Sprint not participating in the 600 MHz auction (report)

[Fraydog]

What if T-Mobile's primary bidding is Chicago/Saint Louis/Phoenix/Las Vegas/Charlotte and places like that (given Laser doesn't sell to T-Mobile in Chicago and USCC doesn't sell off STL 700 MHz as part of the USCC/T-Mobile roaming agreement?) It's a possibility. 

[MtnSierraSprint]

600MHz is not a good option for a semi-dense or dense network deployment. The propagation is too good, and its reflective 'bouncing' qualities are much higher. 600 will be an interference nightmare in urban areas with tight spacing. It will require a lot of work of reducing power, down tilt and adjusting. And furthermore, there just won't be much urban 600 that is going to come open. Urban areas should be about densification of existing spectrum. That's what they are doing in Japan, China and Korea. And they live much denser than we do.

 

Verizon and AT&T don't care much about 600. That's why they sound lukewarm. They are. I think their biggest reason to compete for 600 is to try to keep their competitors from getting it. They don't want to compete evenly with Tmo and Sprint on low band. It evens the playing field.

 

 

 

I was interested in why you think Verizon and ATT are not interested in 600MHZ. Is it because they already have enough low band spectrum and that higher frequencies offer greater capacity which is more important to them? or some other reasons., in addition to what you pointed out regarding propogation overkill and interference issues. I still wish Sprint would grab some for Nevada, Utah and areas of California.

[DanielB]

I was interested in why you think Verizon and ATT are not interested in 600MHZ. Is it because they already have enough low band spectrum and that higher frequencies offer greater capacity which is more important to them? or some other reasons., in addition to what you pointed out regarding propogation overkill and interference issues. I still wish Sprint would grab some for Nevada, Utah and areas of California.

 

From what I can see, they have "sufficient" low band spectrum. Their in-building penetration is usually great....data speeds (because of congestion), not always so much. The biggest issue for Verizon and AT&T at this point is capacity - something low band spectrum can't provide as well as mid or high band. This is why, for instance, you've seen VZW get really aggressive with their 1900 MHz "XLTE" roll out over the past 18 months, and AT&T start to roll out their 2300 MHz WCS spectrum beginning earlier this year. The duopoly has coverage nailed for the most part - now they need capacity. So they're almost in the same boat as Sprint (especially AT&T) - they could spend another $10-12 Billion on new spectrum, or deploy and densify what they've already got. Folks talk about AT&T being spectrum-deprived, but I think they underestimate the power of its 2300 MHz holdings once fully deployed (much as they do Sprint's 2500-2600 MHz BRS/EBS spectrum).

[S4GRU]

I was interested in why you think Verizon and ATT are not interested in 600MHZ. Is it because they already have enough low band spectrum and that higher frequencies offer greater capacity which is more important to them? or some other reasons., in addition to what you pointed out regarding propogation overkill and interference issues. I still wish Sprint would grab some for Nevada, Utah and areas of California.

This is not my opinion of them. It's their words. Because they keep saying that they aren't really much interested. They keep sending mixed messages hoping that the Feds delay the auction afraid that the Duopoly won't participate enough and raise enough funds. This has been consistent for the last year.

 

Here are two links I dug up quickly. But there is a lot to read out there if you want to Google search yourself.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizons-shammo-we-dont-have-great-need-600-mhz-airwaves-remain-focused-sma/2015-07-21

 

http://androidcommunity.com/att-threatens-to-pull-out-of-next-fcc-spectrum-auction-20140417/

And the FCC did set aside a reserve for small carriers like Tmo and Sprint

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[MtnSierraSprint]

"Verizon and AT&T have been pushing back against T-Mobile's efforts to get the FCC to increase the amount of spectrum set aside for smaller carriers to bid on in the incentive auction." - The Fierce Wireless Article

 

Definately a mixed message, as why would they care about the set aside if they have no interest in the auction. The second article sounds like ATT is trying to spook the TV stations into sitting out the auction and pressure the FCC. I hope ATT trips over their own  bullying tactics and that the following possibillity ends up happening - "AT&T may be left out in the cold, cash in hand." This discussion regarding how this auction works and everyone's points of view has been informative, thanks...

