Jump to content

Verizon eyeing wireless business in Canada: Report


Rawvega
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

First, in terms of foreign direct investment, Wind Mobile is a result of an Egyptian foreign direct investment, which took quite a while to secure. 2nd, I didn't say they would start another CDMA network there, they would use the AWS holdings that Wind has and upgrade it to LTE and when most of their US customers are on VoLTE, then they can gouge their US customers for roaming and pay it back to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

 

You didn't read the article:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/17/f-naguib-sawiris.html

 

 

 

"Globalive, headed by Canadian entrepreneur Anthony Lacavera, has a complex ownership structure under which the Canadian equity owners control the company, but Orascom put up more than 80 per cent of the funding.

 

That raised the ire of telecom incumbents Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. which complained to the CRTC that the company doesn't adhere to Canada's stringent foreign ownership rules.

 

After a lengthy process, Canadian officials eventually ruled that Wind was within the rules and was allowed to launch a cellular service in late 2009."

 

 

 

By the skin of their teeth it was ruled ok; that's not how it should be.

 

We have Tmobile and now Softbank. WTF are the Canadians worried about?

 

It's one thing to have issues with Huawei and ZTE's routers but when it's Verizon?

 

 

 

VoLTE: I'm sure you've read the mods' many posts regarding VoLTE in its current state. Simply, it's not as robust in terms of coverage at 700 MHz, let alone at AWS, compared to even W-CDMA voice.

 

As the mods said, maybe LTE R12 will fix that but that'll be a while. And this is even more relevant for Verizon who has very far spacing on their LTE towers. Don't think that VZW will make their towers denser in Canada when their low population density will already require a huge investment.

 

 

 

And marketing-wise, how can Verizon justify charging their US customers roaming on the Verizon-Canada network? They can't.

 

 

 

That article was wrote 2 years ago. Here's the kicker: an article wrote earlier this year said that Canada's telecom authority has relaxed their rules more than when they let Wind Mobile start up. If I remember to this evening, I will try to find it. They want a major 4th player, but frankly, Verizon shouldn't be it.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

Found it but it's not much better. It's still not what we have here in US-A. Foreign carriers c. Buy a carrier if it has less than 10% of Canadian telecom revenues.

 

"The recent amendments to the Telecommunications Act2 provide an exemption to the normal rules for carriers and their affiliates having total annual telecommunications revenues that represent less than 10% of total Canadian telecom industry revenues. Based upon the most recent CRTC reports, carriers could have up to C$4.17 billion in annual revenue and still be exempt from the foreign ownership restrictions. As a result, the exemption will apply to all current Canadian carriers other than Bell Canada, TELUS Corporation and Rogers Communications Inc.

 

A carrier established under the exemption can expand its operations to exceed the 10% ownership threshold, provided that growth beyond the threshold is not a result of acquiring control of another carrier or acquiring assets of another Canadian carrier, in which case the normal ownership restrictions would apply (effectively, a 46.7% limit and no "control in fact")."

 

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/187372/Telecommunications+Mobile+Cable+Communications/Foreign+Ownership+Restrictions+Relaxed+For+Telecom+Carriers+In+Canada

 

Does anyone know why the Canadians are so antsy about foreign investment?

 

Lobbyists and campaign donations?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it but it's not much better. It's still not what we have here in US-A. Foreign carriers c. Buy a carrier if it has less than 10% of Canadian telecom revenues.

 

"The recent amendments to the Telecommunications Act2 provide an exemption to the normal rules for carriers and their affiliates having total annual telecommunications revenues that represent less than 10% of total Canadian telecom industry revenues. Based upon the most recent CRTC reports, carriers could have up to C$4.17 billion in annual revenue and still be exempt from the foreign ownership restrictions. As a result, the exemption will apply to all current Canadian carriers other than Bell Canada, TELUS Corporation and Rogers Communications Inc.

 

A carrier established under the exemption can expand its operations to exceed the 10% ownership threshold, provided that growth beyond the threshold is not a result of acquiring control of another carrier or acquiring assets of another Canadian carrier, in which case the normal ownership restrictions would apply (effectively, a 46.7% limit and no "control in fact")."

