Jump to content

Verizon says FCC can't ignore Sprint's 2.5 GHz licenses in spectrum screen


bucdenny
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah, not surprising.  What are they going to say?  Please don't count Sprint's spectrum against them.  We want them to be able to pick up more spectrum in the future!

 

Robert

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Wimax conversion to LDD-LTE This year, everyone will finally say Sprint has delivered on its promises. Better speeds and Sprint will hopefully see a major turnaround in subscribers. All the negatives will eventually disappear. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man....All this b41 talk is making me drool. I should just go pick up a nexus and ditch the iPhone already. Jk, I am too enveloped  in the apple ecosystem to do that. Here's to hoping I can afford the 6 when it comes out. Probably won't be able too lol.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Wimax conversion to LDD-LTE This year, everyone will finally say Sprint has delivered on its promises. Better speeds and Sprint will hopefully see a major turnaround in subscribers. All the negatives will eventually disappear. :D

 

I think you mean TDD-LTE.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verizon and ATT should not be talking in the first place.  If anything I see Sprint giving concessions on its 2.5 GHz spectrum if needed to satisfy the FCC.  Sprint doesn't need 120 MHz of 2.5 GHz.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mean TDD-LTE.

 

Robert

 

Damn I was hoping for LDD-LTE! :lol:

 

Alright, I'll stop trolling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Still do not think it will sway them. IF they are trying to just get in better position for the 600Mhz Auction, it will not work. Verizon and ATT have a majority share of Low Spectrum, and That is what will matter when the 600Mhz auction comes. Verizon realizes it and will try to do anything to keep sprint from getting anything that may benefit them

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, low and mid frequency spectrum are treated the same, but Sprint managed to get its high frequency spectrum discounted by having the FCC not count leased EBS. Verizon WAS very happy with this situation, because up to this point, lower frequency spectrum has always been of equal (urban) or greater (suburban/rural) value than higher frequency spectrum because of the economics of building out coverage. They were happy to throw Sprint a bone on BRS/EBS in return for Cell spectrum remaining equal to the AWS/PCS that Sprint and TMUS were stuck with. 

 

Verizon is looking down the road, seeing increased urban density and data usage, and looking at how that will decrease the value of its holdings of lower frequency spectrum, beyond a certain limited amount. Thus, the grand spectrum screen bargin it cut suddenly looks less and less attractive, especially now that Sprint has managed to acquire a sliver of lower frequency spectrum. If they build out, they will suddenly be in a much more adventageous position that the duopoly anticipated. Hence the sudden hurried lobbying for the FCC to change the spectrum screen.

 

On a side note, no provider should have ever been allowed to acquire both the A and B sides of Cell spectrum license in a market. That was anti-competitive on its face. Why split the license if you are going to allow one company to own both sides.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, no provider should have ever been allowed to acquire both the A and B sides of Cell spectrum license in a market. That was anti-competitive on its face. Why split the license if you are going to allow one company to own both sides.

 

As I have factually stated before, this went down under the W. Bush administration.  The rationale was that the competitive market had changed -- mostly, because of PCS 1900 MHz.  And, indeed, that was part of the goal in creating the PCS band.  So, this was basically the argument:  some PCS licensees hold upwards of 40 MHz per market, why should Cellular 850 MHz licensees be limited to 25 MHz?

 

More recently, AT&T has complained that the current FCC is picking winners and losers in the wireless industry.  Well, I would argue that the previous administration FCC rewrote rules that would help make VZW and AT&T bigger winners.  Those rewritten rules largely ignored the propagation and public good associated with the Cellular band.  This was several years prior to the AMPS sunset, so one operator could then control all AMPS in a given market.  That had, for example, important 911 ramifications.

 

Among many decisions made by that era FCC, it was foolish.  And here I thought the W. Bush administration could not get "fooled" again.

 

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor, hard done by Verizon!! You wouldn't think they managed to make $2 1/4 Bn in q3 2013  given their wailing. 

 

Yes there probably should be some accounting for all spectrum, but it should be proportionate to its propagation (frequency and possibly max transmit power?). So every 500MHz up the dial you go the spectrum is 'worth' say 50% less. Verizon could have gone after the spectrum sprint got, they could have traded for it, they had enough money and the ability to borrow $130bn, so playing the victim is pathetic. If the current situation blind sided them then they don't deserve to be in business, who do they think they are? AT&T?