 

RE: "The 600MHz spectrum would also give carriers more reach, as the lower spectrum has a wider spread — but not the signal strength to carry LTE natively."

 

What is the issue with 600MHZ and signal strength to carry LTE natively?

[ericdabbs]

UGH...why would Dish participate in the 600 MHz auction? Haven't they hoarded enough spectrum in the past already with no plan on how to build the network out.  Sheesh can't imagine their startup costs since they would need to buy LTE equipment for S-band, AWS-3, PCS-H, 600 MHz, 700 MHz E-block.  Unless they can convince an OEM to build RRUs and antennas for all these different LTE bands into a single RRU that is going to be a lot of money.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dish-exec-we-will-participate-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2015-10-07

[IamMrFamous07]

UGH...why would Dish participate in the 600 MHz auction? Haven't they hoarded enough spectrum in the past already with no plan on how to build the network out. Sheesh can't imagine their startup costs since they would need to buy LTE equipment for S-band, AWS-3, PCS-H, 600 MHz, 700 MHz E-block. Unless they can convince an OEM to build RRUs and antennas for all these different LTE bands into a single RRU that is going to be a lot of money.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/dish-exec-we-will-participate-fccs-600-mhz-incentive-auction/2015-10-07

What if Dish and Sprint has a plan...Dish bids for the spectrum, the two enter a spectrum hosting deal, then BAM

[ericdabbs]

What if Dish and Sprint has a plan...Dish bids for the spectrum, the two enter a spectrum hosting deal, then BAM

 

Maybe...but I doubt it.  Marcelo seems dead on focused on the NGN project and personally I would not want Sprint to even tango with Dish. They have tried this before between Ergen and Hesse and it didn't go well.  Now I know Marcelo is no Hesse but ehhh.  The last thing Sprint needs is a headcase like Ergen and not to mention if a spectrum hosting deal did happen it would slow down the NGN project progress.

[IamMrFamous07]

Maybe...but I doubt it. Marcelo seems dead on focused on the NGN project and personally I would not want Sprint to even tango with Dish. They have tried this before between Ergen and Hesse and it didn't go well. Now I know Marcelo is no Hesse but ehhh. The last thing Sprint needs is a headcase like Ergen and not to mention if a spectrum hosting deal did happen it would slow down the NGN project progress.

True but I'm sure they can find away so it doesn't affect the NGN roll out. Sprint will focus on NGN while dish can work on deploying 600mhz on selective Sprint sites.

 

Im sure Sprint will make their phones compatible with 600mhz since many small carriers within Sprint's rural alliance will bid in the auction.

[Fraydog]

I think the reserve could inadvertently be creating an environment custom made for spectrum squatters. This auction is going on - but guess who has advantages in getting spectrum now? The squatters.

 

Then we'll see the GOP commissioners complain that the invisible hand of the market wasn't allowed to work. Then VZW and AT&T throw money at the squatters. T-Mobile could be bringing a knife to a gun fight, especially if Braxton Carter's comments about being fiscally conservative in the auction ring true.

 

I really wish the US didn't have 700 fractured cellular markets. Why can't the US come up with a real band plan that works? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

[ericdabbs]

I think the reserve could inadvertently be creating an environment custom made for spectrum squatters. This auction is going on - but guess who has advantages in getting spectrum now? The squatters.

 

Then we'll see the GOP commissioners complain that the invisible hand of the market wasn't allowed to work. Then VZW and AT&T throw money at the squatters. T-Mobile could be bringing a knife to a gun fight, especially if Braxton Carter's comments about being fiscally conservative in the auction ring true.

