Sprint + Lightsquared + Dish's spectrum

[WiWavelength]

 

Not per person

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/entner-lte-and-us-consumers-are-king/2012-10-19

Consider who you are citing. Roger Entner is one of the biggest shills for the duopoly and its spectrum agglomeration.

 

Plus, the MHz per million (or, as I prefer, Hz per capita) calculation that gets bandied about is one of the most misleading metrics in wireless. It has been debunked numerous times because it acts as if there is just one sector for an entire population. It completely disregards cellular reuse, which is the basis of cellular networks.

 

As a counterexample, look at Wi-Fi. If we take the total spectrum in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and divide that by the US population, we end up with a Hz per capita figure around 1. That is only ~1 Hz per person. But, hey, that is a specious measurement. Because of cellular/spatial reuse, I have 60 MHz all to myself at home with my dual band Wi-Fi network.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Consider who you are citing. Roger Entner is one of the biggest shills for the duopoly and its spectrum agglomeration.

 

Plus, the MHz per million (or, as I prefer, Hz per capita) calculation that gets bandied about is one of the most misleading metrics in wireless. It has been debunked numerous times because it acts as if there is just one sector for an entire population. It completely disregards cellular reuse, which is the basis of cellular networks.

 

As a counterexample, look at Wi-Fi. If we take the total spectrum in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and divide that by the US population, we end up with a Hz per capita figure around 1. That is only ~1 Hz per person. But, hey, that is a specious measurement. Because of cellular/spatial reuse, I have 60 MHz all to myself at home with my dual band Wi-Fi network.

 

AJ

 

 

So would spectrum per unit pop density be better?

[WiWavelength]

So would spectrum per unit pop density be better?

 

Yes, and if we use my city as a model -- taking Sprint's total spectrum bandwidth, multiplying by sector density, then dividing by an estimated number of subs based on market share -- Sprint subs have about 65 kHz per capita.  That blows out of the water the alarmist 1.3 Hz per capita figure that Entner presents.

 

AJ

[dnwk]

I though Lightsquared were dead......now it came back as vampire

[maximus1987/lou99]

Update: here's a glimmer of what Dish wants to do.

 

"Dish poised to monetize MVDDS spectrum with nTelos deal"
 

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/dish-poised-monetize-mvdds-spectrum-ntelos-deal/2013-05-24

 

Do you guys have any insight - beyond what can be Googled - on MVDDS and its potency to disrupt current ISPs?

 

"Cablevision is leasing three MVDDS licenses from Dish to operate its OMGFAST wireless broadband service in Florida, which markets a 50 Mbps service for $30 monthly."

[WiWavelength]

I though Lightsquared were dead......now it came back as vampire

 

Yes, Philip Falcone does look a bit like a foppish character out of an Anne Rice novel...

 

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Yes, Philip Falcone does look a bit like a foppish character out of an Anne Rice novel...

 

 

 

 

AJ

Wow, he looks like a bad Austin Powers impersonator. I think I saw him at a tourist attraction in Branson handing out coupons.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I have long been saying that we are unnecessarily flooding the market with so much new spectrum -- AWS-1, AWS-2, AWS-4, BRS/EBS, SMR, Upper/Lower 700 MHz, WCS, 600 MHz -- that the spectrum bubble could burst any day now.

 

AJ

Isn't this one bubble that the government should be creating? That way spectrum will be "cheap" and carriers will spend their money on building out their network instead on the spectrum; at least one country gets it:

 

"The Czech telecommunications regulator, or CTO, announced new conditions for a spectrum auction following the regulator's unusual move last month to cancel the auction over concerns that bids were too high."

 

Read more: Czech regulator revamps spectrum auction, reserves 800 MHz block for newcomer - FierceWireless:Europe http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/czech-regulator-revamps-spectrum-auction-reserves-800-mhz-block-newcomer/2013-04-10#ixzz2UK1RGyHR

Subscribe at FierceWirelessEurope

 

Just how much additional money would the Feds get if the bubble doesn't burst? Doesn't matter!

1) during last four years, there was $5,000 billion additional debt. How much could the auctions possibly bring in using pre-bubble bursting?

$31 billion

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/600-mhz-broadcast-tv-spectrum-spectrum-auction-guide

Even if its $310 billion, that makes but a dent in the debt.

2) "so what if the bids are 'too high'?"

Private sector could use the billions far more efficiently than the Feds (no one disputes that), benefitting the economy at many multiples on the billions they've saved on the auctions if the bubble bursts.

