600 MHz auction results posted and transition schedule

[Arysyn]

You may be mixing in band 26 with band 25. Sprint has not operated three 5 MHz FDD band 25 carriers in Chicago. It was two 5 MHz FDD band 25 carriers. Now, the second carrier is being widened to 10 MHz FDD.

 

AJ

So, in Chicago, there was two 5x5 PCS, which now is one 10x10 PCS, for LTE, along with one 5x5 800 for LTE, is that what Sprint has here?

 

Edit note : I see this has already been answered, thanks!

[richy]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/chamath-palihapitiya-wants-bid-billions-600-mhz-incentive-auction-challenge/2015-11-11

 

They cannot be serious right? They must have very deep pockets, to take away enough spectrum then build out a nation wide network will take tens of billions, even with collocating on towers (where they will probably find themselves pretty low down on the tower). Spectrum grab? Given the time gap between the auction and the spectrum being usable they wont see any return on a huge investment for a long time. Theres a thin line between genius and insanity and it seems someone is using that line to dry their socks on. 

[Arysyn]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/chamath-palihapitiya-wants-bid-billions-600-mhz-incentive-auction-challenge/2015-11-11

 

They cannot be serious right? They must have very deep pockets, to take away enough spectrum then build out a nation wide network will take tens of billions, even with collocating on towers (where they will probably find themselves pretty low down on the tower). Spectrum grab? Given the time gap between the auction and the spectrum being usable they wont see any return on a huge investment for a long time. Theres a thin line between genius and insanity and it seems someone is using that line to dry their socks on.

I definitely agree with you here. This would be very bad for all of the currently well established carriers here, and a much worse situation than even Dish. At least Dish is an established company with plans to use an existing carriers network in some way. This Rama isn't even considering the immense costs of building a network here, yet alone getting enough spectrum along with it to get a quality network that would convince customers to switch.

[Fraydog]

He'll end up being a speculator. 

 

The FCC has to watch that the reserve doesn't get bid up by speculators and then the speculators get bought by Verizon or AT&T. 

[ericdabbs]

Could it be?  Softbank might bid for 600 MHz spectrum instead of Sprint.

 

Hopefully this is true so that Sprint can have the opportunity to get it from Softbank if needed in the future.  I think this would be a good move since by the time NGN is largely complete the 600 MHz spectrum should be mostly relocated and be almost ready for deployment.  

 

Or if anything this can be a great bargaining chip to be able to do some further spectrum swaps down the road.

 

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/softbank-rumored-mull-bidding-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-spectrum-auction/2016-03-11

[IamMrFamous07]

If SoftBank does bid, can they use the spectrum for TDD instead? Wasn't that Sprints original plan

[ericdabbs]

If SoftBank does bid, can they use the spectrum for TDD instead? Wasn't that Sprints original plan

 

God I hope not.  The way that the 600 MHz spectrum is being packaged as 5x5 paired blocks tells me that the FCC plans to auction it off for FDD LTE operation.  I don't even know if the FCC would allow them to deploy TDD since it would mean that one of the sides of the 5x5 block (5 MHz) would be transmitting downlink and uplink which would cause interference.  

 

Sprint's proposal plan for the 600 MHz I believe was to provide supplemental downlink for the entire 600 MHz band which would allow TD-LTE operation to work.

[Arysyn]

God I hope not.  The way that the 600 MHz spectrum is being packaged as 5x5 paired blocks tells me that the FCC plans to auction it off for FDD LTE operation.  I don't even know if the FCC would allow them to deploy TDD since it would mean that one of the sides of the 5x5 block (5 MHz) would be transmitting downlink and uplink which would cause interference.  

 

Sprint's proposal plan for the 600 MHz I believe was to provide supplemental downlink for the entire 600 MHz band which would allow TD-LTE operation to work.

 

Thank you for the information, Eric.

 

I wasn't aware until now about it being in 5x5 blocks. This does change my opinion a bit about this spectrum, and makes me dislike the FCC even more. Unless somehow if say a carrier bought two 5x5 blocks next to each other, could they make it into a 10x10? If not, or if there isn't going to be the 5x5 block adjacent, then it seems quite limiting to me, and I'm already not a fan of 5x5.

[ericdabbs]

Thank you for the information, Eric.

 

I wasn't aware until now about it being in 5x5 blocks. This does change my opinion a bit about this spectrum, and makes me dislike the FCC even more. Unless somehow if say a carrier bought two 5x5 blocks next to each other, could they make it into a 10x10? If not, or if there isn't going to be the 5x5 block adjacent, then it seems quite limiting to me, and I'm already not a fan of 5x5.

