The Cricket Network

[Boosted20V]

 

 

Not a coincidence. Miami is yet another market in which that FCC "administration" allowed AT&T to gobble up both Cellular 850 MHz licenses. The W. Bush FCC's theory of "free market competition" was flawed from the beginning. I knew it then. I formally opposed it then (filing a Petition to Deny). And I stand vindicated now. Oh, I am so happy, as you can tell.

 

AJ

 

At least Sprint has ESMR licenses here. Gives them a leg up on Big Red. Along this vein, do you think that people give too little credit to the Nextel merger based on these low frequency licenses? Perhaps they weren't worth 36 billion but still highly valuable.

[ericdabbs]

I think we can all agree that the US Wireless market needs new sub-1ghz spectrum to be made available for use in mobile service.

 

I would also like to see AT&T/VZW barred from buying it.

 

I totally agree with you that AT&T and VZW should be barred from obtain any more sub 1 GHz spectrum. AT&T and VZW already have 25 MHz of Cellular 850 MHz spectrum and 20 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum.

 

There is talk about the FCC trying to free up the 600 MHz spectrum to be used for wireless carriers. I would like to see Sprint and Tmobile bid on the 600 MHz spectrum to improve their network. Also I would like to see in the future that the public safety band at 800 MHz be vacated where all public safety will be placed in the 700 MHz LTE band once the public safety LTE project is finished. I would like to see the 806-816 MHz and 851-861 MHz be freed up for wireless services where Sprint can bid on the rest of the remaining 800 MHz spectrum to have contiguous spectrum from 806-824 MHz and 851-869 MHz.

[supert0nes]

I think 600 will be a mess getting TV stations to reverse auction as we discussed in other forums. I do believe T-Mobile should bid on something sub ghz for their future expansion outside of cities. I would rather see Verizon able to align their spectrum in 850 than bar them from any more sub ghz spectrum in any market. That might have been what you meant though.

 

I also think it's alright that AT&T keeps acquiring 700 to fill the gaps in their holey LTE deployment. I look for a more efficient use of spectrum by a small group nationwide competitive networks than fragmented networks like US Cellular.

 

I'm not real interested in sub ghz spectrum for Sprint unless it is in the SMR or Cellular blocks.

[ericdabbs]

I think 600 will be a mess getting TV stations to reverse auction as we discussed in other forums. I do believe T-Mobile should bid on something sub ghz for their future expansion outside of cities. I would rather see Verizon able to align their spectrum in 850 than bar them from any more sub ghz spectrum in any market. That might have been what you meant though.

 

I also think it's alright that AT&T keeps acquiring 700 to fill the gaps in their holey LTE deployment. I look for a more efficient use of spectrum by a small group nationwide competitive networks than fragmented networks like US Cellular.

 

I'm not real interested in sub ghz spectrum for Sprint unless it is in the SMR or Cellular blocks.

 

No I meant what I said by not allowing Verizon or AT&T to acquire more sub < 1 GHz spectrum if a 600 MHz spectrum auction were to occur. I know it sounds wrong given that Verizon and AT&T's towers are setup in a way in which it supports low band frequency tower spacing. However if Verizon or AT&T made a proposal to say that they would divest some a lot of its PCS and AWS spectrum to Sprint and Tmobile in exchange for some of the 600 MHz spectrum, I might be ok with that. Since Sprint and Tmobile's tower spacing is suitable for high band frequency, I think that it would only be fair if they gave up some of their high band frequency to satisfy the FCC. There is no reason Verizon or AT&T would need to hoard so much spectrum especially when Sprint and Tmobile can take full advantage of it right away.

 

I don't know what you mean by help Verizon align their 850 MHz spectrum? Are you saying that for Verizon in certain areas they have the A block and some areas they have the B block and you want to find a way where Verizon and AT&T can sit down and agree to swap blocks so that Verizon has all of the A block nationwide while AT&T has all of the B block nationwide? I would like to see that happen.

