Sprint not participating in the 600 MHz auction (report)

[Fraydog]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/spectrum-auction-group-eobc-disbanding/144533

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88765/padden-shutting-down-spectrum-coalition

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analyst-better-expected-participation-expected-tv-broadcasters-600-mhz-spec/2015-09-29?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

 

This isn't looking good if Sprint's intent is to force non-participation.

[Arysyn]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/spectrum-auction-group-eobc-disbanding/144533

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88765/padden-shutting-down-spectrum-coalition

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analyst-better-expected-participation-expected-tv-broadcasters-600-mhz-spec/2015-09-29?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

 

This isn't looking good if Sprint's intent is to force non-participation.

I mean no offense to anyone who thinks Sprint's non-participation in the auction will delay it, and I know how people really want to think best of Sprint's decisions, even to go so far as to say this is some brilliant plan by Sprint.

 

However, and as I hate to say it, I agree with the Magentans on FW about this issue being really bad to think Sprint would have this sort of influence. I say this, despite that I generally like Sprint and also want the best for it. Although, I'm not going to claim it is more than it is in the nature of such cases.

 

Sprint has declined participating at several past auctions. Yet, the FCC did not postpone them because of that. So, it seems very unlikely, almost impossible the FCC would do so now. Still, I don't agree with the Magentans who are claiming that Sprint's declining their participation in this auction is upsetting to the FCC, as that is just ridiculous. The auction is not some sort of important party or funeral.

[Fraydog]

It would have to take one of the duopolists striking a deal with Dish for non-participation to be a real possibility on their end. If Verizon can't strike a deal with Charlie, or I should say, talk him down to a reasonable price range, then 600 MHz participation does make sense even with the reserve. Likewise, if AT&T sees Verizon participating, they're forced into it as well, it isn't like they could then cut a deal with USCC for low band in Middle America. I think a USCC/T-Mobile tie up would make a load of sense and catch everyone off-guard. Then T-Mobile could use King Street as a designated entity like Dish did with NorthStar to gobble up more spectrum.

[ericdabbs]

I mean no offense to anyone who thinks Sprint's non-participation in the auction will delay it, and I know how people really want to think best of Sprint's decisions, even to go so far as to say this is some brilliant plan by Sprint.

 

However, and as I hate to say it, I agree with the Magentans on FW about this issue being really bad to think Sprint would have this sort of influence. I say this, despite that I generally like Sprint and also want the best for it. Although, I'm not going to claim it is more than it is in the nature of such cases.

 

Sprint has declined participating at several past auctions. Yet, the FCC did not postpone them because of that. So, it seems very unlikely, almost impossible the FCC would do so now. Still, I don't agree with the Magentans who are claiming that Sprint's declining their participation in this auction is upsetting to the FCC, as that is just ridiculous. The auction is not some sort of important party or funeral.

 

But it still remains to be seen if AT&T and Verizon are still on board with the 600 MHz auction at this time.  With the AWS-3 auction, Verizon, Tmobile and especially AT&T (since they don't have as much AWS spectrum holdings) were interested in the spectrum and not to mention that the AWS-3 spectrum did not have to deal with incumbent broadcasters that have to voluntarily give up spectrum in order for the auction to occur.  

 

So I think what happened in past FCC auctions have no bearing to the current 600 MHz auction layout since the past FCC auctions (besides 700 MHz with the move from analog to digital) did not have a volunteer reverse auction and then forward auction.  I am on that bandwagon now of thinking if AT&T and Verizon both decide to bow out of the 600 MHz auction that it is a strong possibility that the broadcasters would request a delay in the auction since they won't be able to get the sufficient incentive funds to give up their spectrum.

[Arysyn]

But it still remains to be seen if AT&T and Verizon are still on board with the 600 MHz auction at this time. With the AWS-3 auction, Verizon, Tmobile and especially AT&T (since they don't have as much AWS spectrum holdings) were interested in the spectrum and the not to mention that the AWS-3 spectrum did not have to deal with incumbent broadcasters that have to voluntarily give up spectrum in order for the auction to occur.

 

So I think what happened in past FCC auctions have no bearing to the current 600 MHz auction layout since the past FCC auctions (besides 700 MHz with the move from analog to digital) did not have a volunteer reverse auction and then forward auction. I am on that bandwagon now think if AT&T and Verizon both decide to bow out of the 600 MHz auction that it is a strong possibility that the broadcasters would request a delay in the auction since they won't be able to get the sufficient incentive funds to give up their spectrum.

