Jump to content
eljayyy91

FCC wants caps at 600 mhz auction on big carriers.

Recommended Posts

Very interesting! Glad to see the FCC looking out for the smaller carriers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is the auction & what are the odds Sprint picks it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt the cell tower equipment for 600 mhz incredibly large (size and weight) to the point that putting that equipment on the towers as they are may cause safety issues considering everything else that is up there?  Especially when you factor in wind and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt the cell tower equipment for 600 mhz incredibly large (size and weight) to the point that putting that equipment on the towers as they are may cause safety issues considering everything else that is up there?  Especially when you factor in wind and all that.

 

IF the equipment is that much larger, engineering will definitely be a factor in the tower structure.  However, wind has to be accounted for in the tower design, depending on height, structure type, overall load plus excess load in it's initial construction.  So i would say unless it's a big dish, such as microwave, the towers are designed already to withstand most of those issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is the auction & what are the odds Sprint picks it up?

Very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quad band phones, anyone?

 

Sent from my LG-LS980

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quad band phones, anyone?

 

Sent from my LG-LS980

I have been eluding to quin-band and sexta-band phones for a long time.  ;)

-Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been eluding to quin-band and sexta-band phones for a long time.  ;)

 

Uh, the sex phone has been around for a long time...

 

demotivation.us_SEX-PHONE-Hi-my-name-is-

 

AJ

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the equipment is that much larger, engineering will definitely be a factor in the tower structure.  However, wind has to be accounted for in the tower design, depending on height, structure type, overall load plus excess load in it's initial construction.  So i would say unless it's a big dish, such as microwave, the towers are designed already to withstand most of those issues. 

 

This is a post from another forum I am on from an individual talking about the 600 mhz frequency.  I dont know if it is right or not but I believe this guy works in the biz...

 

"It's capacity is terrible, frequency reuse becomes almost non-existent(towers would have to be 20+ miles apart), and it will require the complete replacement of 10's of thousands of existing cell towers, because any effective panel sector antenna at 600MHz will be 12 feet long, and 4-6 feet wide.

 

That will exceed the sq/ft wind load capacity of almost all cell towers already in existence, and be virtually impractical to install.

 

Worse than hanging 25 sheets of 4x8 solid plywood on 150 foot tall towers that were never intended to handle that kind of wind load /twist load /ice load.

 

It's amazing how many towers are already way over their original design limits, and have had to have reinforcing torsion bars(re-bar, DYWIDAG systems) welded to them already, to try and keep them from failing with the current number of antennas already on them.

 

Just imagine if a strong hurricane/ice storm, could bring down many hundreds of towers in a region, literally bring them down, as is completely collapsed on the ground down.

 

All Wireless coverage completely gone for 6 months or more, after such an event.

 

Most original 850 sites, were designed for omnidirectional "whip" type antennas, but you can't do that at 600MHz, or the tower sites would then have even less capacity, and have to be 60+ miles apart.

 

Verizon and AT&T are already maxing out their 700MHz sites, and it's all about the size of the antennas, and the tower spacing, and that's why they're going up to PCS 1900, and 1700/2100 AWS spectrum, where those problems don't exist.

 

Nobody seems to be thinking logically about any of this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a CDMA 450mhz network running somewhere in the world? Haven't heard of these problems with that network.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ice storm, could bring down many hundreds of towers in a region, literally bring them down, as is completely collapsed on the ground down.

All Wireless coverage completely gone for 6 months or more, after such an event.

 

 

Been there done that in 2009. It really sucked, we had to use GMRS radios for a month to communicate with other family members. Sprint gave us the month for free too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a post from another forum I am on from an individual talking about the 600 mhz frequency.  I dont know if it is right or not but I believe this guy works in the biz...

 

"It's capacity is terrible, frequency reuse becomes almost non-existent(towers would have to be 20+ miles apart), and it will require the complete replacement of 10's of thousands of existing cell towers, because any effective panel sector antenna at 600MHz will be 12 feet long, and 4-6 feet wide.

 

...Nobody seems to be thinking logically about any of this."

 

One of my engineering projects that I did years ago was on a tower with support lines.  Engineered properly and for the locations, the towers will be fine.  Now, if what they said about antenna size and weight is absolutely true, then tower redesigns would HAVE to be done. 

 

Every area has different climates that have different environmental phenomena that occur.  Ca. for example has earthquakes and high winds, which are coded for in the civil engineering designs for the city/county.  The towers, if an engineer designed them right, should withstand a max effort from most environmental situations.  The one that fails, atleast here in Ca. will have one heck of a suit on their hands, especially if someone gets hurt. 

 

I could see them building deidcated towers for a new setup if that is required for the size of the equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a post from another forum I am on from an individual talking about the 600 mhz frequency.  I dont know if it is right or not but I believe this guy works in the biz...