[supert0nes]

No I meant what I said by not allowing Verizon or AT&T to acquire more sub < 1 GHz spectrum if a 600 MHz spectrum auction were to occur. I know it sounds wrong given that Verizon and AT&T's towers are setup in a way in which it supports low band frequency tower spacing. However if Verizon or AT&T made a proposal to say that they would divest some a lot of its PCS and AWS spectrum to Sprint and Tmobile in exchange for some of the 600 MHz spectrum, I might be ok with that. Since Sprint and Tmobile's tower spacing is suitable for high band frequency, I think that it would only be fair if they gave up some of their high band frequency to satisfy the FCC. There is no reason Verizon or AT&T would need to hoard so much spectrum especially when Sprint and Tmobile can take full advantage of it right away.

 

I don't know what you mean by help Verizon align their 850 MHz spectrum? Are you saying that for Verizon in certain areas they have the A block and some areas they have the B block and you want to find a way where Verizon and AT&T can sit down and agree to swap blocks so that Verizon has all of the A block nationwide while AT&T has all of the B block nationwide? I would like to see that happen.

 

I'm going off of wiwavelength's post above. There are markets like Miami where Verizon has no 850 spectrum. In Miami, AT&T owns all the cellular spectrum. I believe it would make sense for Verizon to acquire one of the 850 blocks in markets like Miami, but in return need to divest PCS spectrum. Ideally Verizon would have no PCS spectrum. This is all in my own little perfect world and will never happen, but hey whatever.

[EliBohnert]

I totally agree with you that AT&T and VZW should be barred from obtain any more sub 1 GHz spectrum. AT&T and VZW already have 25 MHz of Cellular 850 MHz spectrum and 20 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum.

 

There is talk about the FCC trying to free up the 600 MHz spectrum to be used for wireless carriers. I would like to see Sprint and Tmobile bid on the 600 MHz spectrum to improve their network. Also I would like to see in the future that the public safety band at 800 MHz be vacated where all public safety will be placed in the 700 MHz LTE band once the public safety LTE project is finished. I would like to see the 806-816 MHz and 851-861 MHz be freed up for wireless services where Sprint can bid on the rest of the remaining 800 MHz spectrum to have contiguous spectrum from 806-824 MHz and 851-869 MHz.

This x10000000

[Deval]

Thanks to the careful "oversight" of the W. Bush era FCC (chaired by Powell and Martin), the Cellular 850 MHz cross ownership rule was removed, and AT&T was allowed to acquire both Cellular A and B block licenses in DFW and Austin. So, no, I am not surprised at all at the results in Texas. That is a failure of pro big business regulators to do their jobs and to see the likely consequences of the actions (or, in this case, inactions).

 

W. Bush from Texas -- shocking, just shocking -- did more to put AT&T nee SBC where it is today than any other, short of maybe Steve Jobs and the damn iPhone.

 

AJ

 

Wait, I didn't even realize that happened. So in markets where AT&T and Verizon were the competing LECs (NY/NJ), they own only 1 side of the 850 cellular band. You're telling me that that rule was removed a few years back?

[Deval]

I totally agree with you that AT&T and VZW should be barred from obtain any more sub 1 GHz spectrum. AT&T and VZW already have 25 MHz of Cellular 850 MHz spectrum and 20 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum.

 

 

That would be awesome.

 

 

There is talk about the FCC trying to free up the 600 MHz spectrum to be used for wireless carriers. I would like to see Sprint and Tmobile bid on the 600 MHz spectrum to improve their network. Also I would like to see in the future that the public safety band at 800 MHz be vacated where all public safety will be placed in the 700 MHz LTE band once the public safety LTE project is finished. I would like to see the 806-816 MHz and 851-861 MHz be freed up for wireless services where Sprint can bid on the rest of the remaining 800 MHz spectrum to have contiguous spectrum from 806-824 MHz and 851-869 MHz.

 

The problem with moving public safety from that band is that there is too much established infrastructure, and I doubt anyone will fund that move.

 

While I would love to see those SMR bands freed up for Sprint to use, I doubt that day will come.