 

"The 3G auctions in 2000 were cunningly constructed to raise a staggering £22.5 billion from five national licensees. The government found plenty of worthy causes for this money, but not penny of it was spent on building mobile networks. The train commuting 3G coverage problems described above result from skimping on 3G network upgrades in the aftermath of those 3G auction excesses that left little in the kitty for network investment by operators."

 

Read more: Mallinson: What is holding the UK back on LTE? - FierceWireless:Europe http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/what-holding-uk-back-lte/2011-10-26#ixzz2UK5oOY3V

Subscribe at FierceWirelessEurope

[Fraydog]

FierceWireless is such a pile of pro-carrier crap.

 

See this article as Exhibit A.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/will-lte-end-europes-mobile-winter/2013-04-26

 

It sounds like they want the high costs on consumers to be exported to Europe. What a bunch of industry shills.

[WiWavelength]

Isn't this one bubble that the government should be creating? That way spectrum will be "cheap" and carriers will spend their money on building out their network instead on the spectrum; at least one country gets it:

 

maximus, as a polite request, can we slow down with the "20 questions"?  None of us here get paid.  In fact, many of us pay out of our own pockets to keep S4GRU up and running.  That said, I feel obligated to address questions.  But there is a practical limit to what I can or am willing to manage.

 

Here is the problem.  Adding more and more spectrum bands has tended to compartmentalize carriers into their own little fiefdoms:  VZW -- band 13, AT&T -- band 17, Sprint -- band 25, T-Mobile -- band 4, USCC -- band 12, etc.  That is basically anti competitive, anti interoperable, and anti public interest.

 

Instead, a healthier scenario would keep the number of bands down to a minimum, would force all major operators to utilize basically the same bands and deploy small cells for capacity.  That would have manifold positive effects:  increasing the value of limited spectrum for the Treasury, impelling operators into interoperability by sharing the same bands, multiplying capacity geometrically by using small cells to put sites closer to where users are located, not to mention, bringing fiber deployment to greater density to support small cells.  And that last point could also help to counter the chicanery that VZ, AT&T, and Big Cable have engaged in to reduce CAPEX and appease the short term goals of asshat capitalist shareholders, who have done a whack job on the broadband infrastructure in this otherwise first world country.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

I must concur 110% with what AJ said. Also, I wish the US would consider, down the line, rebranding the 700 block to the APT plan if possible. Unfortunately it may be too late to shove the genie back in the bottle, and by genie, I mean the mechanisms that the carriers use to separate US consumers from their money.

[maximus1987/lou99]

FierceWireless is such a pile of pro-carrier crap.

 

 

 

See this article as Exhibit A.

 

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/will-lte-end-europes-mobile-winter/2013-04-26

 

 

 

It sounds like they want the high costs on consumers to be exported to Europe. What a bunch of industry shills.

Whose money do the carriers use to build they networks, the government or investors?

 

If governments don't like capitalism in the telecom sector, then they shouldn't lure investors into investing into building a network and then make it impossible to earn a return by using the coercive power of regulation to such a degree that it's the government effectively running the carrier to the detriment of the investors.

And this is coming from someone who uses more data on Verizon's throttled 3G that most people use on Verizon's LTE.

 

I agree that with something like infrastructure it's different. Eventually, all broadband and wireless will probably get consolidated into a national network similar to Australia's NBN.

 

I'm not opposed to that.

 

I expect the NSA would love that. No more dealing with individual carriers, no more passing embarrassing bills to give the carriers retroactive immunity. Just one clean interface to everyone's data. I expect Google will sell them their Search Appliance.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I must concur 110% with what AJ said. Also, I wish the US would consider, down the line, rebranding the 700 block to the APT plan if possible. Unfortunately it may be too late to shove the genie back in the bottle, and by genie, I mean the mechanisms that the carriers use to separate US consumers from their money.

Would that even be technically possible?

They'd have to:

1) build in the US and APT band plans into new phones

2) wait until almost all 700MHz phones in circulation have the dual 700 bands

3) flip the switch one day

[maximus1987/lou99]

I am not sure I want a consolidated monolithic network, while I do think it would be better than the quasi-competition we have now, why can't we have option "C" where the incumbents cannot use legislation and regulation like bludgeons to prevent new businesses innovating on their turf? For big business claiming regulation kills business they seem to clamor a lot for it... just my two cents.

Eliminate corporate (and union) bribes err ... campaign contributions and maybe it'll happen. But while there's so much power concentrated in so few hands, a company would be irresponsible (to its shareholders) to NOT spend a few mil to get a bil $ payoff. The reward/risk is just too high to ignore.