AT&T Wireless purchases Leap Wireless (Cricket Wireless)

[bigsnake49]

The better to screw with the smaller carriers. Verizon knew about the ch 51 issues so it had no plan to actually use them.

Do they still have any A block left?

 

I don't know. I remember they won a lot of licenses and particularly if I remeber correctly in the more heavily populated areas.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I don't know. I remember they won a lot of licenses and particularly if I remeber correctly in the more heavily populated areas.

Until ch 51 is cleared, it's useless for a national carrier. If a carrier's footprint resides entirely in a non-exclusion zone, even then it has the problem of getting band 12 devices

[WiWavelength]

Until ch 51 is cleared, it's useless for a national carrier. If a carrier's footprint resides entirely in a non-exclusion zone, even then it has the problem of getting band 12 devices

 

USCC has deployed band 12 LTE in its Lower 700 MHz A block license inside at least one DT channel 51 contour.

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

USCC has deployed band 12 LTE in its Lower 700 MHz A block license inside at least one DT channel 51 contour.

 

AJ

How did they do that? Do the ch 51 zones merely have lower power limits like the IBEZ?

 

Also, I'd appreciate knowing your opinion to following questions:

1) did ATT have a valid technical reason for making band 17?

2) after ch 51 is moved, will FCC mandate ATT use b12?

3) even if FCC mandates b12, will that help USM? It's CDMA so even ATT's b12 iphone 7 won't help all CDMA carriers.

Edited July 16, 2013 by asdf190

[Rawvega]

They (Verizon) certainly have alot of lower A licenses for not being interested.

 

Well do keep in mind that the 700MHz lower A license that LEAP has in Chicago was originally VZW's and they swapped it (and $120M) for PCS and AWS spectrum.

 

Also I was going by the press release reported here: http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/18/verizon-selling-700mhz-spectrum-but-only-if-government-approves/

 

 

VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONDUCT SPECTRUM LICENSE SALE

 

Stephens Inc. to Manage Offering Process

 

BASKING RIDGE, N.J. – Verizon Wireless today announced plans to conduct an open sale process for all of its 700 MHz A and B spectrum licenses in order to rationalize its spectrum holdings. The licenses cover dozens of major cities across the country, as well as a number of smaller and rural markets.

 

Verizon Wireless obtained the 700 MHz A and B licenses, as well as nationwide 700 MHz upper C licenses (with the exception of Alaska which has since been acquired), in FCC Auction 73 in 2008. Verizon Wireless is deploying its 4G LTE network, which currently covers more than 200 million people, on its nationwide 700 MHz upper C spectrum. If Verizon Wireless is successful in acquiring additional AWS (Advanced Wireless Services) spectrum licenses, it will use AWS spectrum in conjunction with its 700 MHz upper C band spectrum to deploy additional LTE capacity.

 

 

Since VZW was uncharacteristically offering to sell spectrum I took that to mean that they weren't generally interested in that spectrum. If you have a different interpretation, I'm all ears (so to speak).

[WiWavelength]

How did they do that? Do the ch 51 zones merely have lower power limits like the IBEZ? Also, I'd appreciate knowing your opinion to following questions: 1) did ATT have a valid technical reason for making band 17? 2) after ch 51 is moved, will FCC mandate ATT use b12? 3) even if FCC mandates b12, will that help USM? It's CDMA so even ATT's b12 iphone 7 won't help all CDMA carriers.

 

Actually, my memory was faulty.  Rather, USCC deployed and tested band 12 LTE in its Lower 700 MHz B, C, and B+C blocks in Waterloo, IA -- the same market that is the subject of DT channel 51 relocation in this post:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4138-dish-trialing-mobile-tv-service-on-700mhz-block-e/?p=169731

 

The point of the USCC test, though, was to show that mobiles with band 12 filters could operate in Lower 700 MHz B and/or C block spectrum inside DT channel 51 contours and not cause nor receive undue interference.

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=tnmnQ2vLM0VT3ccblSp091f82wJ1WJ0QvN11XBp2QsLDpnDZ64jz!-56284754!-224088840?id=7022072058

 

 

AJ

[maximus1987/lou99]

Actually, my memory was faulty. Rather, USCC deployed and tested band 12 LTE in its Lower 700 MHz B, C, and B+C blocks in Waterloo, IA -- the same market that is the subject of DT channel 51 relocation in this post:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4138-dish-trialing-mobile-tv-service-on-700mhz-block-e/?p=169731

 

The point of the USCC test, though, was to show that mobiles with band 12 filters could operate in Lower 700 MHz B and/or C block spectrum inside DT channel 51 contours and not cause nor receive undue interference.

 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=tnmnQ2vLM0VT3ccblSp091f82wJ1WJ0QvN11XBp2QsLDpnDZ64jz!-56284754!-224088840?id=7022072058

 

 

AJ

So ATT's study proved them right and USM's study proved them right. How convenient!

Though wasn't ATT proving that with b12 filters, the user would receive less S/N? Of course ATT is gonna want to apply the stricter standard and USM the "it works! You get 20% BER but it works!"

[mozamcrew]

The reason to cap spectrum is to prevent carrier options for customers from becoming too limited in a given geographical market, thus preserving competition. You don’t want people that live in a particular town to only have one or two realistic options for cell service, which is what happens, particularly in suburban or rural areas where one carrier has all the low frequency voice spectrum. Eventually when we more entirely to LTE, this will be less of an issue, given all the additional 700 Mhz spectrum.