 

I really wish the US didn't have 700 fractured cellular markets. Why can't the US come up with a real band plan that works? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

I hope the 3GPP wises up and just creates a single 600 MHz LTE band that encompasses all 600 MHz spectrum blocks just like PCS A-F and AWS-1 does.  The last thing we need is a repeat of the 700 MHz fragmentation nightmare.

[WiWavelength]

I really wish the US didn't have 700 fractured cellular markets. Why can't the US come up with a real band plan that works? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

 

The US is a massive country -- with a combination of wealth, population distribution, and human development unlike that of any other country in the world.  National wireless licenses might work now, but they would not have in the past.

 

In another thread just a few minutes ago, see this post:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6319-marcelo-claure-town-hall-meetings-new-family-share-pack-plan-unlimited-individual-plan-discussion-thread/?p=449689

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The US is a massive country -- with a combination of wealth, population distribution, and human development unlike that of any other country in the world. National wireless licenses might work now, but they would not have in the past.

 

In another thread just a few minutes ago, see this post:

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/6319-marcelo-claure-town-hall-meetings-new-family-share-pack-plan-unlimited-individual-plan-discussion-thread/?p=449689

 

AJ

I do realize the regional licenses of the past were for Baby Bells and the like. I just see the ridiculous complexity now and I shake my head.

 

Part of this is why I think T-Mobile and Sprint may have to shack up at some point. I don't like the idea - especially since it would be the end of Sprint as we know it - but since this is the system, the smaller players will have to adjust like that. Prices will escalate again, and those who don't like that will complain, but at least national LTE speeds and coverage would be better in a three player system. I'm not for full nationalization yet - I'd like to see some other country not named "China" Guinea pig that idea first.

[S4GRU]

I think the reserve could inadvertently be creating an environment custom made for spectrum squatters. This auction is going on - but guess who has advantages in getting spectrum now? The squatters.

 

Then we'll see the GOP commissioners complain that the invisible hand of the market wasn't allowed to work. Then VZW and AT&T throw money at the squatters. T-Mobile could be bringing a knife to a gun fight, especially if Braxton Carter's comments about being fiscally conservative in the auction ring true.

 

600MHz auction really needs to be delayed. If Tmo does get conservative on a 600 auction spend and Sprint stays out, then this is a bad time. Let everyone catch their breath, continue building out what they have. Let's reconvene in 2017/2018. This is just not turning out well.

 

I really wish the US didn't have 700 fractured cellular markets. Why can't the US come up with a real band plan that works? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

Band plan? OK, I think I'm with you there. But 700 markets? I love that. I wish all licenses were that way. It's the only thing that keeps tertiary and rural markets in the mix. It gives us a shot to having our spectrum be utilized.

 

When a provider can get a nationwide or MTA license, they can completely skip rural and tertiary markets in the license area. At least under the CMA and BEA license structure, there are local licenses that regional and local companies can use for their local residents. It's our damn spectrum out here in the rurals and it needs to be for our benefit. Not for the urbanites.

 

Can you imagine what would have happened if all the PCS licenses were nationwide or super regional? All these local and regional wireless companies never would have built out their networks. The big companies never would have come to tertiary and rural markets staying in the Top 150-200 markets. There would have been no locals to buy out for national expansion.

 

The big guys building out organically never would have happened. Too expensive with no return. Don't forget that AT&T and VZW never built out these rural networks. They bought them from small companies who has a chance to get good licenses in PCS and AWS.

 

Nationwide and MTA licenses need to be on only one block per Band. Or our rural spectrum will sit fallow forever.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[Fraydog]

600MHz auction really needs to be delayed. If Tmo does get conservative on a 600 auction spend and Sprint stays out, then this is a bad time. Let everyone catch their breath, continue building out what they have. Let's reconvene in 2017/2018. This is just not turning out well.

