Clearwire receives unsolicited offer from DISH

[jefbal99]

The lowest 5 MHz (2000-2005 MHz) of Dish's AWS-4 uplink is subject to reduced power limits compared to the other 15 MHz of its uplink.

 

AJ

 

Thanks AJ

[bigsnake49]

Another take from Businessweek:

 

Another knock on the argument that markets are efficient, omniscient, and all-predicting: Clearwire (CLWR), a wireless company that was left for dead by many shareholders mere months ago, is suddenly theobject of a somewhat-kabuki bidding war betweenSprint Nextel (S) (another wireless player whose ownsolvency was recently in question) and Dish Network (DISH), a satellite TV provider not commonly associated with wireless. Clearwire shares, which were at 83 cents in July, are now bid for $3.30 by Dish, valuing the company at $5 billion. Spite, chessmanship, and regulatory meddling are all being cited as motivators of Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen’s long-shot offer.

Confused? Do be. Because this corporate drama is as much about the generosity of today’s QE3-charged debt markets—where the hunt for yield is driving just about everything—as it is about the hunt for spectrum.

..............................

http://www.businessw...-for-our-times?

Edited January 14, 2013 by bigsnake49

[supert0nes]

Well the wireles industry isn't really a free market, but once Dish sells their spectrum, as I think they will do, the spectrum will have been divided out pretty efficiently, due to a market of sorts. My biggest wish left is that T-Mobile would get a nationwide <1GHz footprint, like Dish's 700, or a bit of the reverse auction 600 block. Then AT&T buy the AWS-4 from Dish and Sprint buy PCS-H in auction. This would make sense to me.

[bigsnake49]

Well the wireles industry isn't really a free market, but once Dish sells their spectrum, as I think they will do, the spectrum will have been divided out pretty efficiently, due to a market of sorts. My biggest wish left is that T-Mobile would get a nationwide <1GHz footprint, like Dish's 700, or a bit of the reverse auction 600 block. Then AT&T buy the AWS-4 from Dish and Sprint buy PCS-H in auction. This would make sense to me.

 

Dish's 700 MHz is 6MHz TDD only so it will be useful to AT&T only to combine with their other 700MHz holdings in a CA scheme.

[supert0nes]

Dish's 700 MHz is 6MHz TDD only so it will be useful to AT&T only to combine with their other 700MHz holdings in a CA scheme.

 

Thanks for the info. I should have looked that up before my comment.

[WiWavelength]

Dish's 700 MHz is 6MHz TDD only so it will be useful to AT&T only to combine with their other 700MHz holdings in a CA scheme.

 

The Lower 700 MHz D block 6 MHz and E block 6 MHz licenses are going to be a pain to put into service because they are stuffed into the duplex gap between the Lower 700 MHz uplink and downlink. In particular, AT&T's nationwide set of D block licenses (the former Qualcomm MediaFLO spectrum) will be a challenge to utilize, as the D block is directly adjacent to the C block uplink. This presents roughly the same interference problem as does the Dish AWS-4 uplink adjacent to the as yet unauctioned PCS/AWS-2 H block downlink. The good news is that AT&T is by far the largest holder of C block spectrum nationwide; so in those markets where AT&T holds both C and D blocks, it can work internally to coordinate spectrum use and mitigate interference.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

The Lower 700 MHz D block 6 MHz and E block 6 MHz licenses are going to be a pain to put into service because they are stuffed into the duplex gap between the Lower 700 MHz uplink and downlink. In particular, AT&T's nationwide set of D block licenses (the former Qualcomm MediaFLO spectrum) will be a challenge to utilize, as the D block is directly adjacent to the C block uplink. This presents roughly the same interference problem as does the Dish AWS-4 uplink adjacent to the as yet unauctioned PCS/AWS-2 H block downlink. The good news is that AT&T is by far the largest holder of C block spectrum nationwide; so in those markets where AT&T holds both C and D blocks, it can work internally to coordinate spectrum use and mitigate interference.

 

AJ

 

If AT&T gets Dish's E block, with their holdings of B, C, D and E blocks they would be sitting pretty.

[WiWavelength]

If AT&T gets Dish's E block, with their holdings of B, C, D and E blocks they would be sitting pretty.

 

The Lower 700 MHz E block -- if used for downlink carrier aggregation -- is less encumbered because it is adjacent to the A block downlink.

 

In a recent thread (this one?), there has been talk of AT&T refarming spectrum for LTE. The debate has seemed to center around Cellular 850 MHz vs PCS 1900 MHz. One reason why Cellular 850 MHz makes sense is that it pairs much better with Lower 700 MHz D/E block used for downlink carrier aggregation. Honestly, Lower 700 MHz D/E block paired with PCS 1900 MHz would be a waste. Spectrum used for downlink carrier aggregation should have similar or worse but not significantly better propagation characteristics than the primary downlink.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

The Lower 700 MHz E block -- if used for downlink carrier aggregation -- is less encumbered because it is adjacent to the A block downlink.

 

In a recent thread (this one?), there has been talk of AT&T refarming spectrum for LTE. The debate has seemed to center around Cellular 850 MHz vs PCS 1900 MHz. One reason why Cellular 850 MHz makes sense is that it pairs much better with Lower 700 MHz D/E block used for downlink carrier aggregation. Honestly, Lower 700 MHz D/E block paired with PCS 1900 MHz would be a waste. Spectrum used for downlink carrier aggregation should have similar or worse but not significantly better propagation characteristics than the primary downlink.