[WiWavelength]

Wait, I didn't even realize that happened. So in markets where AT&T and Verizon were the competing LECs (NY/NJ), they own only 1 side of the 850 cellular band. You're telling me that that rule was removed a few years back?

 

Correct. Under the W. Bush administration, the FCC did away with the Cellular 850 MHz cross ownership rule because "competition" would self regulate the industry. Since eliminating the cross ownership rule and greatly relaxing the spectrum cap, we can readily see what has happened to "competition."

 

In 2000, prior to W. Bush, when AirTouch-Bell Atlantic Mobile-GTE-PrimeCo merged to form VZW, the combined entity was required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Phoenix, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Charlotte) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. In 2008, at the end of W. Bush's second term, when VZW-Alltel merged, VZW got essentially all of those divested Cellular licenses back, thus controlling all Cellular spectrum in those markets.

 

In 2004, at the end of W. Bush's first term, when Cingular-AT&TWS merged, the combined entity was not unilaterally required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Jacksonville, Miami) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. The combined entity was forced to divest one of the two Cellular licenses in only Oklahoma City, where market was (and still is) heavily tilted toward AT&T nee Cingular.

 

AJ

[Deval]

Correct. Under the W. Bush administration, the FCC did away with the Cellular 850 MHz cross ownership rule because "competition" would self regulate the industry. Since eliminating the cross ownership rule and greatly relaxing the spectrum cap, we can readily see what has happened to "competition."

 

In 2000, prior to W. Bush, when AirTouch-Bell Atlantic Mobile-GTE-PrimeCo merged to form VZW, the combined entity was required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Phoenix, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Charlotte) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. In 2008, at the end of W. Bush's second term, when VZW-Alltel merged, VZW got essentially all of those divested Cellular licenses back, thus controlling all Cellular spectrum in those markets.

 

In 2004, at the end of W. Bush's first term, when Cingular-AT&TWS merged, the combined entity was not unilaterally required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Jacksonville, Miami) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. The combined entity was forced to divest one of the two Cellular licenses in only Oklahoma City, where market was (and still is) heavily tilted toward AT&T nee Cingular.

 

AJ

 

That explains so much, and the reason why the wireless industry is the way it is today.

 

At this point, are there any SMR bands available? I know PCS A-F is bought up by everyone, with Sprint and Tmo holding the majority of the allotment. Where else is there spectrum that can be used with today's equipment?

[WiWavelength]

I know PCS A-F is bought up by everyone, with Sprint and Tmo holding the majority of the allotment.

 

Yes and no. Sprint and T-Mobile together do hold the majority of PCS 1900 MHz spectrum. But neither is head and shoulders above the rest. On MHz·POPs basis (nationwide or average per market), Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T are all relatively close in PCS holdings. Even with all of its other spectrum, AT&T still has the arguable lead in PCS. Sprint actually surges barely ahead -- but only if we count the effectively proprietary PCS G block. If we exclude the PCS G block, then both Sprint and T-Mobile have roughly equivalent PCS holdings, and AT&T has about a 10 MHz lead. As for VZW, it lags behind a bit but makes up for it in Cellular 850 MHz holdings.

 

AJ

[Deval]

Yes and no. Sprint and T-Mobile together do hold the majority of PCS 1900 MHz spectrum. But neither is head and shoulders above the rest. On MHz·POPs basis (nationwide or average per market), Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T are all relatively close in PCS holdings. Even with all of its other spectrum, AT&T still has the arguable lead in PCS. Sprint actually surges barely ahead -- but only if we count the effectively proprietary PCS G block. If we exclude the PCS G block, then both Sprint and T-Mobile have roughly equivalent PCS holdings, and AT&T has about a 10 MHz lead. As for VZW, it lags behind a bit but makes up for it in Cellular 850 MHz holdings.

 

AJ

 

For my market (NY/NJ), AT&T Wireless (Nynex and few others) and Bell Atlantic Mobile were the two cellular 850 carriers on A and B side. I always thought the same held true for the rest of the country, where you had A and B side carriers. After reading AJ's other posts about A/B holding deregulation, I realize that some companies have all of cellular, leaving only PCS available for the rest.