 

"It's capacity is terrible, frequency reuse becomes almost non-existent(towers would have to be 20+ miles apart), and it will require the complete replacement of 10's of thousands of existing cell towers, because any effective panel sector antenna at 600MHz will be 12 feet long, and 4-6 feet wide.

 

That will exceed the sq/ft wind load capacity of almost all cell towers already in existence, and be virtually impractical to install.

 

Worse than hanging 25 sheets of 4x8 solid plywood on 150 foot tall towers that were never intended to handle that kind of wind load /twist load /ice load.

 

It's amazing how many towers are already way over their original design limits, and have had to have reinforcing torsion bars(re-bar, DYWIDAG systems) welded to them already, to try and keep them from failing with the current number of antennas already on them.

 

Just imagine if a strong hurricane/ice storm, could bring down many hundreds of towers in a region, literally bring them down, as is completely collapsed on the ground down.

 

All Wireless coverage completely gone for 6 months or more, after such an event.

 

Most original 850 sites, were designed for omnidirectional "whip" type antennas, but you can't do that at 600MHz, or the tower sites would then have even less capacity, and have to be 60+ miles apart.

 

Verizon and AT&T are already maxing out their 700MHz sites, and it's all about the size of the antennas, and the tower spacing, and that's why they're going up to PCS 1900, and 1700/2100 AWS spectrum, where those problems don't exist.

 

Nobody seems to be thinking logically about any of this."

 

Ehh.  How much credibility does this poster have in this other forum?  I mean I don't think ATT is maxed out on their 700 MHz sites at all especially with the new influx of 700 MHz B block spectrum that they bought from Verizon earlier this year.  The reason Verizon 700 MHz sites are maxed out is because everyone and their mother jumped to Verizon back in 2011 when LTE showed how true broadband mobile internet is suppose to be. Not to mention the fact that there were a huge influx of customers that wanted to sign up with Verizon to lock in that unlimited data plan when it was discontinued in July 2011.

 

I don't know what it will take in order to install 600 MHz antennas and RRUs but what this poster is saying paints a really negative picture on 600 MHz equipment.  Like others have said, other countries like in South America use 450 MHz so I can't imagine how those antennas will be like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the FCC does stick to its word and put caps on the 600 MHz spectrum on Verizon and ATT to allow Sprint and Tmobile to pick up some of this low band spectrum which both carriers have little to none of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a post from another forum I am on from an individual talking about the 600 mhz frequency.  I dont know if it is right or not but I believe this guy works in the biz...

 

"It's capacity is terrible, frequency reuse becomes almost non-existent(towers would have to be 20+ miles apart)...

 

That individual seemingly knows just enough to be dangerous -- and to spout a bunch of bullshit.

 

I am no fan of the 600 MHz auction, but if 600 MHz required the spatial reuse that the poster purports, then Upper/Lower 700 MHz currently in use among VZW, AT&T, and USCC would require roughly 15 mile site spacing.  Wrong!  

 

Those licensees have plenty of sites only a mile apart or even less.  Within reason, ERP/EIRP gets adjusted accordingly.  A person has to be way out of his pay grade if he thinks that all sites are transmitting at the same power levels. 

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That individual seemingly knows just enough to be dangerous -- and to spout a bunch of bullshit.

 

I am no fan of the 600 MHz auction, but if 600 MHz required the spatial reuse that the poster purports, then Upper/Lower 700 MHz currently in use among VZW, AT&T, and USCC would require roughly 15 mile site spacing.  Wrong!  

 

Those licensees have plenty of sites only a mile apart or even less.  Within reason, ERP/EIRP gets adjusted accordingly.  A person has to be way out of his pay grade if he thinks that all sites are transmitting at the same power levels. 

 

AJ

 

Exactly, if it reachers 'too far' in some areas you just lower the transmit power for the towers. In rural areas with big gaps between towers you can ramp it up and get increased coverage. 

 

As regards antenna etc, this is an engineering challenge. As soon as ALU et al see there is money to be made selling lighter \ less sail like antenna then you can be sure they will appear for sale. If there is sufficient money to entice a solution, and 4 nation wide networks wanting to purchase would qualify, well 3 nation wide and tmobile) then they will find a way. Plus not all sites are towers, the majority around here are sat on hotel roof tops and therefore subject to different limitations. In cities I would presume (probably incorrectly) that building roof tops are also a popular location? In cities it would seem to me that this means more capacity, in rural locations more reach as well?

 

A question for our gurus, assuming they did drop the transmit power on towers, they could leave it alone on phones right? Allowing the 'upload' more resilience? Just wondering.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, if it reachers 'too far' in some areas you just lower the transmit power for the towers. In rural areas with big gaps between towers you can ramp it up and get increased coverage. 

