T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[Trip]

Any TV license issued since the mid-90s was won at auction.  Any older ones that have changed hands have included spectrum value in the purchase price.

 

Although the licenses were "free" they came with lots of public service obligations and regulations, which wireless doesn't have.  Wireless isn't required to provide local programming, educational content for kids, provide its service for free to the general public, etc. 

 

- Trip

[mozamcrew]

Any TV license issued since the mid-90s was won at auction.  Any older ones that have changed hands have included spectrum value in the purchase price.

 

Although the licenses were "free" they came with lots of public service obligations and regulations, which wireless doesn't have.  Wireless isn't required to provide local programming, educational content for kids, provide its service for free to the general public, etc. 

 

- Trip

 

I didn't realize newer TV licenses were being auctioned, I can't imagine they have much monitary value outside of spectrum constrained markets. My point is that if you are merely relocating their license, as opposed to simply just taking it, then they should be only be compensated for the cost of moving. AFAICT, outside of NYC and LA, moving to "only" 38 OTA TV channels shouldn't result in a loss of stations.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I didn't realize newer TV licenses were being auctioned, I can't imagine they have much monitary value outside of spectrum constrained markets. My point is that if you are merely relocating their license, as opposed to simply just taking it, then they should be only be compensated for the cost of moving. AFAICT, outside of NYC and LA, moving to "only" 38 OTA TV channels shouldn't result in a loss of stations.

Within a market, you can't have the tv stations packed without any empty channels in between because of interference.

[WiWavelength]

AFAICT, outside of NYC and LA, moving to "only" 38 OTA TV channels shouldn't result in a loss of stations.

 

The available channel pool is not that large.  It is not quite as simple as you think -- because of frequency reuse.

 

For example, the New York City and Philadelphia markets generally cannot use the same channels.  Otherwise, the central New Jersey suburbs in between would get nothing but co channel interference.  Thus, that cuts the available channel pool at least in half.

 

AJ

[mozamcrew]

The available channel pool is not that large.  It is not quite as simple as you think -- because of frequency reuse.

 

For example, the New York City and Philadelphia markets generally cannot use the same channels.  Otherwise, the central New Jersey suburbs in between would get nothing but co channel interference.  Thus, that cuts the available channel pool at least in half.

 

AJ

I realize this. I was figuring about 1/3 of the channels would be useable in a given market. That leaves roughly 12/13 OTA HD channels in a market. Plus most of them can do an additional sub channel or two within their spectrum. I think my perspective is also a product of geography. There is plenty of channel space in my neck of the woods!

[Fraydog]

http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/01/23/three-mobile-owner-agrees-buy-fellow-uk-carrier-o2-10-25-billion-15-4-billion/

 

Britain also seems to be careening toward the three carrier thing. Three should have an absolutely stellar network once they finish eating O2, for what it's worth.

 

File under "preview of coming attractions".

[Trip]

I didn't realize newer TV licenses were being auctioned, I can't imagine they have much monitary value outside of spectrum constrained markets. My point is that if you are merely relocating their license, as opposed to simply just taking it, then they should be only be compensated for the cost of moving. AFAICT, outside of NYC and LA, moving to "only" 38 OTA TV channels shouldn't result in a loss of stations.

 

I can definitely tell you that is not true.  You're correct that stations which are not purchased in the reverse auction will only be compensated for the cost of moving, costs of which are larger than you might think they are.  However, in order to clear out channels 38-51 (making 70 MHz available for auction) requires more than 250 eligible stations nationwide to be purchased as opposed to relocated.

 

In North Dakota, sure, nobody needs to be bought.  In most of the east coast, Great Lakes region, Florida, Texas, and California?  You can't clear anything without turning off stations.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

I realize this. I was figuring about 1/3 of the channels would be useable in a given market. That leaves roughly 12/13 OTA HD channels in a market. Plus most of them can do an additional sub channel or two within their spectrum. I think my perspective is also a product of geography. There is plenty of channel space in my neck of the woods!