 

Actually I wouldn't blame the FCC.  The FCC fielded the propositions for the band plan for comments to all the major carriers on how the spectrum should be auctioned.  If anything you blame the smaller carriers for wanting smaller blocks for the spectrum auction.  Verizon and AT&T would love to see 10x10 blocks but of course Sprint/Tmobile and the other smaller carriers argued that by having 10x10 blocks Verizon and AT&T could easily swoop up a huge chunk of the available 600 MHz spectrum (i.e each buy a 10x10 block) Remember keep in mind that at that point or even now we still don't know the total amount of 600 MHz spectrum available for auction.

 

Lets say the FCC was only able to clear a total of 60 MHz (30x30 MHz )for the auction nationwide.  If you have all 10x10 MHz blocks (total of three 10x10 MHz blocks) and Verizon and AT&T each scoop up a 10x10 block and call it quits because they can easily outbid the smaller carriers, then Sprint/tmobile would be left with trying to bid for the remaining 10x10 block which isn't good for Sprint and Tmobile.  So I respectfully disagree with your assessment that 5x5 blocks auctioned in this manner is worse off for the carriers because it helps the FCC regulate the low band spectrum screen if its auctioned off in 5 MHz blocks.  If Verizon or AT&T is only allowed to buy a max of 5 MHz block in a certain market because they have too much low band spectrum already then that can be accomplished.  With 10 MHz blocks its either you bar them from buying (not a good idea since that will prove "picking favorites") or you let them have the 10 MHz block and allow them to go over the low band spectrum limit.  Either way you don't win with 10 MHz blocks.

 

Also I think the main reason for 5x5 blocks is to account for if certain broadcasters refuse to relocate their frequencies, it is much easier to section them off with a 5 MHz carrier than with a 10 MHz carrier.

[Arysyn]

I definitely agree to those competitive advantages of the 5x5 in the auction. This makes sense for many of the things you've mentioned, Eric. However, the only issue I have with 5x5 is the speed and capacity limitations. Because of how spectrum is setup, which I'm definitely not an expert on the technicalities of wireless spectrum, and I'll fully admit I'm unsure of how that may affect the way all the bands are setup the way they are, but I can't help but to think if only it could be rearranged to allow for greater amounts of spectrum for all of the carriers. Unless I misunderstood this, I've read elsewhere about the possibility of rearranged spectrum somwhere in certain capacities to allow this.

 

Again though, I could be wrong, but I would like to see this happen if it could technicalyy be done. I have a very strong mindset disliking how alot of things are in this society, believing and thinking of ways they could be alot better, especially by less governmental and monetary controls over technology. When I recently saw how the PCS and AWS bands were arranged, I thought about this wondering why there is all the different separate groups of spectrum and why they can't be wider and just be fewer groups of wider spectrum. If it technically could be done, then it would resolve the issue carriers have with spectrum, by just giving them a few large amounts of this spectrum.

 

So, I'm curious. Is this the way that it is, because of the technical nature of spectrum, or was I right in what I read about spectrum rearrangements being managed because of governmental controls over the airwaves and policies determining this? I can accept technical limitations to things, but I'm always bothered by technology being limited/restricted over such artificial social control schemes.

[ericdabbs]

I definitely agree to those competitive advantages of the 5x5 in the auction. This makes sense for many of the things you've mentioned, Eric. However, the only issue I have with 5x5 is the speed and capacity limitations. Because of how spectrum is setup, which I'm definitely not an expert on the technicalities of wireless spectrum, and I'll fully admit I'm unsure of how that may affect the way all the bands are setup the way they are, but I can't help but to think if only it could be rearranged to allow for greater amounts of spectrum for all of the carriers. Unless I misunderstood this, I've read elsewhere about the possibility of rearranged spectrum somwhere in certain capacities to allow this.

 

Again though, I could be wrong, but I would like to see this happen if it could technicalyy be done. I have a very strong mindset disliking how alot of things are in this society, believing and thinking of ways they could be alot better, especially by less governmental and monetary controls over technology. When I recently saw how the PCS and AWS bands were arranged, I thought about this wondering why there is all the different separate groups of spectrum and why they can't be wider and just be fewer groups of wider spectrum. If it technically could be done, then it would resolve the issue carriers have with spectrum, by just giving them a few large amounts of this spectrum.

 

So, I'm curious. Is this the way that it is, because of the technical nature of spectrum, or was I right in what I read about spectrum rearrangements being managed because of governmental controls over the airwaves and policies determining this? I can accept technical limitations to things, but I'm always bothered by technology being limited/restricted over such artificial social control schemes.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.  Back when PCS/AWS spectrum was auctioned off there was no such thing as LTE which required a minimum of 10x10 MHz blocks of spectrum.  CDMA/EVDO/GSM/EDGE all did not require wideband operations and at most they needed 5x5 MHz blocks.  It sounds silly but given your way of thinking you will definitely say 20 years from now why didn't the FCC auction off the 600/700/PCS/AWS spectrum in 30x30 blocks instead of 5x5 or 10x10 blocks. 