 

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/187372/Telecommunications+Mobile+Cable+Communications/Foreign+Ownership+Restrictions+Relaxed+For+Telecom+Carriers+In+Canada

 

Does anyone know why the Canadians are so antsy about foreign investment?

 

Lobbyists and campaign donations?

 

 

Frankly, they care more about their own citizens and companies that they encourage entrepreneurship to stimulate their economy. Foreign companies coming in takes away from such a thing. But I still hold to the fact that Verizon is bad for the Canadian Telecommunications industry. Instead of 3 strong carriers, you'd have 4 strong carriers and they will all price gouge just like the big 3 do now.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, they care more about their own citizens and companies that they encourage entrepreneurship to stimulate their economy. 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

Exactly the opposite. How does insulating your economy from global competition mean you care about your citizens? They have the highest cell prices BECAUSE there is no competition. As a result of highest prices, Canada has the lowest cell ownership per capita.

 

"However when we look at how many cell phones there are per person in Canada, and compare that to other technologically advanced nations, Canada is far behind. In 2009 Canada had only 70.9 cell phones per 100 people, while the much smaller U.K. had 129.9, and even the U.S. with its large size managed to reach 89.2. Canada also fares poorly in comparison to other nations that have a widely dispersed population like Finland (144.2) and Norway (111).8"

 

http://openmedia.ca/blog/why-your-high-cell-phone-bills-have-nothing-do-size-canada

 

 

 

Foreign companies coming in takes away from such a thing. 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

Have you heard of a foreign company called Softbank? Softbank could never do in Canada what it will do here BECAUSE we have less government coddling than in Canada. 

 

 

 

But I still hold to the fact that Verizon is bad for the Canadian Telecommunications industry. Instead of 3 strong carriers, you'd have 4 strong carriers and they will all price gouge just like the big 3 do now.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

How is Verizon bad? Even if Verizon, as you say, maintains the same pricing as the Canadian Triplets, then by definition, things at worst won't change.

But then why would people switch to Verizon-Canada and how would they recover their costs?

 

I can see one scenario that would be bad for Canadians: Verizon undercuts the Triplets and upon acquiring a commanding market position, it raises prices.

But this assumes the Triplets don't do anything to react. Though maybe Verizon may be content to lose money for a longer time so it kills the Triplets? What's the payoff? Canada is so small that it's not worth it. If the were to happen, the Canadian gov would step in somehow so . . . no. Verizon wouldn't risk a xenophobic backlash for such a small payoff.

 

Read some Fiercewireless articles about what happened in France - France of all places - when Free Iliad came on the scene as the fourth national competitor; France Telecom was not a happy camper. Before Free Iliad, France had the highest rates in Europe. (Can't find the article right now)

 

 

No. Verizon will definitely not be bad for Canadians. Having 4 equal-ish sized cell Cos, each with national coverage and sub 1-GHz spectrum? Count me in!
 
Can't wait till TMO gets that 5x5 @600 MHz, if it survives 3 years without upgrading all towers to at least 3G or an expansion of its footprint.
 
Ray said that the company is not currently looking to expand its network footprint and is eagerly awaiting next year's scheduled incentive auctions of 600 MHz broadcast TV spectrum. He said using such spectrum is "a far more effective way to go and build those opportunities out" and that getting access to such low-band spectrum would mean "we would finally have a level playing field in the U.S. marketplace" between smaller carriers and AT&T and Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ), which dominated the 700 MHz auction in 2008.

 

Read more: T-Mobile to expand MetroPCS footprint by 100M POPs - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-expand-metropcs-footprint-100m-pops/2013-05-15#ixzz2Xux6tmhm 

Subscribe at FierceWireless

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo!  You saved me a lengthy explanation.  Thanks, Rawvega.

 

To add to that, neither Bell nor Telus has deployed any GSM, only W-CDMA.

 

AJ

 

 

Yes, but if they're buying Wind, they're getting a pure WCDMA network that needs to be upgraded to LTE and will probably need 700Mhz in the upcoming auction to be competitive with the big three. 

