele- communications services:

(A) For mobile service, where cov- erage is provided to at least 75% of the geographic area of at least 30% of the rural areas within its service area; or

( B) for fixed service, where the BRS or EBS licensee has constructed at least one end of a permanent link in at least 30% of the rural areas within its licensed area.

(iv) Providing specialized or techno- logically sophisticated service that does not require a high level of cov- erage to benefit consumers; or

(v) Providing service to niche mar- kets or areas outside the areas served by other licensees.

(2) An EBS licensee has provided ‘‘substantial service’’ when:

(i) The EBS licensee is using its spec- trum (or spectrum to which the EBS li- censee’s educational services are shift- ed) to provide educational services within the EBS licensee’s GSA;

(ii) the EBS licensee’s license is actu- ally being used to serve the edu-cational mission of one or more accred- ited public or private schools, colleges or universities providing formal edu- cational and cultural development to enrolled students; or

(iii) the level of service provided by the EBS licensee meets or exceeds the minimum usage requirements specified in § 27.1214.

(3) An EBS or BRS licensee may be deemed to provide substantial service through a leasing arrangement if the lessee is providing substantial service under paragraph (o)(1) of this section. The EBS licensee must also be other- wise in compliance with this Chapter (including the programming require- ments in § 27.1203 of this subpart).

(4) If the GSA of a licensee is less than 1924 square miles in size, and there is an overlapping co-channel sta- tion licensed or leased by the licensee or its affiliate, substantial service may be demonstrated by meeting the re- quirements of paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section with respect to the com- bined GSAs of both stations.

(5) If the GSA of a BTA authorization holder, is less than one-half of the area within the BTA for every BRS channel, substantial service may be dem- onstrated for the licenses in question by meeting the requirements of para- graph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section with respect to the combined GSAs of the BTA authorization holder, together with any incumbent authorizations li- censed or leased by the licensee or its affiliates.

 

And, no, the CFR does not actually contain a " B)." That is just an IP.Board smiley run amok.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

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