 

Unless I am completely misunderstanding the situation (which is highly likely) can you not drop the transmit power of a site and build more sites around it (or split into more segments, or change downtilt?) to better utilize existing spectrum? albeit at extra cost. But you cannot ramp up the transmit power past an allowed maximum  (plus return path power would be a limiting factor) for your license to cover more area, so higher frequency spectrum is intrinsically less versatile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man....All this b41 talk is making me drool. I should just go pick up a nexus and ditch the iPhone already. Jk, I am too enveloped  in the apple ecosystem to do that. Here's to hoping I can afford the 6 when it comes out. Probably won't be able too lol.

i want to ditch my s4 for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor, hard done by Verizon!! You wouldn't think they managed to make $2 1/4 Bn in q3 2013  given their wailing. 

 

Yes there probably should be some accounting for all spectrum, but it should be proportionate to its propagation (frequency and possibly max transmit power?). So every 500MHz up the dial you go the spectrum is 'worth' say 50% less. Verizon could have gone after the spectrum sprint got, they could have traded for it, they had enough money and the ability to borrow $130bn, so playing the victim is pathetic. If the current situation blind sided them then they don't deserve to be in business, who do they think they are? AT&T?

 

Unless I am completely misunderstanding the situation (which is highly likely) can you not drop the transmit power of a site and build more sites around it (or split into more segments, or change downtilt?) to better utilize existing spectrum? albeit at extra cost. But you cannot ramp up the transmit power past an allowed maximum  (plus return path power would be a limiting factor) for your license to cover more area, so higher frequency spectrum is intrinsically less versatile?

 

Yes you can drop the power and thicken your network for capacity. You want to design the network using the natural propagation distances, acounting for terrain, tall buildings that might be blocking, multi-path interference, etc.

 

I don't hink Verizon is objecting too much to the potential Sprint/T-Mobile merger because they know that there will be some spectrum divestment from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better than the LOL LTE found in Fort Wayne.

 

AJ

Oh no. Here come the flashbacks. lol

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until verizon is willing to densify its network, building out the same number of sites and small cells that sprint has planned, using its AWS and 700mhz, its not an argument. The cost of supporting more sites just threatens their precious profit margin. If they truly want more high band spectrum to alleviate capacity constraints, why not ask sprint to sell some of it and then whine instead of crying to the FCC? And the ~ 1.5B offer they made to clear in the midst of the buyout turmoil doesnt count.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verizon doesn't have the cell layout for AWS in most places. Now they want to likely add EBS? It smells like they want spectrum for the sake of warehousing it until they slowly increase their site density.

  • Like 2
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

  • Posts

    • Just figured out this is a waste of time. US Mobile and Verizon lock the eSim to the emei while T-Mobile only uses it to see that you have a capable phone, like Red Pocket does with physical sims (although RP does keep track of what phone you are using it on with the emei.)  So @Trip was right in this case on liking physical sims.
    • Verizon has a reputation for being frugal with MVNOs. After looking around, I also decided US Mobile was my best option. People have gotten C band on it.  Hoping for esim for my S21 Ultra.  No luck so far.  Red Pocket does not claim Verizon 5g, although they say Soon!(TM).  I do see some 5g with it. Typically MVNOs are deprioritized, thus I am reluctant to claim truly getting top speeds with one.
    • Did some exploring yesterday/last night and didn't find a shred of C-Band, including with my brand new US Mobile SIM. Did find 4CA CBRS but the site seemed backhaul constrained; both that plus 15x15 B2 and band-locked 2/66 got me 190 Mbps or so.
    • Did some more exploring yesterday/last night and I think I spotted some LAA downtown but didn't get a chance to confirm before it went away in favor of mmW, which also went away pretty quickly. Also saw another n66 site, as well as an n2 site, making AT&T the second carrier to run n2 DSS within a few miles of me. I think at this point they won't be able to advertise anything flashy, but due to the sheer amount of CA they're throwing at customers here they can keep their network at 50+ Mbps until they can deploy both 3.45 and 3.7, and that's probably enough.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...