If this auction were to be more of a n open, less restrictive auction, I'd agree that having all of the nationwide carriers decline to participate, then there might be a likelihood the FCC would delay or cancel the auction.

 

However, since this auction is meant for smaller carriers who do not have a large allocation of low band spectrum, it very likely doesn't matter to the FCC if the nationwide carriers don't partipate.

 

Already though, T-Mobile has expressed definite interest in this spectrum and is very likely to purchase at least 10x10 nationwide spectrum, which very well could be more than that. I expect T-Mobile to try for 15x15, matching their minimum AWS "Wideband" specification, while possibly getting 20x20 where they really need the extra spectrum and where they don't have any 700mhz spectrum,

[ericdabbs]

If this auction were to be more of an open, less restrictive auction, I'd agree that having all of the nationwide carriers decline to participate, then there might be a likelihood the FCC would delay or cancel the auction.

 

However, since this auction is meant for smaller carriers who do not have a large allocation of low band spectrum, it very likely doesn't matter to the FCC if the nationwide carriers don't partipate.

 

Already though, T-Mobile has expressed definite interest in this spectrum and is very likely to purchase at least 10x10 nationwide spectrum, which very well could be more than that. I expect T-Mobile to try for 15x15, matching their minimum AWS "Wideband" specification, while possibly getting 20x20 where they really need the extra spectrum and where they don't have any 700mhz spectrum.

 

I don't think you get it.  If the other major 3 carriers are signaling that they arne't going to participate then the broadcasters have less incentive to want to give up their spectrum. So without broadcasters participating in the auction or not enough of them wanting to participate since they believe they wont' get adequate funds for their spectrum, how can you have an auction when you have a low broadcaster participation?  The FCC cannot force the auction to continue unless the broadcasters cooperate and voluntarily give up their spectrum. You are assuming that the broadcasters are going to ignore everything and continue to press forward without factoring any news which may change their position. With a reverse and then forward auction you need to first have a successful reverse auction before you can hold a forward auction.

 

The argument has nothing to do with whether the FCC wanting the smaller carriers to have low band spectrum for competition.  To be honest the FCC actually wants to see competing prices because it only drives the price up and they get more funds to fund FirstNet.  

[bitslizer]

We know for a long time that Spring planned to sit out the 600mhz auction and now they have finally confirmed it to no surprise.  

 

But what's next for Sprint plan as far as additional spectrum goes?  They do need more low frequency spectrum

[lilotimz]

We know for a long time that Spring planned to sit out the 600mhz auction and now they have finally confirmed it to no surprise.

 

But what's next for Sprint plan as far as additional spectrum goes? They do need more low frequency spectrum

Site density and more pcs.

 

Sprint engineers optimize 800 sectors not only for coverage. They will refuse to increase coverage over 1900 if increasing it affects capacity.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

[WiWavelength]

We should keep this discussion in the 600 MHz abstention thread.  No new thread necessary.

 

AJ

[bitslizer]

We should keep this discussion in the 600 MHz abstention thread.  No new thread necessary.

 

AJ

 

Feel free to merge it, i have no idea where that thread is though

[Arysyn]

Perhaps if the broadcasters don't want to participate, that may have an effect on the auction and get the FCC to delay the auction. However, there still is plenty of interest in the auction from carriers other than Sprint and the "duopoly". Is that going to be enough to get the broadcasters to participate, I'm not sure. I'd like to read a response from Trip to my post responding to him last, as he's been helpful in helping me understand this auction a bit better, which there are some issues I mentioned there that could be clarified.

 

Yet in the meantime, it seems from the links Fraydog posted, the broadcasters are still interested.

[Fraydog]

I don't think you get it. If the other major 3 carriers are signaling that they arne't going to participate then the broadcasters have less incentive to want to give up their spectrum. So without broadcasters participating in the auction or not enough of them wanting to participate since they believe they wont' get adequate funds for their spectrum, how can you have an auction when you have a low broadcaster participation? The FCC cannot force the auction to continue unless the broadcasters cooperate and voluntarily give up their spectrum. You are assuming that the broadcasters are going to ignore everything and continue to press forward without factoring any news which may change their position. With a reverse and then forward auction you need to first have a successful reverse auction before you can hold a forward auction.