 

As regards antenna etc, this is an engineering challenge. As soon as ALU et al see there is money to be made selling lighter \ less sail like antenna then you can be sure they will appear for sale. If there is sufficient money to entice a solution, and 4 nation wide networks wanting to purchase would qualify, well 3 nation wide and tmobile) then they will find a way. Plus not all sites are towers, the majority around here are sat on hotel roof tops and therefore subject to different limitations. In cities I would presume (probably incorrectly) that building roof tops are also a popular location? In cities it would seem to me that this means more capacity, in rural locations more reach as well?

 

A question for our gurus, assuming they did drop the transmit power on towers, they could leave it alone on phones right? Allowing the 'upload' more resilience? Just wondering.     

 

 

That individual seemingly knows just enough to be dangerous -- and to spout a bunch of bullshit.

 

I am no fan of the 600 MHz auction, but if 600 MHz required the spatial reuse that the poster purports, then Upper/Lower 700 MHz currently in use among VZW, AT&T, and USCC would require roughly 15 mile site spacing.  Wrong!  

 

Those licensees have plenty of sites only a mile apart or even less.  Within reason, ERP/EIRP gets adjusted accordingly.  A person has to be way out of his pay grade if he thinks that all sites are transmitting at the same power levels. 

 

AJ

 

Not only that, AJ, but while optimal performance dictates certain antenna length and spatial diversity certain seperattion between antennas, you can get good performance from less than optimal lenghts and separations. Life is full of compromises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

600MHz only propagates about 3% better than 700MHz. Just like 700MHz propagates about 3% better than 800MHz. There is nothing inherently worse about 600MHz than 700MHz in propagation characteristics, except for a slight gain. Downtilt adjustment can take away most of the problems.

 

The problem with 600MHz is more about interfering with other adjacent license holders. Not with creating a cohesive network for a provider. Also, a 600MHz panel and radio can be built to not be any larger than 700MHz panels used now. This is much ado about nothing. I wonder what this guy was saying about 700MHz initially? :td:

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the 600 MHz incentive auction will now happen no earlier than mid 2015.  That means any auctioned spectrum will not see widespread deployment until 2016-2017 -- at the earliest.  I stand vindicated in my assessments that 600 MHz is not coming soon.

 

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/path-successful-incentive-auction-0

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/tv-airwaves-auction-delayed-by-u-s-fcc-chairman-until-mid-2015.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

 

Joan Marsh, AT&T Inc. (T)’s vice president of federal regulatory, said in an e-mailed statement that while the company “is eager to see new spectrum allocations brought to market as soon as practical, we appreciate the enormity of the task the Commission faces and believe that it is essential that time be taken to get it right.”

 

 

In other words, the longer that we can keep additional low band spectrum from Sprint & t-mobile, the better. If AJ's foil, Joan Marsh, is in favor of something there's a good chance that it's not beneficial for consumers as a whole.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In other words, the longer that we can keep additional low band spectrum from Sprint & t-mobile, the better. If AJ's foil, Joan Marsh, is in favor of something there's a good chance that it's not beneficial for consumers as a whole.

Or perhaps, "lets keep kicking it down the line and hopefully we can get it into the next presidents term who may be more sympathetic to the way I want to do it." 

 

Vice president of federal regulatory? Would this have anything to do with being in charge of donating large sums of money to politicians who completely by coincidence come out in favor of legislation written by companies or their lobbying firms, often for the sole benefit of that company and at the expense of the people who actually pay politicians wages and to whom they are sworn to represent? It's sad that companies have such offices. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vice president of federal regulatory? Would this have anything to do with being in charge of donating large sums of money to politicians who completely by coincidence come out in favor of legislation written by companies or their lobbying firms, often for the sole benefit of that company and at the expense of the people who actually pay politicians wages and to whom they are sworn to represent? It's sad that companies have such offices.

 

Bingo. Jim, Bob, and Joan are lobbyists. Karma for them should be a bitch.

 

AJ

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DigiClaws

I don't see how att has a chance at this auction considering all the sub 1gHz spectrum they have plus all the AWS spectrum they are currently gobbling up out there like Stelara, Aloha Partners, and Cable One. The same goes for verizon getting AWS and PCS spectrum in return for selling off their lower A block 700mHz spectrum. Not sure how much spectrum they got from tmobile. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how att has a chance at this auction considering all the sub 1gHz spectrum they have plus all the AWS spectrum they are currently gobbling up out there like Stelara, Aloha Partners, and Cable One. The same goes for verizon getting AWS and PCS spectrum in return for selling off their lower A block 700mHz spectrum. Not sure how much spectrum they got from tmobile. Thoughts?

 

AT&T will have plenty of opportunity at the 600 MHz auction -- as always, assuming that the auction actually happens.  The recent FCC regime has little issue with acquisitions of spectrum.  It is mostly concerned with acquisitions of subscribers and market share that negatively affect competition.  That is the reason for the reported pushback on the possibility of Sprint-T-Mobile.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...