 

 

The problem is that the FCC won't delay when they're going to get another massive payout. AT&T and Verizon will simply pass on the increased spectrum costs to consumers, and squatters will continue to squat. The FCC doesn't care.

 

I'd rather see the FCC go to beauty contest style auctions but that won't happen.

[WiWavelength]

I do realize the regional licenses of the past were for Baby Bells and the like. I just see the ridiculous complexity now and I shake my head.

 

Uh, not necessarily for the Baby Bells.  It was for the good of wireless buildout, since each and every Cellular 850 MHz CMA had a geographic based -- not population based -- construction requirement.  100 percent AMPS coverage.

 

The FCC knew what it was doing.  The US typically blazes the trail in wireless licensing.  Other countries follow -- with the benefit of hindsight.  And those other countries are almost always very different from the US in geography, demographics, wealth, etc.  That is why I scoff at the Eurasian centric folks who like to use wireless licensing comparisons of the US to, say, the Netherlands

 

On rural areas, see Robert's post above.  He nails it.  And for someone living in lowly Chester, IL, you should appreciate his sentiments.

 

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

On rural areas, see Robert's post above. He nails it. And for someone living in lowly Chester, IL, you should appreciate his sentiments.

 

 

AJ

Our regional carriers were awful. Verizon and AT&T buyouts improved service by a large margin. Now does this affect my perspective? Absolutely, First Cellular couldn't pick a network technology and stay with it as you know, Alltel was perpetually in limbo, and ATN never made the investment in LTE, they were seeking the fat check from Texas all along. Cellular One in this area was owned by Douglas Telecom and it was even worse! They used crappy TDMA and then panic sold to Verizon when they fell out with Suncom/AT&TWS and lost roaming. The coops that owned First Cell now funded service in another region (KY, TN).

 

We never got the good operators like Bluegrass, Cellcom, Viaero, or even the OK ones like USCC or CSpire. It was just bad and we have one of the worst markets in the country now because of it. Even ND/SD/Montana is getting more choice than the rural parts of CMA 401/402.

[WiWavelength]

Our regional carriers were awful.

 

However, if not for those smaller licensees, you might have had only one option or even nothing for a long time.  Is something better than nothing?

 

As you have well noted through 2015, Sprint still has not effectively built out Chester -- even though it has held the St. Louis MTA PCS B block license since 1995.  Big license, long time.

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

However, if not for those smaller licensees, you might have had only one option or even nothing for a long time. Is something better than nothing?

 

As you have well noted through 2015, Sprint still has not effectively built out Chester -- even though it has held the St. Louis MTA PCS B block license since 1995. Big license, long time.

 

AJ

Given Sprint's financial position, I haven't blamed them for that for a long time.

 

Effectively we did have one option here - Verizon. AT&T only put in the money to improve around Randolph County when they had low band. When EVERYONE in the town more or less has Verizon that's not a free market.

 

I don't blame Verizon nearly as much as I blame the idiots who ran the "competitive carriers" here.

[S4GRU]

Yeah, Fraydog. You really made our point. ATT and VZW come to areas like yours and improve them because there was a smaller provider to pave the way. If not, they would act like Sprint and stay away.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[Fraydog]

Yeah, Fraydog. You really made our point. ATT and VZW come to areas like yours and improve them because there was a smaller provider to pave the way. If not, they would act like Sprint and stay away.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I would have much rather seen the small guys make it than be incompetently run and get swallowed up. They weren't doing a good job if the Twin Bells came in and drastically improved coverage and speed.

[Arysyn]

I'm not a fan of the local and regional carrier setup for wireless, as I prefer national carriers in wireless, though I'll refrain from getting into that again.

 

However, what bothers me is the FCC not doing more to stop spectrum squatters and when national carriers get away with it while, say the local and regional carriers may have more pressure on them with that, I can understand why some may have a viewpoint of unfairness in how nationals get the better treatment.