 

AJ

 

So if you pair D&E with PCS and made D&E the primary and PCS the secondary, what would be wrong with that?

[WiWavelength]

So if you pair D&E with PCS and made D&E the primary and PCS the secondary, what would be wrong with that?

 

You cannot make Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks the primary and PCS 1900 MHz the secondary because the uplink is still PCS. Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks have to be supplementary downlink.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

You cannot make Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks the primary and PCS 1900 MHz the secondary because the uplink is still PCS. Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks have to be supplementary downlink.

 

AJ

 

Actually I was thinking that they could pair them with their other 700MHz holdings.

[WiWavelength]

Actually I was thinking that they could pair them with their other 700MHz holdings.

 

No, my understanding is that there is not enough frequency separation to ever use Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks as supplemental downlink with Lower 700 MHz A/B/C blocks. If ever used, D/E block supplemental downlink will have to be paired with Cellular, PCS, AWS, WCS, etc.

 

AJ

[pyroscott]

 

No, my understanding is that there is not enough frequency separation to ever use Lower 700 MHz D/E blocks as supplemental downlink with Lower 700 MHz A/B/C blocks. If ever used, D/E block supplemental downlink will have to be paired with Cellular, PCS, AWS, WCS, etc.

 

AJ

 

So if sprint ends up adding additional pcs LTE carriers, they can't use carrier aggregation with two PCS carriers?

[Deval]

So if sprint ends up adding additional pcs LTE carriers, they can't use carrier aggregation with two PCS carriers?

 

I don't see why not, unless it's another frequency range not supported (H-block).

[pyroscott]

 

I don't see why not, unless it's another frequency range not supported (H-block).

 

Did you read what I quoted?

[bigsnake49]

Here a simple explanation of Carrier Aggregation (with further reading links):

 

http://www.3gpp.org/Carrier-Aggregation-explained

 

According to that both intraband contiguous and intraband not contiguous as well as interband non-contiguous are supported.

[Deval]

Did you read what I quoted?

 

<- missed that.

[JohnHovah]

The Lower 700 MHz D block 6 MHz and E block 6 MHz licenses are going to be a pain to put into service because they are stuffed into the duplex gap between the Lower 700 MHz uplink and downlink. In particular, AT&T's nationwide set of D block licenses (the former Qualcomm MediaFLO spectrum) will be a challenge to utilize, as the D block is directly adjacent to the C block uplink. This presents roughly the same interference problem as does the Dish AWS-4 uplink adjacent to the as yet unauctioned PCS/AWS-2 H block downlink. The good news is that AT&T is by far the largest holder of C block spectrum nationwide; so in those markets where AT&T holds both C and D blocks, it can work internally to coordinate spectrum use and mitigate interference.

 

AJ

could we not see some sort of TDD cross-spectrum carrier aggregation configuration?

[leozno1]

Good News,

 

It appears that Clearwire is prepared to reject Dish's offer and move forward with Sprint.

 

http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2509

[leozno1]

Good News,

 

It appears that Clearwire is prepared to reject Dish's offer and move forward with Sprint.

 

http://newsroom.spri...article_id=2509

 

Spoke too soon.

 

Seems like we're not out of the water just yet.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/01/us-cearwire-sprint-dish-idUSBRE9100IG20130201

[WiWavelength]

Spoke too soon.

 

Seems like we're not out of the water just yet.

 

At least, we are not in the woods...

 

 

AJ

[marioc21]

Spoke too soon.

 

Seems like we're not out of the water just yet.

 

http://www.reuters.c...E9100IG20130201

 

Honestly, seems like they're just putting this stuff to help stem lawsuits. Makes it look like they're giving due consideration to things even though they know the only real offer is Sprint's.

[leozno1]

At least, we are not in the woods...

 

 

AJ

 

Lol I knew that didn't sound right when I first wrote it.

[Boosted20V]

I think some agreement between DISH/S/CLWR will come out of this. This could even help alleviate any issues regarding how much spectrum S is allowed to hold. The wildcard for me is what Son thinks of that? But, if CLWR's spectrum were to be split amongst DISH/S, and added to what both parties already have, you'd be looking at a viable wireline competitor I would think.

[WiWavelength]

So if sprint ends up adding additional pcs LTE carriers, they can't use carrier aggregation with two PCS carriers?

 

I somehow missed this question a few weeks ago.

 

The answer is, yes, Sprint probably can use carrier aggregation with two carriers in the PCS band, definitely if those two carriers are contiguous, probably if those two carriers are non contiguous. In the latter case, a problem could arise if Sprint were to aggregate the PCS G block with the PCS A1 block, or even worse, the PCS/AWS-2 H block with the PCS A1 block.

 

The problem is that the G block and H blocks are at the very high end of each of the uplink/downlink segments, while the A block is at the very low end of each of the uplink/downlink segments. That brings the G block and H block uplinks within 10-20 MHz of the A block downlink. To illustrate, I have notated the following band plan diagram:

 

 

If Sprint were to aggregate A1+G blocks or A1+H blocks, a mobile transmitting on the G block or H block uplink and receiving on the A1 block downlink would possibly interfere with itself -- the frequency separation between the uplink and downlink may not be enough. Think of it a bit like placing a speaker (transmitter) too close to a microphone (receiver).

 

Now, the potentially unfortunate reality is that Sprint does hold a lot of PCS A block licenses (e.g. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, et al.) because these, along with the PCS B block licenses, are the large MTA based licenses that Sprint won at the first PCS auction to go from zero to a nearly nationwide footprint in one stroke.

 

AJ