 

 

The issue that I was responding to was not about Wind; it was about Bell and Telus.  Too many people think that Bell and Telus have switched to W-CDMA.  No, they rolled out some W-CDMA overlay for three reasons:

  1. They had spectrum to burn.
  2. They wanted the iPhone.
  3. They wanted roaming revenue from the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Other than excess spectrum, which is a constant "problem" for Bell, Telus, and Rogers, the other two reasons are now ancient history.  Furthermore, their CDMA2000 networks are still in place -- in fact, I roamed on Telus two months ago -- and they still offer greater coverage area than the W-CDMA overlays.

 

AJ

 

For some reason I had it in my head that they were replacing their CDMA networks with W-CDMA. Given that this isn't the case, at least in the near term, then it DOESN'T make sense for VZW to build/buy CDMA assets in Canada. In that case, the acquisition of Wind and their AWS spectrum (which VZW is starting to roll out LTE on in the US) and possibly bidding on 700Mhz in Canada, makes more sense. They will be moving to an all LTE network, and one using the same spectrum frequencies as their US LTE. Given the economies of scale, they probably see this as a good time to enter that market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I had it in my head that they were replacing their CDMA networks with W-CDMA. Given that this isn't the case, at least in the near term, then it DOESN'T make sense for VZW to build/buy CDMA assets in Canada. In that case, the acquisition of Wind and their AWS spectrum (which VZW is starting to roll out LTE on in the US) and possibly bidding on 700Mhz in Canada, makes more sense. They will be moving to an all LTE network, and one using the same spectrum frequencies as their US LTE. Given the economies of scale, they probably see this as a good time to enter that market.

 

Now of course, does Candada follow the US 700MHz band plan? I hope not! That one so freaking messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now of course, does Candada follow the US 700MHz band plan? I hope not! That one so freaking messy.

Not necessarily, but they might be able to use the same antennas/equipment. Which means even more leverage when negotiating prices with vendors. The bigger your customer is, the more leverage they have on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, but they might be able to use the same antennas/equipment. Which means even more leverage when negotiating prices with vendors. The bigger your customer is, the more leverage they have on you.

Yes but the order for Canada is going to be pretty small. Unless they are going to replace part of their LTE network or use AWS as more than hotspot duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the order for Canada is going to be pretty small. Unless they are going to replace part of their LTE network or use AWS as more than hotspot duty.

They are currently preparing for AWS LTE rollout in the US. I'm suggesting that they will be able to add additional equipment to that order to include their Canadian sites. Canada by itself isn't large, but lets say it adds 10-15% to their existing order. That may get them better pricing per unit on all the gear, not SO much for Verizon since their order is already large, but it will drive down the cost for Wind/VZW Canada.  Also, assuming they will have a shot at 700Mhz spectrum in Canada, maybe that means US Verizon customers will be able to roam in Canada on both AWS and 700Mhz since they will have LTE on similar frequencies???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are currently preparing for AWS LTE rollout in the US. I'm suggesting that they will be able to add additional equipment to that order to include their Canadian sites. Canada by itself isn't large, but lets say it adds 10-15% to their existing order. That may get them better pricing per unit on all the gear, not SO much for Verizon since their order is already large, but it will drive down the cost for Wind/VZW Canada.

 

Unless I am mistaken, Wind has only 10-20 MHz of AWS spectrum per market.  That is tied up in W-CDMA and is not getting converted to LTE anytime soon.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now of course, does Candada follow the US 700MHz band plan? I hope not! That one so freaking messy.

 

Yes they did

 

60. Taking into consideration the constraints related to potential cross-border interference, the necessity to support public safety systems and equipment ecosystem availability, Industry Canada has concluded that Option 1 (harmonization with the U.S. band plan) should be adopted.

 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10122.html

 

If they hadn't, Verizon wouldn't have any LTE roaming advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a good place to start a 700 MHz bandplan discussion? If not, mods can move it.

 

AJ, why was the 700 MHz plan chosen the way it was here in USA? Is it because of no public safety band?