 

Yet, I think there is another element to consider, which is size. The more land there is to cover, the longer it takes, which may very well be part of the reason the FCC is more lenient on the largest carriers. I don't doubt though there may be more to it, and even some not so ethical things keeping it that way.

 

I've been thinking alot about the idea of a national network with carriers being MVNOs, and I have to say that I like the idea alot, letting a reformed FCC manage the national network and the spectrum. It certainly would put a stop to spectrum squatting and allowing for true competition in wireless.

[WiWavelength]

However, what bothers me is the FCC not doing more to stop spectrum squatters and when national carriers get away with it...

 

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single instance of one of the national operators spectrum "squatting."  Be certain not to confuse spectrum squatting -- I prefer the term spectrum speculation -- with license protection.

 

Spectrum squatters are mostly holding companies and some isolated individuals.  They have no intention of building out large scale wireless networks.  In fact, they may build out nothing or only a few experimental sites per market, as their goals are to flip their licenses for profit before the initial license terms end.  That is spectrum squatting, something we do not see from the national operators.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single instance of one of the national operators spectrum "squatting." Be certain not to confuse spectrum squatting -- I prefer the term spectrum speculation -- with license protection.

 

Spectrum squatters are mostly holding companies and some isolated individuals. They have no intention of building out large scale wireless networks. In fact, they may build out nothing or only a few experimental sites per market, as their goals are to flip their licenses for profit before the initial license terms end. That is spectrum squatting, something we do not see from the national operators.

 

AJ

I wasn't really meaning any company specifically, just in general that the FCC ought to stop it.

 

I know alot of the Magentans claim that of Sprint regarding Sprint's band 41 spectrum, which really isn't fair to say of Sprint, as Sprint still is in the process of implementing technology that will utilize that spectrum. Also, Sprint is densifying the network so that band 41 can be more prevalent and have fewer issues of it being spotty or low range, some of the different criticisms we here from people seeking ways to bash Sprint.

 

The problem with spectrum squatting in my opinion, is when companies either big or small hold spectrum without a real, active plan of using it, or just to reserve it for the future. I'm not fond of the idea of companies buying spectrum so they could lease it out either. I'd rather have the FCC holding onto spectrum more tightly than they are with stricter policies of use, in making sure this spectrum is going to be put in use soon after they give it, or that who they give it to has an active plan, as Sprint does. Not just some "thoughts or potential strategies of use".

[WiWavelength]

I know alot of the Magentans claim that of Sprint regarding Sprint's band 41 spectrum, which really isn't fair to say of Sprint, as Sprint still is in the process of implementing technology that will utilize that spectrum. Also, Sprint is densifying the network so that band 41 can be more prevalent and have fewer issues of it being spotty or low range, some of the different criticisms we here from people seeking ways to bash Sprint.

 

To be clear, the FCC is not tasked with ensuring that a certain spectrum band or airlink technology is deployed on every site within a given network.  Since we are using band 41 as an example, the FCC would have no problem with Sprint never densifying its network.  Band 41 is already widely deployed -- substantial service -- across hundreds of markets.

 

Even Clearwire WiMAX deployment was fine.  It may not have provided the ubiquitous user experience originally intended, but it covered much of numerous metro areas -- and perhaps more importantly -- brought WiMAX license protection sites to many secondary and tertiary cities years before they would see any LTE.

 

In the eyes of the FCC, that is a win.  None of the above qualifies as spectrum squatting.  Now, Magentans may say that Sprint is not "using" its BRS/EBS spectrum in many locations.  But the same could be said of T-Mobile with its PCS and AWS-1 holdings.  That mid and high band spectrum does not come with any geographic buildout requirements.

 

And true, dyed in the wool Magentans do not want Sprint to have a denser network with band 41 everywhere.  T-Mobile could not compete with that density and bandwidth.  So, if they claim that Sprint is BRS/EBS "spectrum squatting," they are just taking potshots at Sprint.

 

AJ