FCC rejects requests to delay Softbank/Sprint deal review

[marioc21]

Here are two stories on the FCC apparently rejecting Dish's request to put a delay on the deal. The FCC intends to hold to its original time table for reviewing the deal. So the target is still in june/july of 2013.

 

Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/softbank-surges-on-report-fcc-rejects-sprint-delay-tokyo-mover.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/no_pause_for_sprint_WyVqIKZKKw4eFiiAuXTlHL

 

I suppose this means that there will be no delay for the justice department review either if they're holding to the old time table. . Neither article states it explicitly, except that softbank thinks they'll be able to alleviate any concerns that justice has.

[irev210]

Sprint, from what I've seen over the years, has a great working relationship with the FCC and other various federal agencies.

 

Maybe AJ can shed light on why/how that came to be.

 

Perhaps all those days cuddled together working through the iDEN rebanding?

[marioc21]

And as a follow-up here is an article on a conference in California yesterday where Dish CEO, Charlie Ergen said that they'll have to consider selling their spectrum assets if a suitable wireless partner can't be found.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/dish-to-sell-wireless-spectrum-if-network-plans-fail.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

He also apparently said that the offer for Clearwire was a serious one.

[JeffDTD]

I would think that this in part means the FCC considers the filing on the acquisition to be truthful, fair, and transparent in the review completed thus far.

 

Contrast that to the wild claims made in ATT's filings for the TMo acquisition... it was filled with half truth

[Rawvega]

And as a follow-up here is an article on a conference in California yesterday where Dish CEO, Charlie Ergen said that they'll have to consider selling their spectrum assets if a suitable wireless partner can't be found.

 

http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo

 

 

Music to Randall Stephenson's ears.

 

[irev210]

Music to Randall Stephenson's ears.

 

 

I mean, with WCS, does AT&T really even care about S-Band? DISH's (and I mean Charlie) arrogance cost them a lot of money.

 

I just don't see any buyers with T-Mobile looking for sub-1GHz, Sprint all set with clearwire, Verizon set with AWS, and AT&T den der got them some WCS.

 

Who is the buyer?

[WiWavelength]

I mean, with WCS, does AT&T really even care about S-Band? DISH's (and I mean Charlie) arrogance cost them a lot of money.

 

AT&T may be running out of room to buy or host Dish's S-band/AWS-4 spectrum. Adding WCS panels may already be enough of a challenge that a deal would need to be struck soon so that dual band WCS/AWS-4 panels could be arranged.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Sprint, from what I've seen over the years, has a great working relationship with the FCC and other various federal agencies.

 

Maybe AJ can shed light on why/how that came to be.

 

Simple. Sprint ≠ AT&T.

 

AJ

[irev210]

AT&T may be running out of room to buy or host Dish's S-band/AWS-4 spectrum. Adding WCS panels may already be enough of a challenge that a deal would need to struck soon so that dual band WCS/AWS-4 panels could be arranged.

 

AJ

 

Just seems like a rather large technical headache for a relatively small gain in total spectrum assets.

[JeffDTD]

I thought Ergen had already committed to a build out schedule in order to get permission to use the spectrum? There are still ways, but I guess he dreamed of being in complete control

[marioc21]

I thought Ergen had already committed to a build out schedule in order to get permission to use the spectrum? There are still ways, but I guess he dreamed of being in complete control

 

Wasn't that proposed build out always premised on DISH partnering with an existing wireless provider? I don't think DISH was counting on having to build towers.

[bigsnake49]

Wasn't that proposed build out always premised on DISH partnering with an existing wireless provider? I don't think DISH was counting on having to build towers.

 

Yes, it was, and Sprint would have been the natural partner, since they could have used the money to finish their network vision project. Well Softbank happened and Sprint does not need their money anymore and probably told Dish to go pound sand. That's why Dish is going after Clearwire. T-Mobile has shown no interest in partnering with Dish.

[WiWavelength]

Wasn't that proposed build out always premised on DISH partnering with an existing wireless provider? I don't think DISH was counting on having to build towers.

 

As always, be clear with use of the word "tower," or just do not use it unless it specifically applies. Carriers -- old or new -- are rarely building new towers. Instead, they are mostly co-locating new sites on existing towers.

 

Dish would absolutely rather not have to build thousands of new sites. But it is not as if Dish going it alone would have to build thousands of new towers.

 

AJ

[marioc21]

As always, be clear with use of the word "tower," or just do not use it unless it specifically applies. Carriers -- old or new -- are rarely building new towers. Instead, they are mostly co-locating new sites on existing towers.

 

Dish would absolutely rather not have to build thousands of new sites. But it is not as if Dish going it alone would have to build thousands of new towers.

 

AJ

 

Always a stickler.

[WiWavelength]

Always a stickler.

 

Me or "towers"?