[WiWavelength]

For my market (NY/NJ), AT&T Wireless (Nynex and few others) and Bell Atlantic Mobile were the two cellular 850 carriers on A and B side. I always thought the same held true for the rest of the country, where you had A and B side carriers.

 

It does still hold true for most CMAs across the country but certainly not all, as evidenced by the CMAs I mentioned where AT&T or VZW holds both Cellular 850 MHz A/B block licenses.

 

As for the New York, NY-NJ market, my knowledge of the Cellular license heritage runs like this:

• Cellular A block: LIN Broadcasting -> McCaw Cellular -> AT&TWS -> Cingular ("new" AT&T)
  
• Cellular B block: Bell Atlantic Mobile (VZW)
  

NYNEX certainly could have held a piece of the Cellular A block. Minority ownership was quite common on the A-side. But Bell Atlantic-NYNEX would have had to divest any Cellular cross ownership in their 1997 merger.

 

AJ

[Deval]

It does still hold true for most CMAs across the country but certainly not all, as evidenced by the CMAs I mentioned where AT&T or VZW holds both Cellular 850 MHz A/B block licenses.

 

As for the New York, NY-NJ market, my knowledge of the Cellular license heritage runs like this:

• Cellular A block: LIN Broadcasting -> McCaw Cellular -> AT&TWS -> Cingular ("new" AT&T)
  
• Cellular B block: Bell Atlantic Mobile (VZW)
  

NYNEX certainly could have held a piece of the Cellular A block. Minority ownership was quite common on the A-side. But Bell Atlantic-NYNEX would have had to divest any Cellular cross ownership in their 1997 merger.

 

AJ

 

 

That's what I'm thinking as well.

 

I remember the pre-AT&T days when there was cable co wireless as well, branded. I believe Comcast offered service, this of course is going back to late 90s.

[WiWavelength]

I remember the pre-AT&T days when there was cable co wireless as well, branded. I believe Comcast offered service, this of course is going back to late 90s.

 

Comcast Metrophone was the Cellular A block licensee in the Philadelphia, PA-NJ market, but never in NYC. In the late 1990s, SBC (which would become Cingular, then the "new" AT&T) bought out Comcast's wireless assets -- that is, until Comcast joined up with Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Sprint to become SpectrumCo in the AWS-1 auction in 2006. But we all know where the SpectrumCo-Cox licenses reside now -- with VZW.

 

AJ, the wireless historian

[Deval]

Comcast Metrophone was the Cellular A block licensee in the Philadelphia, PA-NJ market, but never in NYC. In the late 1990s, SBC (which would become Cingular, then the "new" AT&T) bought out Comcast's wireless assets -- that is, until Comcast joined up with Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Sprint to become SpectrumCo in the AWS-1 auction in 2006. But we all know where the SpectrumCo-Cox licenses reside now -- with VZW.

 

AJ, the wireless historian

 

Yep, I was referring to Jersey (where I live). I remember my family members having a Comcast phone.

[WiWavelength]

Yep, I was referring to Jersey (where I live). I remember my family members having a Comcast phone.

 

True, but Newark, Jersey City, Elizabeth, etc., are still part of the NYC CMA. "Jersey," in Comcast's case, would have to have been where the Philly CMA extends into southern New Jersey.

 

AJ

[Deval]

True, but Newark, Jersey City, Elizabeth, etc., are still part of the NYC CMA. "Jersey," in Comcast's case, would have to have been where the Philly CMA extends into southern New Jersey.

 

AJ

 

Interesting, curious how my cousin obtained the phone.

 

Ok back on topic

 

So I'm assuming budget carriers such as Cricket and Metro PCS are deploying their networks with minimal backhaul, because they value price over speeds?

[avb]

Getting back to Cricket - aren't they financially in trouble/almost bankrupt? I thought I remembered reading about Cricket/Leap not being able to make a payment to Sprint for roaming agreements.

[iansltx]

Interesting, curious how my cousin obtained the phone.