 

59. Option 3, the APT band plan adopted by administrations in Asia, does not include provisions for public safety services in the 700 MHzband. The adoption of this band plan would thus require the displacement of Canadian public safety operations from current frequencies. Moreover, significant issues related to cross-border interoperability, interference, frequency coordination and equipment availability would arise and affect both public safety and future commercial mobile systems.

 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10122.html

 

That's what Canada's FCC said.

 

Or is it politics?

 

Looks like no one else is gonna use that plan

 

But while the US model is unlikely to be adopted by any other region, it does look as though other regions might be pursuing somewhat separatist strategies. Many Asia-Pacific countries have already committed to the Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) plan, which takes 703–748MHz and pairs it with 758–803MHz. Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, Korea, Papua New Guinea have now either formally adopted or signalled their intent to use the APT700MHz spectrum band for LTE services. Indonesia and Malaysia are yet to commit, though, while China—ever keen to plough its own furrow—has indicated that it aims to introduce TDD technology in the 700MHz band.

 

http://www.telecoms.com/154582/done-roaming/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are currently preparing for AWS LTE rollout in the US. I'm suggesting that they will be able to add additional equipment to that order to include their Canadian sites. Canada by itself isn't large, but lets say it adds 10-15% to their existing order. That may get them better pricing per unit on all the gear, not SO much for Verizon since their order is already large, but it will drive down the cost for Wind/VZW Canada.  Also, assuming they will have a shot at 700Mhz spectrum in Canada, maybe that means US Verizon customers will be able to roam in Canada on both AWS and 700Mhz since they will have LTE on similar frequencies???

 

Well they better get the same Upper C Block in Canada that they did in the US. Otherwise roaming is not guaranteed since there is no interoperability between the different bands in 700MHz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not guaranteed! There are other players that might bid for that.

 

What's the market cap of the other players vs Verizon?

 

Comparison of the Triplets:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=RCI+Competitors

 

 

Verizon could buy ALL the spectrum in the auction.

 

Verizon could buy Rogers, Telus, and Bell if it really wanted to.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the market cap of the other players vs Verizon?

 

Verizon could buy ALL the spectrum in the auction.

 

Verizon could buy Rogers, Telus, and Bell if it really wanted to.

We will see what the rules of the auction are going to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see what the rules of the auction are going to be.

 

Why would there be any rules to deny Verizon to bid on Band 13?

Especially when it doesn't have any 700 MHz in Canada so . . . 

 

Here are the rules:

 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10572.html

 

6.2 Spectrum Aggregation Limits

243. Competitive measures with regard to the 700 MHz band were announced in SMSE‑002‑12. Industry Canada sought comments on the proposed wording of the condition of licence related to the spectrum aggregation limits as follows:

The licensee must comply with the spectrum aggregation limits as follows:

  • A limit of two paired frequency blocks in the 700 MHz band (blocks A, B, C, C1 and C2) is applicable to all licensees.
  • A spectrum cap of one paired spectrum block within blocks B, C, C1 and C2 is applicable to all large wireless service providers. Large wireless service providers are defined as companies with 10% or more of the national wireless subscriber market share, or 20% or more of the wireless subscriber market share in the province of the relevant licence area.

The spectrum caps put in place for the 700 MHz auction will continue to be in place for five years following licence issuance. Therefore, no transfer of licences or issuance of new licences will be authorized that allows a licensee to exceed the spectrum caps during this period. Any change in ownership or control granting a right or interest to another licensee in this band may be considered as licence transfer for the purpose of this condition of licence whether or not the licensee name is changed as a result. The licensee must request approval by the Minister of Industry for any change that would have a material effect on its compliance with these spectrum aggregation limits. Such a request must be made in advance for any proposed transactions within its knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10572.html

 

I've tried pasting the spectrum table allocation but it removes the formatting; the table is in the link above.

 

Search for "Table 1 — Block size for spectrum in the 700 MHz band"

 

The band plan is exactly the same except Band 13 spectrum is split into 2 5x5, probably so that two carriers can buy that band.

 

What's nice for Verizon is that it will be able to purchase both those 5x5 blocks in Band 13.

