Network Vision/LTE - East Iowa Market (Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Dubuque, Waterloo/Cedar Falls)

[S4GRU]

All owned by speed connect.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

The ULS doesn't support that.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Now, to lend some credence to the counterpoint, other licensee FCC filings on competitor spectrum holdings in recent years have shown zero attributable BRS to Sprint/Clearwire in the Quad Citles, IA/IL.  I reviewed that weeks ago and again tonight.  Maybe, though, those licensees were using the Spectrum Dashboard, which has been in error.

 

Believe it or not, the FCC does not have the manpower to fact check all filings.  Or maybe the FCC needs a Spectrum Czar -- someone who has a strong understanding and memory of national spectrum holdings.  I have volunteered my services but have yet to be taken up on the offer.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I have never seen to date a license holder that has a market wide license, but not be shown in the ULS at all. SpeedConnect is not shown as a BRS license holder at all in the ULS for the East Iowa BTA's, except for Iowa City. Even if SpeedConnect owned one tiny block of BRS and only had half of the spectrum in that block, it would be shown in the ULS. The ULS is good at showing small blocks and even disaggregated pieces of spectrum, sometimes split by frequency or county. And even leases and subleases of tinyn pieces of spectrum.

 

Is it possible that the FCC missed SpeedConnect in several BTA's? Yes, but that seems highly unlikely. But it is the government we are talking about here.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[Mr.Nuke]

I have never seen to date a license holder that has a market wide license, but not be shown in the ULS at all. SpeedConnect is not shown as a BRS license holder at all in the ULS for the East Iowa BTA's, except for Iowa City. Even if SpeedConnect owned one tiny block of BRS and only had half of the spectrum in that block, it would be shown in the ULS.

 

Is it possible that the FCC missed SpeedConnect in several BTA's? Yes, but that seems highly unlikely. But it is the government we are talking about here.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

The individual SpeedConnect license that the dashboard shows for say Scott County Iowa (Davenport) do show up in a  ULS callsign search. They aren't BTA licenses which may have an impact here. Dashboard could very well be wrong, but here is an example. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2589394

[Mr.Nuke]

I am not trying to disparage anyone -- just being honest.  But the Spectrum Dashboard is kindergarten stuff.  And it is crap.

AJ

Yeah I'm probably wrong on this, but I cannot believe dashboard would blow it that bad here. East Iowa had historically been omitted from a lot of the clearwire holding maps as well. http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1671834-Current-4G-Spectrum-Holding-Map-s

[S4GRU]

The individual SpeedConnect license that the dashboard shows for say Scott County Iowa (Davenport) do show up in a ULS callsign search. They aren't BTA licenses which may have an impact here. Dashboard could very well be wrong, but here is an example. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2589394

It does appear to be a geographic, non BTA license in the link you provided. If there are lots of licenses like this out there, then we can't take any of the BTA licenses shown in the ULS for Sprint at face value.

 

I would interpret this to mean Sprint has the license in the area in the BTA shown outside the circle shown on the SpeedConnect license map. Which would not leave much, if any.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Is it possible that the FCC missed SpeedConnect in several BTA's? Yes, but that seems highly unlikely. But it is the government we are talking about here.

 

Robert, I am not sure if you are writing this in response to my post or other(s).  But the FCC has not missed anything, per se.  The FCC ULS is the end all, be all -- the parent source for any other resource downstream.

 

My point is that licensee filings make mistakes all the time.  I see these errors, unfortunately.  Maybe 99 percent of the data is accurate.  But AT&T's regulatory compliance department, for example, is not vetting the entire data set by hand, most likely.  They may even be using the Spectrum Dashboard as gospel.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Yeah I'm probably wrong on this, but I cannot believe dashboard would blow it that bad here. East Iowa had historically been omitted from a lot of the clearwire holding maps as well. http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1671834-Current-4G-Spectrum-Holding-Map-s

There are a lot protection sites in those areas where it says Clearwire did not have spectrum. Like Waterloo, Oelwein, Davenport, Farmington, NM, Wausau, WI and others. So I wouldn't put too much credence in those. Clearwire picked up a lot of EBS in leases in 2008-2011 in places it did not have before.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[Mr.Nuke]

It does appear to be a geographic, non BTA license in the link you provided. If there are lots of licenses like this out there, then we can't take any of the BTA licenses shown in the ULS for Sprint at face value.