 

Also keep in mind that auctioning off larger blocks with the same given amount of spectrum, the lesser amount in proceeds the FCC receives for the airwaves.  Therefore by auctioning them off in smaller blocks (5x5 vs. 10x10) it will net more proceeds since carriers will have to pay double price to get the full 10x10 spectrum.

[JimBob]

Verizon, T-Mobile among 104 applicants for the FCC's 600 MHz incentive auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-t-mobile-among-104-applicants-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2016-03-18

[caspar347]

Verizon, T-Mobile among 104 applicants for the FCC's 600 MHz incentive auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-t-mobile-among-104-applicants-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2016-03-18

Any names standing out as possible Softbank pseudonyms? Maybe ones Sprint has used before?

[WiWavelength]

Verizon, T-Mobile among 104 applicants for the FCC's 600 MHz incentive auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-t-mobile-among-104-applicants-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2016-03-18

 

I see quite a few individual names.  But wait!  Where is Shepherd, Andrew J in that list?  Was my FCC application denied?  I wanted some 600 MHz spectrum to cover my yard.  It is a full lot and a half, you know.

 

 

AJ

[Jones]

I think I know how Softbank will tender bids...

[Arysyn]

I wonder if all the names of individual people attending the auction likely to be T-Mobile employees there in disguise to protest during it, in trying to convince the FCC to finally add more spectrum to the reserve in a last moment attempt to do so. Essentially by trying to show how many individual people there who are interested in purchasing the spectrum and deserve a better opportunity to pursue more of it, rather than having to battle the "duopoly" over the spectrum.

 

Either that or they are names of John Legere's multiple split personalities there at the auction trying to do the same. He could bring them out as different voices in his head demanding to be heard for the sake of the "uncarrier" and its customers. Just so he doesn't let his personas get upset enough to where he/them engages in shouting obscenities at the FCC while puking out magenta-hued vomit

[dnicekid]

No official word from SoftBank if they are in or out???

Hmmmmmm

[ericdabbs]

It doesn't matter at this point.  The whole initial process and news from the FCC won't come out until May at the earliest. Broadcasters have until March 29th to submit their application to be part of the incentive auction and then the FCC will reassemble the blocks of spectrum so that they can provide the full picture of the amount of spectrum that is up for bids.

 

I don't know if there was an official deadline that has already passed on applying to participate in the 600 MHz auction.  I think Softbank is probably two things regarding the 600 MHz issue. First I think they trying to gather finances in preparation for a potential bid of 600 MHz airwaves and second I think Softbank wants to understand how much spectrum is really available for bidding.  

 

The full 600 MHz band is 126 MHz but I doubt that will be available because that would assume 100% participation nationwide.  IMO if 100+ MHz will be available for bidding then I think we will see Softbank bid for some 600 MHz hopefully at least a total of a 10x10 block.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/600-mhz-incentive-auction-primer-who-will-bid-when-it-will-happen-how-it-wi

[jefbal99]

Our local PBS (WKAR/Michigan State University) station has declined to participate in the reverse auction.  They sent out feelers to the community and had town halls back in Jan/Feb.  After the first town hall, the rest were canceled due to the public outcry about PBS going off the air an becoming streaming only.

 

I would guess those that participate own multiple channels where they can run two HDs (at shit quality) on a single carrir at .1 and .2 or are not a major player (ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox) and just cash it in.

[red_dog007]

As far as channel sharing, it is more just losing subchannels. IQ is still pretty good. Two big broadcasters, Fox and someone else are channel sharing. Fox went a head and moved off their channel and was a 1080p broad, now they are 720p. But IQ is still nice. The other major broadcaster was already 720p. Still enough bandwidth for a third subchannel 480p stream. Only thing is 3 or 4 subchannels are off the air now so that is lost profit for these guys.



As far as a technical question in regards to the auction, what if a broadcaster is on say channel 48 and 40 but are not wanting to sell. But spectrum was clear for say 84MHz. Does this auction pay the broadcaster to move off channel 48 and 40 and give them money for their trouble? If markets that have at least 42MHz of white space in UHF, will the FCC make those on Channels 45 through 51 shift to an open channel so that Channel A+B can be auctioned off?

Or is this auction not going to force anyone to move if they are not selling, and we hope that broadcasters sell from 51 downwards in sequential order. So a single holdout say between 45 and 51 could prevent the auction from happen all together?