 

Ok back on topic

 

So I'm assuming budget carriers such as Cricket and Metro PCS are deploying their networks with minimal backhaul, because they value price over speeds?

 

In some cases, yes. However working on a tight budget doesn't necessarily mean that they've got poor speeds due to backhaul issues. CricKet (and T-Mobile, for that matter) dumps its wireless data traffic more or less directly onto the Internet, rather than routing it through an internal network. Since they aren't a wireline company at all, that's the cheaper way of doing things, and has generally allowed them lower latency than, say, Sprint or AT&T.

 

In the same vein, CricKet probably has a lot of both wireless and AAV backhaul in many areas now, since it's cheaper than T1s or ILEC fiber. T-Mobile is similar, but with a lot more fiber to the tower.

 

Going back to history for a bit, remember that the B side CLR block got handed to the ILEC in most areas, while the A side block got given to a non-ILEC company. Hence the situation in NYC. Or, in the example of the CMA north of San Antonio, Cellular One-Concho Wireless got the A side, while Five Star Wireless (RSA 15b2) got the B side.

 

Five Star was at one point a cooperative effort between three or four local telephone companies/cooperatives in the area. As time went on, ownership of Five Star shifted to where it is now: a subsidiary of a telephone cooperative whose primary customer base is around San Angelo. The B band has as a result seen analog, TDMA, CDMA 1x, GSM and now HSPA+ deployed on it.

 

CellOne-Concho for the longest time operated a primarily analog network on the CLR A side. They had TDMA, but only in limited areas. They had GSM, but it was only for roamers (aka Cingular). Finally (around 2005 I think) the company was bought by CellOne-Dobson, who finished GSM upgrades and started selling GSM phones in the area. Then AT&T purchased Dobson. According to my records, AT&T finally launched HSPA in Fredericksburg (on CLR A) on 9/30/09.

 

Since West Central Wireless still owns CLR-B, there's no EvDO at all in CLR in that four-county area (Gillespie, Kerr, Kendall, Kimble). And it was only recently that WCW got 3G in the area. Verizon owns a number of towers, all of which have EvDO in PCS, so they cover the area rather well. But I digress...

[doug526]

Here in Austin, Cricket operates on some PCS 1900 spectrum and some AWS 1700/2100 spectrum.

 

Their cell site configuration is pretty minimal, usually with one 1700-2100 MHz antenna per sector (3 antennas per cell site). I don't know the make and model of the antennas.

 

They are using Huawei RRU's for their AWS LTE, but they are ground mounted, not up on the tower. I attached a picture of their ground mounted RRU's at a site. They are model RRU3841 radios.

 

That's all I really know about Cricket's operations.

[Deval]

In some cases, yes. However working on a tight budget doesn't necessarily mean that they've got poor speeds due to backhaul issues. CricKet (and T-Mobile, for that matter) dumps its wireless data traffic more or less directly onto the Internet, rather than routing it through an internal network. Since they aren't a wireline company at all, that's the cheaper way of doing things, and has generally allowed them lower latency than, say, Sprint or AT&T.

 

In the same vein, CricKet probably has a lot of both wireless and AAV backhaul in many areas now, since it's cheaper than T1s or ILEC fiber. T-Mobile is similar, but with a lot more fiber to the tower.

 

 

Makes sense, but I'm sure they have some interconnect where all the calls get routed through their switches, even if they are hosted.

[rwhittaker13]

My friend has cricket. Data speeds.... I heard crickets. Question answered

[avb]

I've seen some speedtests on Youtube in their LTE areas - seems like they speeds typically range from 3-8 mb/s. Not as fast as the other carriers, but fast enough for real world usage. I'm guessing they use smaller channels than the 5x5 that Sprint is using?

[Boosted20V]

I've seen some speedtests on Youtube in their LTE areas - seems like they speeds typically range from 3-8 mb/s. Not as fast as the other carriers, but fast enough for real world usage. I'm guessing they use smaller channels than the 5x5 that Sprint is using?

 

I'd imagine 1.4mhz channels.