In the meanwhile, I proposed forcing ATT (or VZW) to give up 850Mhz spectrum in markets where it owns both the A and B blocks. (There are only a handful of them.) Why divide it into two blocks if you let one carrier have the whole thing, or nearly so. My proposal: No carrier should own a majority of both the A and B block in a given geographical area. In the Dallas market for example, if ATT simply gave up 15Mhz of one of their blocks that would be fine. I'm sure a CDMA carrier could squeeze a bunch of voice/EVDO traffic on to a pair of 7.5 blocks. Maybe trade it with VZW for some needed AWS, I'm not proposing they get nothing in return for the divesture.

 

I think allowing a carrier to have 50 Mhz of AWS & 50-60 Mhz PCS in a market is too much. Sprint would love to have 50Mhz, of PCS period, forget AWS. They only have that much in maybe one place now (thanks to the USCC deal), and up until the 800Mhz reband, they had to operate everything in PCS, no AWS or CLR850. I think a combined cap or 60 (or MAYBE 70 at most) Mhz of PCS+AWS should exist, certainly for carriers that already own CLR850 in a market and possibly some 700Mhz too. They are similar frequency, so they will have similar range and propigation.
 

[maximus1987/lou99]

I think ATT's statements regarding keeping the Cricket brand is total BS. Cricket pricing does not line up with ATT.

Hopefully, they're required to divest some PCS AND they sell the customers to Sprint. Sprint won't need additional CDMA CAPEX but it gets additional revenue. It can probably even keep the CDMA subs on existing CDMA spectrum and use divested PCS spectrum for more LTE channels. Sprint can use ATT for AWS LTE roaming for the cricket subs with AWS LTE and after 2-3 years, all Cricket AWS LTE phones are out of circulation.

An extra 5 mil subs will help Sprint a lot more than ATT.

Edited July 19, 2013 by asdf190

[gnoj]

It must be frustrating for the soon to be orphaned USCC customers in Chicagoland (those who are aware of all these telecom transactions) to see a 700Mhz license that USCC was undoubtedly angling for that would have allowed them to deploy LTE and stay competitive in that market wasted on Leap and now once again on the market nearly right after their sale with Sprint closed. With Mary Dillon gone and a path forward for LTE deployment, I can't help but wonder what would have been if Leap's sale to AT&T was announced earlier. Now the spectrum will continue to languish because that A block doesn't seem to be a good fit for any of the other 3 (non-VZW) networks left there. As much as I dislike Big Red it would probably be best if they just changed their minds and used it rather than having it end up in the hands of some speculator.

 

But I guess those of us on Sprint are happy it worked out that way for all the PCS that was acquired.   I only hope those airwaves are utilized as soon as the native USCC network is shut down this January.

[maximus1987/lou99]

It must be frustrating for the soon to be orphaned USCC customers in Chicagoland (those who are aware of all these telecom transactions) to see a 700Mhz license that USCC was undoubtedly angling for that would have allowed them to deploy LTE and stay competitive in that market wasted on Leap and now once again on the market nearly right after their sale with Sprint closed. With Mary Dillon gone and a path forward for LTE deployment, I can't help but wonder what would have been if Leap's sale to AT&T was announced earlier. Now the spectrum will continue to languish because that A block doesn't seem to be a good fit for any of the other 3 (non-VZW) networks left there. As much as I dislike Big Red it would probably be best if they just changed their minds and used it rather than having it end up in the hands of some speculator.

 

But I guess those of us on Sprint are happy it worked out that way for all the PCS that was acquired. I only hope those airwaves are utilized as soon as the native USCC network is shut down this January.

Please note the big red channel 51 exclusion zone over Chicago. A block is a no-no.

 

[gnoj]

I see... well I guess whoever winds up with the Chicago A block will need to lobby the FCC to make sure WPWR-TV moves off Ch. 51 to a different RF channel. I'm sure if VZW really wanted to they could get it done but whether Wheeler will listen to a smaller carrier remains to be seen. I can understand USCC not wanting to wait any longer for the 600Mhz auction to force the issue, when that still has so many questions surrounding it. I do hope that the FCC has learned from the botched 700Mhz auction and that there won't be interference issues so that the entire band is useful. Makes me wonder why they even sold off that license if no one could use it.

[maximus1987/lou99]

I see... well I guess whoever winds up with the Chicago A block will need to lobby the FCC to make sure WPWR-TV moves off Ch. 51 to a different RF channel. I'm sure if VZW really wanted to they could get it done but whether Wheeler will listen to a smaller carrier remains to be seen. I can understand USCC not wanting to wait any longer for the 600Mhz auction to force the issue, when that still has so many questions surrounding it. I do hope that the FCC has learned from the botched 700Mhz auction and that there won't be interference issues so that the entire band is useful. Makes me wonder why they even sold off that license if no one could use it.

AJ said it's gonna be one of the first channels cleared for 600 MHz. Lookup "down from 51 FCC" but that's gonna be a long ways away.

[maximus1987/lou99]

Surprised that Verizon wasn't interested. It could've almost instantly transferred subs to its own network.

 

AT&T was only bidder for Leap, upped price by 58% in negotiations

 

Read more: AT&T was only bidder for Leap, upped price by 58% in negotiations - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-was-only-bidder-leap-upped-price-58-negotiations/2013-07-31#ixzz2ae1gPq5T

Subscribe at FierceWireless

Edited July 31, 2013 by bluespruce1901

[Rawvega]

The Deathstar bidding against itself. Amusing. 

[maximus1987/lou99]

Here's where cricket (and everyone else) has AWS licenses.

 

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=99&p=1495