 

I would interpret this to mean Sprint has the license in the area in the BTA shown outside the circle shown on the SpeedConnect license map. Which would not leave much, if any.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

And that is why the dashboard is only showing 6 MHz for Sprint/Clearwire in Scott County. And that is why we all hate tracking BRS/EBS . This has to be one of the messiest markets for it.

[Mr.Nuke]

There are a lot protection sites in those areas where it says Clearwire did not have spectrum. Like Waterloo, Oelwein, Davenport, Farmington, NM, Wausau, WI and others. So I wouldn't put too much credence in those. Clearwire picked up a lot of EBS in leases in 2008-2011 in places it did not have before.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

That is where it gets interesting though because some of those protection sites are strategically placed. Off of the top of my head I remember from researching that Oelwein has 20 MHz of contiguous BRS.

 

EDIT: Waterloo has 20 MHz of contiguous BRS as well.

[bretton88]

That is where it gets interesting though because some of those protection sites are strategically placed. Off of the top of my head I remember from researching that Oelwein has 20 MHz of contiguous BRS.

Can you broadcast into an area where you don't have the spectrum if your tower is in an area that does?

[Fraydog]

Here's the spectrum ownership chart from the Sprint/Clearwire docket, this should hold true today (I think).

 

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1826989902&attachmentKey=18317507&attachmentInd=applAttach

[S4GRU]

Can you broadcast into an area where you don't have the spectrum if your tower is in an area that does?

 

No.  Granted, radio waves don't stop at borders.  But a licensee within a market boundary is protected from harmful interference from license holders outside their market boundary.  If Sprint interferes with SpeedConnect within their license area, SpeedConnect will likely file an FCC complaint.

[S4GRU]

Here's the spectrum ownership chart from the Sprint/Clearwire docket, this should hold true today (I think).

 

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=1826989902&attachmentKey=18317507&attachmentInd=applAttach

 

It doesn't show spectrum in many counties that they have Protection Sites in.  There must be some loop hole why they don't have to claim the spectrum in FCC applications, but they do need to set up Protection Sites.  I wonder if they have EBS agreements that are not actual spectrum leases, but rather usage agreements.

 

For instance, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota.  None of the Clearwire maps, nor this FCC filing show that Clearwire had any spectrum here.  No BRS or EBS.  Yet, there is a Clearwire Protection Site here.  What is it protecting if they have no spectrum?  Maybe the EBS license holder (Black Hills State University or South Dakota School of Mines) retained their license and did not lease it out.  But allows Clearwire and subsequently Sprint, to use their spectrum in a usage agreement?

 

I do know, based on the Substantial Service Site info I have seen that the Rapid City site is running on EBS spectrum and not BRS.  So they had to have gotten the rights somewhere.  Enough rights to require a Protection Site, but not enough to where they have to claim it with the FCC.  Because Clearwire had the Protection Site broadcasting before Sprint made an offer to buy Clearwire.  By two years, even.

 

[Mr.Nuke]

There are a lot protection sites in those areas where it says Clearwire did not have spectrum. Like Waterloo, Oelwein, Davenport, Farmington, NM, Wausau, WI and others. So I wouldn't put too much credence in those. Clearwire picked up a lot of EBS in leases in 2008-2011 in places it did not have before.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

After a lot of time with the dashboard and uls searches of licenses last night Sprint has the EBS G1-G4 block in sublease from a John Schwartz entity (who is leasing it from someone else of course). It looks like Schwartz snapped up a lot of EBS and leases it to Sprint/Clearwire.

 

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/leaseMain.jsp?parentKey=2590283&licKey=3132022

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/leaseAdmin.jsp?licKey=3132022&parentKey=2590283#

 

With the EBS A4-G4 blocks not being contiguous with their counterparts, and with band guarding as well; the best Sprint can likely do in the Quad Cities is a 10 MHz carrier in EBS G1-G3. chris92, posted a screenshot in the premier thread a couple of weeks ago of one of wimax protection sites and the carrier was right where you'd expect it to be with this information http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5375-nebraskaiowa-premier-thread/?p=424646

[S4GRU]

After a lot of time with the dashboard and uls searches of licenses last night Sprint has the EBS G1-G4 block in sublease from a John Schwartz entity (who is leasing it from someone else of course). It looks like Schwartz snapped up a lot of EBS and leases it to Sprint/Clearwire.