 

  • A spectrum cap of one paired spectrum block within blocks B, C, C1 and C2 is applicable to all large wireless service providers. Large wireless service providers are defined as companies with 10% or more of the national wireless subscriber market share, or 20% or more of the wireless subscriber market share in the province of the relevant licence area.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10581.html#p6.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, from everything I've read, Bell and Telus have no plans to discontinue their CDMA networks because of the roaming revenue they bring in from US CDMA roaming customers. All they see is '$$$$$'.

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

If they have to compete with Verizon on speed then they might need to repurpose the CDMA spectrum for LTE and increase the W-CDMA coverage (if they feel like it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what'd make the Triplets REALLY freak out is if ATT were to jump in and buy all 10x10 of Band 17 AND the unpaired (Band 29) D,E blocks, for 10MHz of supplemental downlink, leaving only one 5x5 of Band 12 spectrum for the triplets.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10572.html

Table 1

 

If that happens, expect some CDMA refarming to occur pronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By Paynefanbro
      I figured since Verizon's 5G-NR network officially launched it would make sense for there to be a thread for it.
    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
       
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
       
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
       
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
       
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
       
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
       
       
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
       
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By runagun
      Unless this is a mistake. Mobilitie is also helping VZW on there small cell approach too. I'm familiar with them doing arenas with all the providers , just not small cell.
       
      http://www.downers.us/public/docs/agendas/2017/11-14-17/RES 2017-7580 - Right-of-Way License Agreement with Mobilitie, LLC - 11-14-2017_8260.pdf
    • By Andrew Revering
      This one has stumped me and I'm hoping someone can shed light on this...
       
      I have Sprint as my provider, and I'm out in a no-coverage area north of Lake Superior in Minnesota.
       
      I purchased a 20db gain Yagi antenna, and pointed it at the nearest tower, which is 16 miles away on the other side of a high bluff.
       
      The antenna is connected to a Wilson (WeBoost) amplifier
      Amplifier showing all green as it's at max power and working properly.
       
      I am getting a signal! It's a middle of the road "2-3 bar" -87 dBm signal on both my Android HTC 10 and my wife's iPhone 6S Plus
       
      Signal Check Pro says it's the Verizon tower, which makes sense as I'm pointing it at the 850 mhz Verizon tower.
       
      The problem is that calls do not work. No tones or audio when dialing and eventually it just disconnects, and no data connection available.
       
      I tried a Verizon MiFi and had similar results. It had a signal but couldn't connect.
       
      What's the problem? I've put in about $800 into this setup, and I don't want to give up on getting data and switching to Satellite if I'm very close to getting a connection!
       
      Thanks in advance for your ideas/explanations.
    • By sbolen
      Daring Fireball linked to a really great piece in the New York Times over the weekend about how U.S. Consumers “may overpay by over a quarter of a trillion dollars for worse levels of service than customers in other countries receive.”
       
  • Posts

    • I chatted with a foreman the other day (figured out what tmo panels look like lol) but he was also "on lend" from a verizon contractor. So he didn't know a ton.. but enough. It's going on, it seems like its a little bit of slow process. And things screw up there to (he had an install were the panels S/N didn't match that which was on the paper work back in the office)   AND TMO does more over the phone vs having a eng. on hand like verizon does, so it slows it down a bit if they have a hiccup... Like wrong S/N lol
    • The direct number to Account Services/Retentions is  844-382-3317 . I think they might be able to help.
    • I went to three stores that had Sprint SIMs in stock, none of which could activate one for my iPhone. I also tried calling in twice as well as speaking with someone on online chat. In every instance, I was told they couldn’t move me back or that the system wasn’t letting them activate my device. While it may be possible to go back, they are definitely not making it easy. And customers like me (who depend on their phones for work) cannot deal with dropped calls and EDGE in the time it takes to figure it out. 
    • Unless something has changed, you can still go back. There are still immediate needs to do so- activating a phone not eligible for TNX yet like a pixel 5 for instance. You just have to do it through chat/customer support as the online portal doesn't support going back to a Sprint sim.
    • Just a heads up for anyone else thinking about making the switch to TNX - I tried for about two weeks and it does not appear you can go back if you don’t like your service with TNX.  I would strongly recommend staying on TNA for anyone who is hesitant/unsure. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...