So in regards to jefbal99's PBS station, PBS is on channel 40. If 51 through 41 sell out, then that is it, no more than 60MHz. The buck stops with PBS even if channels 38-39 want to sell? But if 84MHz opens up total, is someone going to pay PBS to move off channel 40 to the free channel below channel 37?

[Trip]

Yes, if, using Chattanooga as an example, WFLI on 42 does not sell in the auction, but WELF on 16 does, then the FCC will shuffle the channels around so that, perhaps, WFLI goes on 16 but WELF goes off the air.  It almost certainly will not be that neat and tidy, but the concept is right.

 

- Trip

[dnicekid]

So in other words, if some sell some don't it can create a nightmare after the auction with all of the channels that don't sell getting relocated first?

[greenbastard]

Yes, if, using Chattanooga as an example, WFLI on 42 does not sell in the auction, but WELF on 16 does, then the FCC will shuffle the channels around so that, perhaps, WFLI goes on 16 but WELF goes off the air. It almost certainly will not be that neat and tidy, but the concept is right.

 

- Trip

Wouldn't the FCC run into potential spacing issues? If another station down the road also decides to not go into the auction, reshuffling wouldn't be as easy.

[WiWavelength]

Wouldn't the FCC run into potential spacing issues? If another station down the road also decides to not go into the auction, reshuffling wouldn't be as easy.

 

That is partly why this 600 MHz incentive auction has Bad Idea Jeans written all over it.

 

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/bad-idea-jeans/n9937

 

And that also is why I hope it fails spectacularly.  Throwing copious amounts of mobile spectrum into sort of but not really a free market does not solve the problem.

 

Here are solutions.  Force all people onto tiered data plans.  FTC, for mobile, "unlimited" or "zero rated" data is a mirage.  It is like an addictive drug for addled morons.  Be honest, providers -- tell people, for example, that you cannot stream TV for hours per day every day.  Pay for what you use.

 

Or FCC and Congress, get serious.  Screw capitalism -- it has failed American society in this industry.  Stop the ungodly expensive war mongering overseas, and use that money to build a goddamn national fiber network, which will support wired broadband and small cells.  Take control of the infrastructure, just like roads and schools.  But let many, many providers sell over the top services.

 

There is your competition.  It does not require 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 1600 MHz, 1700+1200 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2300 MHz, 2600 MHz, etc., as mobile spectrum divided somehow among basically four operators.  I probably am forgetting some spectrum.  Because this already is growing ridiculous.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

That is partly why this 600 MHz incentive auction has Bad Idea Jeans written all over it.

 

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/bad-idea-jeans/n9937

 

And that also is why I hope it fails spectacularly.  Throwing copious amounts of mobile spectrum into sort of but not really a free market does not solve the problem.

 

Here are solutions.  Force all people onto tiered data plans.  FTC, for mobile, "unlimited" or "zero rated" data is a mirage.  It is like an addictive drug for addled morons.  Be honest, providers -- tell people, for example, that you cannot stream TV for hours per day every day.  Pay for what you use.

 

Or FCC and Congress, get serious.  Screw capitalism -- it has failed American society in this industry.  Stop the ungodly expensive war mongering overseas, and use that money to build a goddamn national fiber network, which will support wired broadband and small cells.  Take control of the infrastructure, just like roads and schools.  But let many, many providers sell over the top services.

 

There is your competition.  It does not require 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 1600 MHz, 1700+1200 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2300 MHz, 2600 MHz, etc., as mobile spectrum divided somehow among basically four operators.  I probably am forgetting some spectrum.  Because this already is growing ridiculous.

 

AJ

 

AJ,

 

I only agree about carriers switching to tiered data plans, if those could be affordable. Current per gb data rates just are not, which is why unlimited data is so popular, besides the issue many people have of not wanting to constantly check data usage. This would only not be a problem if the data was affordable enough. Though I'd agree with you if you were to say that the unlimited data plans with heavy usage is part of what makes the tiered data prices high as they are, since carriers do need to keep upgrading their networks to make room for all of this data.

 

Regarding your comments about capitalism and the warmongering, I do agree. However, I don't believe socialism is going to work either. Society really ought to begin more seriously in exploring ways in developing for a resource-based economy the likes promoted by such groups as The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project. Both groups are heavy promoters into freeing technology from financial strongholds that instill scarcity into practically everything about technology.

 

Anyways regarding spectrum, there needs to be more spectrum given to these carriers in order to develop the wireless future. That is something I support, though I'm not really going to go into my beliefs about how important it is, as I really don't want to get into another argument with those here who are pro-broadcasters' rights again, as was the case several months ago when I mentioned this. However at the very least, the FCC could do a much better job than they've done at trying to work with both carriers' and broadcasters' needs for the time being. I'm definitely not happy with how they've handled things, for sure.