 

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/leaseMain.jsp?parentKey=2590283&licKey=3132022

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/leaseAdmin.jsp?licKey=3132022&parentKey=2590283#

 

With the EBS A4-G4 blocks not being contiguous with their counterparts, and with band guarding as well; the best Sprint can likely do in the Quad Cities is a 10 MHz carrier in EBS G1-G3. chris92, posted a screenshot in the premier thread a couple of weeks ago of one of wimax protection sites and the carrier was right where you'd expect it to be with this information http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5375-nebraskaiowa-premier-thread/?p=424646

Excellent sleuthing!

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[bkco14]

So in non tech speak, what does this mean? ????

Edited June 30, 2015 by bkco14

[S4GRU]

So in non tech speak, what does this mean?

 

Sounds like Sprint can do one 10MHz TDD B41 LTE carrier in the Quad Cities.  It will help add some capacity, but not the blistering speeds.  The Quad Cities is going to be Sprint's Tmo Cincinnati.

[lilotimz]

Sounds like Sprint can do one 10MHz TDD B41 LTE carrier in the Quad Cities. It will help add some capacity, but not the blistering speeds. The Quad Cities is going to be Sprint's Tmo Cincinnati.

Which is about equivalent to a 5x5 FDD lte carrier.

 

If they refarm a second pcs Lte carrier and add a 10 mhz TDD LTE carrier they can have the equivalent of 20 MHz FDD lte which is respectable. Issue is would sprint deploy 2.5 Equipment just for 10 mhz?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[S4GRU]

Which is about equivalent to a 5x5 FDD lte carrier.

 

If they refarm a second pcs Lte carrier and add a 10 mhz TDD LTE carrier they can have the equivalent of 20 MHz FDD lte which is respectable. Issue is would sprint deploy 2.5 Equipment just for 10 mhz?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

I would, if the performance of the existing B25/26 is not running at least 5-6Mbps at peak times.  Then you will have equipment in place in case you end up buying/leasing more EBS/BRS spectrum in the future.  But I would not make this a priority market.

[bkco14]

Which is about equivalent to a 5x5 FDD lte carrier.

 

If they refarm a second pcs Lte carrier and add a 10 mhz TDD LTE carrier they can have the equivalent of 20 MHz FDD lte which is respectable. Issue is would sprint deploy 2.5 Equipment just for 10 mhz?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

We only have 5x5 carrier here for b25/b26. So why wouldn't they put up b41 equipment but put up the others?

 

I don't care about blistering speeds. I just don't want to have .15 Mbps in the best LTE area. Sick of driving In the middle of town and hearing Siri say "sorry, but I have seem to have lost data connection" or being at a park for my son's baseball and not even able to connect to LTE or 3G to check the weather radar.

 

If we could get a consistent 4 Mbps all over then I would be happy.

[lilotimz]

We only have 5x5 carrier here for b25/b26. So why wouldn't they put up b41 equipment but put up the others?

 

I don't care about blistering speeds. I just don't want to have .15 Mbps in the best LTE area. Sick of driving In the middle of town and hearing Siri say "sorry, but I have seem to have lost data connection" or being at a park for my son's baseball and not even able to connect to LTE or 3G to check the weather radar.

 

If we could get a consistent 4 Mbps all over then I would be happy.

The 2.5 Equipment cost almost as much as all the equipment of NV 1.0 combined. They're extremely expensive and in short supply and were made for massive capacity purposes.

 

Using it just for 10 mhz when in other markets it can do 40 right now 60 later this year and up to 120 by next year is a big misuse of resource imho.

 

As Robert said i would not put it as priority at all for the low pop count east Iowa markets but Weirder things have happened.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[Mr.Nuke]

We only have 5x5 carrier here for b25/b26. .

You are one of the markets with enough spectrum for a PCS second carrier though. If Sprint does anything else in the Quad Cities that may be the better solution.

[S4GRU]

You are one of the markets with enough spectrum for a PCS second carrier though. If Sprint does anything else in the Quad Cities that may be the better solution.

 

That is definitely the first thing that should be done.  And densifying the Quad Cities for appropriate B25 signal levels and capacity wouldn't be a bad move, either.  5 new well placed sites around the metro would go a long way.  And likely cheaper than picking up more EBS/BRS spectrum.

[Mr.Nuke]

And AJ corrected be there is enough spectrum in EBS G1-G3 for a 15 MHz channel in the Quad Cities with adequate guarding.