 

The argument has nothing to do with whether the FCC wanting the smaller carriers to have low band spectrum for competition. To be honest the FCC actually wants to see competing prices because it only drives the price up and they get more funds to fund FirstNet.

Based on what leaked today, the Duopolists are still in. Now if that changes, we'll know. What it might require is one of them changing course and acquiring another large treasure trove of spectrum. The only one really floating about is Dish.

 

I would assign likelihood of VZ participation at 60% and AT&T participation at 80%.

[Trip]

So what you are saying is that this auction, unlike typical FCC auctions where the FCC sells a pool of spectrum the FCC has directly to the carriers, the broadcasters offer up a certain amount of spectrum the FCC can sell on their behalf?

 

Where I am confused by this, is that for several years, I've heard that the FCC has practically given away the public airwaves to these broadcasters in exchange for the FCC regulating content on them, sort of like how broadcasters cannot show full nudity etc.

 

Based on that prior to what you've told me, that the FCC was going to take back that spectrum from the broadcasters and directly resell them to carriers, while the FCC works with the broadcasters on suitable replacement spectrum for the broadcasters to use. If that were the case, then I would be thinking differently, more positively of this auction.

 

However, if the FCC were giving away the airwaves to broadcasters for their use, then to tell these broadcasters they have the right to decide whether to give that free spectrum to the carriers or not, than that certainly would be making a mess of things by allowing that when carriers are willing to spend alot of money for that spectrum which helps fund important things for society.

 

Yet, if what I've been hearing for several years, from many different news sources, reliable ones at that, about the FCC giving away the airwaves to broadcasters over the past many decades, and if these broadcasters had been paying the fair worth of the airwaves over the years, then I can understand how this auction is fair. Otherwise though, it is not.

 

I'm going to respond right in order without breaking up your post:

 

Yes, that's correct.  The amount of spectrum available for sale to the wireless companies depends strictly on the amount of spectrum offered up by broadcasters. 

 

Broadcasters are a licensed service, and although many licensed before the 1980s received their spectrum "for free", they did so in exchange for tough regulations, as you imply, and at a time when spectrum didn't have the value it has today.  The UHF band, in particular, was considered to be a wasteland for more than 20 years; the FCC quite literally could not give the spectrum away.  So the value of it would have been zero at the time.  If someone buys a stock and it appreciates in value, do you then not allow a person to sell it at a profit because they didn't pay the going price today?

 

The principle is that once a broadcaster has a license, and unless they violate their license terms and are no longer considered eligible to hold the license, they have the right to have that license renewed at the end of their license term.  Wireless companies, I believe, are treated the same way; I don't think they have their licenses pulled at the end of the term and they go back up for auction.  So in this case, the broadcasters are being offered money to turn in their licenses and forgo renewal.  And TV licenses sold after the 80s were auctioned, so the handful licensed after that date were paid for.

 

I will also point out, on top of all of that, that TV is a free service, whereas you have to pay for your cell phone.  So of course the cell phone carriers will have more money to pay for spectrum, all other things being equal.  In effect, they were given "free" spectrum to provide a free service to the public.

 

Perhaps if the broadcasters don't want to participate, that may have an effect on the auction and get the FCC to delay the auction. However, there still is plenty of interest in the auction from carriers other than Sprint and the "duopoly". Is that going to be enough to get the broadcasters to participate, I'm not sure. I'd like to read a response from Trip to my post responding to him last, as he's been helpful in helping me understand this auction a bit better, which there are some issues I mentioned there that could be clarified.

 

Yet in the meantime, it seems from the links Fraydog posted, the broadcasters are still interested.

 

If Verizon, AT&T, Dish, and Sprint were all to sit out, T-Mobile and a handful of other parties like CCA members and non-Dish speculators likely wouldn't bid enough to support the payments to broadcasters (unless they were willing to bid against themselves for some reason?).  Some spectrum may be sold, yes, but probably not 84 MHz at that point, probably a smaller number.

 

- Trip

[JimBob]

We know for a long time that Spring planned to sit out the 600mhz auction and now they have finally confirmed it to no surprise.  

 

But what's next for Sprint plan as far as additional spectrum goes?  They do need more low frequency spectrum

Deploy all existing LTE bands everywhere and densify the network.  B41 is great in my apartment and building hallways.  B26 is really only used when I am in an elevator.  However, there are plenty of places in the DC area where I have dropped to slow 3G such as sitting near a window in a restaurant.