 

Because of frequency reuse, one third of all RF channels available in a market is a reasonable estimate.  And 12-13 RF channels per market may seem adequate in most cases, but it probably is not -- not even in very rural markets, such as the North Dakota example that both Trip and I use below for different reasons.

 

Plus, ATSC is not going to have the 60+ year long life that NTSC did.  The transition to ATSC 3.0 and the shift to progressive scan UHD/4K resolution will likely occur in the next 10-15 years.  That throws a monkey wrench into RF channel sharing.  Personally, I do not like sub channels at all -- they trade quality for quantity, much of which is junk.  UHD/4K resolution broadcasting, though, may effect a return to a single channel feed in order to fit eight times the resolution down the same 6 MHz RF pipe. 

 

I can definitely tell you that is not true.  You're correct that stations which are not purchased in the reverse auction will only be compensated for the cost of moving, costs of which are larger than you might think they are.  However, in order to clear out channels 38-51 (making 70 MHz available for auction) requires more than 250 eligible stations nationwide to be purchased as opposed to relocated.

 

In North Dakota, sure, nobody needs to be bought.  In most of the east coast, Great Lakes region, Florida, Texas, and California?  You can't clear anything without turning off stations.

 

I would challenge the statement that no broadcasters in North Dakota need to be bought in the incentive auction.  Counterintuitively, rural areas with low population density often have high RF channel density.  Because of the many smaller communities that are outside the contours of even the big VHF-Lo boomers, those rural areas need many translator sites and low power stations to provide service across their very large geographic TV markets.  To use the North Dakota example, it has 168 licensed call signs statewide.  Of those, I count over 50 call signs -- mostly translator or low power -- that are in the UHF channel 38-51 range, hence need to be bought or relocated.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=ND&call=&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&asrn=&list=1&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9

 

AJ

[Trip]

I would challenge the statement that no broadcasters in North Dakota need to be bought in the incentive auction.  Counterintuitively, rural areas with low population density often have high RF channel density.  Because of the many smaller communities that are outside the contours of even the big VHF-Lo boomers, those rural areas need many translator sites and low power stations to provide service across their very large geographic TV markets.  To use the North Dakota example, it has 168 licensed call signs statewide.  Of those, I count over 50 call signs -- mostly translator or low power -- that are in the UHF channel 38-51 range, hence need to be bought or relocated.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=ND&call=&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&asrn=&list=1&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9

 

AJ

 

LPTV and translator stations are not protected in the auction and will not be bought.

 

And in any case, many of the stations on that list are owned by Landover and DTV America, speculators who applied for licenses in the hopes of getting a waiver of FCC rules to do broadband services rather than broadcast services anyway.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

LPTV and translator stations are not protected in the auction and will not be bought.

 

And in any case, many of the stations on that list are owned by Landover and DTV America, speculators who applied for licenses in the hopes of getting a waiver of FCC rules to do broadband services rather than broadcast services anyway.

 

Point taken.  But it does not entirely negate my point.  Rural areas have many more legitimate translator sites and low power stations than casual viewers know.  And those sites/stations still would have to be repacked somewhere, adding to the complexity of the situation.  Otherwise, the FCC would be basically eschewing TV's public service mandate and screwing rural citizens.  That would be completely unacceptable.

 

AJ

[Trip]

They're not being compensated, but are required to relocate or go off the air to clear the "recovered" spectrum and to accommodate repacked broadcasters.  They will not be relocated as part of the auction and repacking process but after the fact, on an "as they can fit" basis.

 

Call it what you want (and I work for the FCC so I won't share my opinion) but it is what it is.  And if it's completely unacceptable (again, I won't share my opinion) then nobody else seems to have noticed outside of the LPTV/translator industry.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

They're not being compensated, but are required to relocate or go off the air to clear the "recovered" spectrum and to accommodate repacked broadcasters.  They will not be relocated as part of the auction and repacking process but after the fact, on an "as they can fit" basis.