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

A tower is just one type of site, and only refers to the structure itself. I live next to a Sprint site. It has a 250' tower, on which it has panels. I do not live next to a Sprint tower. It is an SBA tower, at which Sprint has located a site.

 

Robert

[digiblur]

AJ has rubbed off on me as I find myself calling them sites as well.

 

Just makes sense, tower IDs are for the FCC and site IDs are for each carrier on the tower. Except for rooftop and others of course.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

[xcharles718]

Dish could still go in on their own(dealing with tower companies, vendors, etc) if they want.

 

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

[WiWavelength]

Dish could still go in on their own(dealing with tower companies, vendors, etc) if they want.

 

Right. Few, if any new towers would be required. But Dish would still have to set up new leases, backhaul, base stations, and panels. By pairing with an existing carrier, Dish would be trying to pare down the "to do" list to just a subset of the aforementioned.

 

AJ

[xcharles718]

Music to Randall Stephenson's ears.

 

 

Com'on guys, does those eyes really look like those of satan?

[WiWavelength]

Com'on guys, does those eyes really look like those of satan?

 

Hmm...

 

 

AJ

[HTCandroid]

Maybe you guys have shed some some light on this topic. I've tried to do research on comparing how much spectrum the big 4 have license for. More specifically in Southern Cali in the OC and LA markets. I know they all have licenses for different spectrum in different areas. Also including the CLWR spectrum with Sprints. The whole "band" terminology confuses me.

 

To simplify, how much spectrum does each of the big 4 have(including clearwire) in the LA and OC markets.

[WiWavelength]

Maybe you guys have shed some some light on this topic. I've tried to do research on comparing how much spectrum the big 4 have license for. More specifically in Southern Cali in the OC and LA markets. I know they all have licenses for different spectrum in different areas. Also including the CLWR spectrum with Sprints. The whole "band" terminology confuses me.

 

To simplify, how much spectrum does each of the big 4 have(including clearwire) in the LA and OC markets.

 

Doing a quick glance over my records, these are the Big 4 spectrum holdings that I have for the Los Angeles market:

 

VZW:

• Cellular 850 MHz: 25 MHz
  
• PCS 1900 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• Upper 700 MHz: 22 MHz
  
• Lower 700 MHz: 24 MHz
  

AT&T:

• Cellular 850 MHz: 25 MHz
  
• PCS 1900 MHz: 40 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• Lower 700 MHz: 24 MHz
  
• WCS 2300 MHz: 30 MHz
  

Sprint:

• PCS 1900 MHz: 40 MHz
  
• SMR 800 MHz: 14 MHz
  
• BRS 2600 MHz: 55.5 MHz
  

T-Mobile:

• PCS 1900 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 40 MHz
  

Some of these holdings are apt to change a bit in the coming months, though, due to pending transactions involving T-Mobile, MetroPCS, VZW, and AT&T. Also, not all of this spectrum is currently usable (e.g. WCS 2300 MHz, some Lower 700 MHz). And this accounting does not include Sprint's unattributable BRS 2600 MHz spectrum nor its EBS 2600 MHz spectrum, as the latter is only leased on a site basis.

 

AJ

[HTCandroid]

Doing a quick glance over my records, these are the Big 4 spectrum holdings that I have for the Los Angeles market:

 

VZW:

• Cellular 850 MHz: 25 MHz
  
• PCS 1900 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• Upper 700 MHz: 22 MHz
  
• Lower 700 MHz: 24 MHz
  

AT&T:

• Cellular 850 MHz: 25 MHz
  
• PCS 1900 MHz: 40 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• Lower 700 MHz: 24 MHz
  
• WCS 2300 MHz: 30 MHz
  

Sprint:

• PCS 1900 MHz: 40 MHz
  
• SMR 800 MHz: 14 MHz
  
• BRS 2600 MHz: 55.5 MHz
  

T-Mobile:

• PCS 1900 MHz: 20 MHz
  
• AWS 2100+1700 MHz: 40 MHz
  

Some of these holdings are apt to change a bit in the coming months, though, due to pending transactions involving T-Mobile, MetroPCS, VZW, and AT&T. Also, not all of this spectrum is currently usable (e.g. WCS 2300 MHz, some Lower 700 MHz). And this accounting does not include Sprint's unattributable BRS 2600 MHz spectrum nor its EBS 2600 MHz spectrum, as the latter is only leased on a site basis.

 

AJ

 

Holy crap! Thanks. I've tried researching all this but every source isn't clear or leave bits out. Huge help AJ!

[HTCandroid]

So ideally sprint would want to try to get more in the 800s for when they deploy LTE in that ares. Assuming I kind of have an understanding. Since sprint only has. 14 in the 800s they can only deploy LTE in the 5x5 configuration. And vzn and att are at an advantage with 20 in the 850 each with some usable 700 spectrum. I think I've read that vzn wants to sell some of the 700 cause they can't use it or expensive deployment.