[Arysyn]

Trip, thank you for taking the time to help me better understand this auction. I have tried to get information about it elsewhere, but it wasn't very clear. I think it is because of things like bias, or people writing tech articles putting in too much of their own opinion, or possibly focusing too much on a particular side of things, that I got the impression I had of this.

 

Still though, and while I know I can't change how things got to where they are, I would like it if the spectrum arrangements with both broadcasters and carriers had been done differently. Alot of it has to do with my own personal opinions of the entire political and social systems which I know this site really isn't the place for, so I'll refrain from mentioning it here, other than if anyone were curious enough to pm to me. Yet, if I got into it, my doing so would end up at least a dozen times longer than my longest posts here, just to give an idea of how much I have to say about those matters.

 

Anyways. it'll be interesting what happens with this auction, and I suppose the same regarding who shows up.

[Rasta Cheesehead]

I am selling all my sprint stock and dropped their service after over 13 years. This shows they are not trying to be number 1 and it shows just how crappy their existing advisors/employees are to convince management to be so foolish. In Orange County, even double the amount of macro towers would not be satisfactory as I roam in must buildings and get LTE in less buildings then I have fingers. Perhaps in other states sprint is different, but even B26 will not fix no signal and roaming.

What can 600 do in 5 years that 800 cant do right now?

[WiWavelength]

I will also point out, on top of all of that, that TV is a free service, whereas you have to pay for your cell phone.  So of course the cell phone carriers will have more money to pay for spectrum, all other things being equal.  In effect, they were given "free" spectrum to provide a free service to the public.

 

OTA TV is not just a free service -- it is, in part, a public service.  Per their spectrum licenses, Class A TV station broadcasters must satisfy certain FCC public service requirements in the interest of the public good.

 

To address at least one of Arysyn's earlier points, OTA TV may seem archaic and inefficient use of spectrum to most in this day and age.  I do not use an OTA antenna.  As part of my DOCSIS broadband service, I have very, very basic cable -- because I do not watch much TV, except for network televised live sports and syndicated reruns.  However, millions of elderly, poor, and rural people rely upon OTA TV for news, weather, public service, and, yes, entertainment.

 

The 600 MHz auction, if successful, has the potential to restrict severely OTA TV across much of the country.  I am particularly disturbed at the lack of protection for repeater and translator stations that are crucial for conveying OTA TV across large rural areas.  Maybe if our government would not kowtow to disingenuous capitalist/free market business interests, would instead do the right thing, invest in our future, and lay fiber to every farmhouse, henhouse, and outhouse in this country, then injuring or even killing off OTA TV in favor of mobile wireless spectrum licensing would make sense.  But that is not reality, not even close.

 

AJ

[Terrell352]

Voice over lte

What can 600 do in 5 years that 800 cant do right now?

[Arysyn]

I've made no secret in some of my past posts that I'm not a fan of OTA television broadcasting. However, I understand the importance of it in rural areas where there isn't much choice. Although, the days of that being the case is becoming more rare, as there is the option of satellite in a great many of these places which now even offer internet over satellite, albeit expensive for its limited data allotments in contrast with land based internet service options.

 

My issue with the FCC regarding spectrum mainly has to do with auctions being used as a distribution method of buying spectrum by bidding for it. I'd rather the FCC hold a large conference every two or four years, inviting every company currently utilizing spectrum or wanting spectrum for the first time. The conference would be divided into sessions based on how much spectrum the companies currently have, etc. Then one session for those wanting spectrum for the first time.

 

Doing this, there would be a conference for the national carriers sitting in a room with the FCC going over the spectrum and what each carrier needs based on a variety of issues. As each carrier is national, spectrum would be equalized across each carrier's network, not where they dont have their network built. If a carrier has active plans to expand, those areas would be given equal spectrum to the rest of their network. However, the amount of spectrum each carrier has would be based on the total number of customers a carrier has.

 

I'll explain more later.

[Trip]

OTA TV is not just a free service -- it is, in part, a public service.  Per their spectrum licenses, Class A TV station broadcasters must satisfy certain FCC public service requirements in the interest of the public good.

 

To address at least one of Arysyn's earlier points, OTA TV may seem archaic and inefficient use of spectrum to most in this day and age.  I do not use an OTA antenna.  As part of my DOCSIS broadband service, I have very, very basic cable -- because I do not watch much TV, except for network televised live sports and syndicated reruns.  However, millions of elderly, poor, and rural people rely upon OTA TV for news, weather, public service, and, yes, entertainment.