 

Call it what you want (and I work for the FCC so I won't share my opinion) but it is what it is.  And if it's completely unacceptable (again, I won't share my opinion) then nobody else seems to have noticed outside of the LPTV/translator industry.

 

Well, the FCC needs to have a well thought out plan to accommodate translator sites and lower power stations that cover otherwise unserved rural areas.  It cannot be left to a market based solution.  It cannot be left to some pro bono telecom/spectrum policy wonk like myself to point out a problem.  Most importantly, it cannot be left to a Marie Antoinette type response:  "Then, let them use pay satellite."  All of the above would be unacceptable.

 

I will use my own permanent home state of Kansas and adopted home state of New Mexico as examples.  The FCC sets the Television Market Areas, and my two states have two of the largest geographic size TMAs in the country -- hundreds of miles in multiple directions.

 

 

Not even the most powerful VHF-Lo boomer can even remotely broadcast a contour to cover Wichita as well as all but one county in the rest of western Kansas.  The same holds true for Albuquerque and almost the entirety of New Mexico.  Instead, much of those hinterland areas get their major network TV served out of Wichita and Albuquerque, respectively, via numerous translator sites and lower power stations.  Those cannot just be cast to the winds of change without loss of service.

 

AJ

[Trip]

Well, the FCC needs to have a well thought out plan to accommodate translator sites and lower power stations that cover otherwise unserved rural areas.  It cannot be left to a market based solution.  It cannot be left to some pro bono telecom/spectrum policy wonk like myself to point out a problem.  Most importantly, it cannot be left to a Marie Antoinette type response:  "Then, let them use pay satellite."  All of the above would be unacceptable.

Then go talk to your congressman about it. There's a sentence in the law which says "[n]othing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the spectrum usage rights of low-power television stations" which is interpreted to mean that the FCC can't protect them because they're not primary services but also can't force them off the air unless there is literally nowhere for them to go, which may or may not happen. The law also spells out that only Full Power and Class A stations are entitled to relocation compensation.

 

Saying "it shouldn't be this way" doesn't change the facts on the ground.

 

I will use my own permanent home state of Kansas and adopted home state of New Mexico as examples.  The FCC sets the Television Market Areas, and my two states have two of the largest geographic size TMAs in the country -- hundreds of miles in multiple directions.

Minor note, the FCC uses the proprietary Nielsen DMAs, not TMAs, in its market determinations. Those DMAs are set by Nielsen, and not the FCC.

 

Not even the most powerful VHF-Lo boomer can even remotely broadcast a contour to cover Wichita as well as all but one county in the rest of western Kansas.  The same holds true for Albuquerque and almost the entirety of New Mexico.  Instead, much of those hinterland areas get their major network TV served out of Wichita and Albuquerque, respectively, via numerous translator sites and lower power stations.  Those cannot just be cast to the winds of change without loss of service.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong on your facts, I'm just saying that the way it should be (according to you; again, I don't think I should give an opinion given my position) isn't the way it is.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

Well, the FCC needs to have a well thought out plan to accommodate translator sites and lower power stations that cover otherwise unserved rural areas. It cannot be left to a market based solution. It cannot be left to some pro bono telecom/spectrum policy wonk like myself to point out a problem. Most importantly, it cannot be left to a Marie Antoinette type response: "Then, let them use pay satellite." All of the above would be unacceptable.

 

I will use my own permanent home state of Kansas and adopted home state of New Mexico as examples. The FCC sets the Television Market Areas, and my two states have two of the largest geographic size TMAs in the country -- hundreds of miles in multiple directions.

 

 

Not even the most powerful VHF-Lo boomer can even remotely broadcast a contour to cover Wichita as well as all but one county in the rest of western Kansas. The same holds true for Albuquerque and almost the entirety of New Mexico. Instead, much of those hinterland areas get their major network TV served out of Wichita and Albuquerque, respectively, via numerous translator sites and lower power stations. Those cannot just be cast to the winds of change without loss of service.

 

AJ

If there's so few tv stations then it sounds like none of them have to be cleared.

[jroepcke51]

If there's so few tv stations then it sounds like none of them have to be cleared.

That's not his point. In Albuquerque we have 5 or 6 stations. I can go through out the state and do to the Rocky Mountains and great expansions of desert I can find those channels but on different translators. These are the ones AJ is referring to and how they are being effected.

 

Also AJ next time in ABQ, Wecks, El Pinto or Sadies on me.

[EvanA]

T-Mobile's coverage map was updated today showing band 2 coverage. Definitely "hotspot" type coverage.

[JossMan]

Probably either Sprint will implode in bankruptcy or it'll cut costs (through capex reduction, layoffs, or both) to balance the budget.

Sometimes bankruptcy (Chapter 11 restructuring) is for the best if cost reductions, layoff, etc do not help, look at Dana Corporation which filed bankruptcy in 2006 due to the slumping automotive industry.  They came out of bankruptcy as a much more leaner, healthier, and profitable company, I know its like comparing apples to oranges (wireless to automotive) but the point is that sometimes for a final effort it is necessary to go through restructuring and come out a better company in the end.

 

I know this isn't the case for all companies and I'm not supporting bankruptcy as a easy way out but it should be considered when it is absolutely necessary.  

[kg4icg]

If there's so few tv stations then it sounds like none of them have to be cleared.

People forget about frequencies especially in the vhf and uhf bands which 600, 700, 800 mhz after apart of. Every now and then when the atmosphere charges up especially in the e-layer, you get a bounce off radio waves called skip. And during the right tone, those radio waves will carry for miles. Not unheard of hearing or seeing tv and radio signals miles from where the were. It that frequency range, signals have a habit of traveling several states because of e-skip. Propagation always has play in it. There is no defeating physics.

[maxsilver]

T-Mobile has started to update the map, but I don't think they've finished updating it, because this new map is (currently) missing a lot of live coverage.

 

Most (all?) of the MetroPCS converted coverage is missing from this new map and shows as "roaming / no coverage", even though T-Mobile definitely has working coverage in those areas.

 

(at least, all of the Michigan MetroPCS coverage in areas like Muskegon, Grand Haven, Mount Pleasant, etc, are missing on this new map, even though T-Mobile has had working live coverage there for months, and still display it as such on the old map at https://maps.eng.t-mobile.com/pcc-customer.php )

 

 

So, considering all the live, active coverage missing from this "new" map, I think (or at least, hope) they're still working on it. And if this truly is the "finished" new map, then somebody in Bellevue made a big mistake.

[bigsnake49]

People forget about frequencies especially in the vhf and uhf bands which 600, 700, 800 mhz after apart of. Every now and then when the atmosphere charges up especially in the e-layer, you get a bounce off radio waves called skip. And during the right tone, those radio waves will carry for miles. Not unheard of hearing or seeing tv and radio signals miles from where the were. It that frequency range, signals have a habit of traveling several states because of e-skip. Propagation always has play in it. There is no defeating physics.

 

It won't be a problem for cellular networks.

[lou99/maximus1987]

T-Mobile's coverage map was updated today showing band 2 coverage. Definitely "hotspot" type coverage.

Is the old green website updated?

[maxsilver]

Is the old green website updated?

 

No. At least, it doesn't look like it has been updated so far.

[lou99/maximus1987]

No. At least, it doesn't look like it has been updated so far.

I'm on mobile.

Is there a checkbox to only show b2 or only b12?

[lou99/maximus1987]

I'm on mobile.

Is there a checkbox to only show b2 or only b12?

Nope there's not. If you click on a b2 lte area, te popup will say "click here to see compatible devices"

Lame.

There should be a enable disable checkbox for b2 and b12 lte

[Fraydog]

Has anyone found the Band 12 only coverage yet? I looked at Colorado Springs and couldn't find any Band 12 only dialog.