 

The 600 MHz auction, if successful, has the potential to restrict severely OTA TV across much of the country.  I am particularly disturbed at the lack of protection for repeater and translator stations that are crucial for conveying OTA TV across large rural areas.  Maybe if our government would not kowtow to disingenuous capitalist/free market business interests, would instead do the right thing, invest in our future, and lay fiber to every farmhouse, henhouse, and outhouse in this country, then injuring or even killing off OTA TV in favor of mobile wireless spectrum licensing would make sense.  But that is not reality, not even close.

 

AJ

 

Absolutely.  If anyone's looked at RabbitEars, what it is and how much work went into it, it's probably clear what my opinion on OTA broadcasting is.  And I would point out that it's not just the elderly, poor, and rural viewers, but also people tired of spending money on a boatload of cable channels they don't watch.  My parents and my wife's parents have never had cable or satellite, as an example, for reasons of cost more than anything else. 

 

I'm in total agreement that we need rural fiber in the same way that we got rural power and telephone.  Not that I have any policy-making influence.

 

- Trip

[Trip]

I've made no secret in some of my past posts that I'm not a fan of OTA television broadcasting. However, I understand the importance of it in rural areas where there isn't much choice. Although, the days of that being the case is becoming more rare, as there is the option of satellite in a great many of these places which now even offer internet over satellite, albeit expensive for its limited data allotments in contrast with land based internet service options.

 

My issue with the FCC regarding spectrum mainly has to do with auctions being used as a distribution method of buying spectrum by bidding for it. I'd rather the FCC hold a large conference every two or four years, inviting every company currently utilizing spectrum or wanting spectrum for the first time. The conference would be divided into sessions based on how much spectrum the companies currently have, etc. Then one session for those wanting spectrum for the first time.

 

Doing this, there would be a conference for the national carriers sitting in a room with the FCC going over the spectrum and what each carrier needs based on a variety of issues. As each carrier is national, spectrum would be equalized across each carrier's network, not where they dont have their network built. If a carrier has active plans to expand, those areas would be given equal spectrum to the rest of their network. However, the amount of spectrum each carrier has would be based on the total number of customers a carrier has.

 

I'll explain more later.

 

We used to have things like this for TV licenses.  Stations were awarded licenses essentially based on promises they made about things like how much local programming they would provide and other feel-good things like that.  Losing applicants would sue claiming the process was unfair, often dragging out the licensing process for years.  Then, once built, there was really no good way to enforce the promises.  Pull licenses and you deprive viewers of one of very few options.  Fine stations and they might go out of business, depriving viewers of one of very few options. 

 

In the wireless world, I don't think it would be any different.  In your example, every carrier would have "active plans to expand" and thus insist it get a bunch of spectrum.  If it didn't get built, they would say "plans change."  If you pull licenses, existing customers lose out.  If they didn't get what they want, lawsuits would follow about how the process was unfair.  Basing spectrum distribution on current customer levels would guarantee that an upstart could never get off the ground, and with every network having to be national, almost nobody would be able to fund a new competitor since they would need billions of dollars out of the gate instead of growing as the business grows.  Then, on the alternative, what happens if more companies show up than spectrum is available for?  Remember that AWS-3, as an example, had 15 MHz of uplink-only spectrum plus 25x25.  So if Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Dish, US Cellular, and nTelos, for example, had all shown up for nationwide blocks, what would you do?  How do you choose which ones are worthy and which ones aren't?  Who gets that uplink-only spectrum?

 

Auctions came about primarily as a means of making the licensing process more clear cut and less likely to lead to lawsuits.  I won't sit here and claim that I like them or think they are a good idea, just that they're probably the best of many not so good ideas.

 

- Trip

[payturr]

Voice over lte

They can densify and two and flip the switch on VoLTE. Let's not forget NGN is a thing.

[Terrell352]

They can densify and two and flip the switch on VoLTE. Let's not forget NGN is a thing.

I would not trust band 41 volte even with densification

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[payturr]

I would not trust band 41 volte even with densification

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

We have PCS to refarm - if Sprint can densify enough they can justify a 10x10 second B25 carrier in markets like NYC and flip VoLTE with that

[Terrell352]

We have PCS to refarm - if Sprint can densify enough they can justify a 10x10 second B25 carrier in markets like NYC and flip VoLTE with that

Is that a nationwide solution?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk