Sprint not participating in the 600 MHz auction (report)

[WiWavelength]

AJ, that isn't fair.

 

I come to this site besides learning about wireless needs, because I have serious health issues I try to focus my mind away from by thinking about other things. I seriously don't mind disagreements of opinions, but to make assumptions of what I'm thinking and making light of what I write about, isn't fair and is rather mean spirited.

 

It is all in good fun, Arysyn.  Not mean spirited.  With some posters who appear to have ulterior or misplaced motives here, I can get quite critical and unkind.  But you are in no danger of that.  I genuinely like you.

 

And while we understand and sympathize with your health issues, that does not buy you a free pass.  You are just one of the guys (and a few gals) at S4GRU.  Give and take some ribbing -- just like everybody else.

 

That said, you do go off in rate plan fantasyland a lot, though.  It is not grounded in reality, just your wishes.  You have to admit that.

 

AJ

[bigmachine]

I think he was joking. I don't really know, i never get his sense of humor but he put a winky face...

Understanding the humor here requires a tri-band brain:

 

1. The ability to recognize pop culture references from the 1860s all the way up to one second ago.

2. Be equally engaged by the sophisticated and the base.

3. Be able to tolerate humor without guard bands.

[Arysyn]

It is all in good fun, Arysyn. Not mean spirited. With some posters who appear to have ulterior or misplaced motives here, I can get quite critical and unkind. But you are in no danger of that. I genuinely like you.

 

And while we understand and sympathize with your health issues, that does not buy you a free pass. You are just one of the guys (and a few gals) at S4GRU. Give and take some ribbing -- just like everybody else.

 

That said, you do go off in rate plan fantasyland a lot, though. It is not grounded in reality, just your wishes. You have to admit that.

 

AJ

Its fine. I admit I have trouble discerning humor from seriousness, as I'm naturally very defensive/guarded. Also, and I mean this genuinely, I'm really not using my health as an excuse or some sort of pass, but as an explanation, without actually going into great detail. I know if I did, it might help describe how I got to thinking as I do of certain things, but since I respect the intended purposes of this site, I refrain from it, just giving a basic description of where I'm at.

 

I do mention rate plans often, as I think of various ideas that change those, then I'll add other ideas to it, which I don't intend to be annoying by it at all, or make it seem more important to anything else. I know S4GRU is more technically based, which I respect and have learned alot from. I appreciate this site and also your knowledge of things, AJ, and others here who've certainly helped me both learn a lot and given me something positive to think about in regards to wireless technology.

[WiWavelength]

Understanding the humor here requires a tri-band brain:

 

1. The ability to recognize pop culture references from the 1860s all the way up to one second ago.

2. Be equally engaged by the sophisticated and the base.

3. Be able to tolerate humor without guard bands.

 

Dammit, I have to give up a second "Like" in the span of about 10 minutes?!  That has to be a record.  Well, do not expect any "Likes" on the Thanksgiving table or under the Christmas tree this year.  I am just about fresh out.

 

But the above post is too on point, well reasoned, and concisely written not to "Like."

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Understanding the humor here requires a tri-band brain:

 

1. The ability to recognize pop culture references from the 1860s all the way up to one second ago.

2. Be equally engaged by the sophisticated and the base.

3. Be able to tolerate humor without guard bands.

This is an awesome post. Two enthusiastic thumbs up.

 

And to get a Like from AJ is an honor. I don't have many of those myself.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[WiWavelength]

And to get a Like from AJ is an honor. I don't have many of those myself.

 

I am outside myself tonight.  The mushrooms that guy gave me to eat and the paper dot he told me to lick have made my head feel funny.

 

 

AJ

[Trip]

Anyways, I did mention that I understand the importance of emergency broadcasts and the like for OTA broadcasting. However, I'm not going to support the use of OTA for entertainment broadcasting where other means of access to that are available, Again though, that is my opinion and I know others may agree or disagree. Not arguing or debating it though.

 

I don't like this logic, because I don't think it makes any sense.  It's the same logic that leads people to say things like "why shouldn't we put cell phones on the ham radio bands?  When the power goes out, there will be nothing on them and the ham equipment can be used then."  Missing, entirely, is the fact that nobody is going to spend thousands of dollars on equipment they can't even test, let alone enjoy, except when the world is collapsing around them. 

 

I can't imagine TV broadcasters or viewers spending the money to implement OTA solely as a fall-back for when everything else fails if it can't be used for anything else.

 

- Trip

[Arysyn]

I don't like this logic, because I don't think it makes any sense. It's the same logic that leads people to say things like "why shouldn't we put cell phones on the ham radio bands? When the power goes out, there will be nothing on them and the ham equipment can be used then." Missing, entirely, is the fact that nobody is going to spend thousands of dollars on equipment they can't even test, let alone enjoy, except when the world is collapsing around them.

 

I can't imagine TV broadcasters or viewers spending the money to implement OTA solely as a fall-back for when everything else fails if it can't be used for anything else.

 

- Trip

I personally think it would be a better for people to rely on radio broadcasts than OTA antenna systems installed on their homes, for when they need emergency information, weather, etc. Again, I'm not trying to dictate this, its just a matter of my opinion about it.

 

I do however see the point about it being rather a waste financially to invest in such with little room to expand on that investment. Yet, as I am extremely progressive with issues relating to technology and its advancements, I really can't be supportive of what I believe is way outdated and in a sense, a hindrance of progression, in a way.

[jefbal99]

I personally think it would be a better for people to rely on radio broadcasts than OTA antenna systems installed on their homes, for when they need emergency information, weather, etc. Again, I'm not trying to dictate this, its just a matter of my opinion about it.

 

I do however see the point about it being rather a waste financially to invest in such with little room to expand on that investment. Yet, as I am extremely progressive with issues relating to technology and its advancements, I really can't be supportive of what I believe is way outdated and in a sense, a hindrance of progression, in a way.

As a person who lives in an area where wired internet is not available/offered, OTA is my only option. I live two miles out of the city, but no ISP will make the investment to run service to our neighborhood. We've asked, every household is interested. We've looked into WISP, however, the local providers don't have a tower close enough. Are evaluating adding a new site close to us.

 

OTA is not a wasted resource, but a highly needed service for many people.

 

Sent from Moto X Pure via Tapatalk

[JimBob]

Analysts: 600 MHz incentive auction could generate $60 billion, but per-MHz prices could be lower than AWS-3 auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-600-mhz-incentive-auction-could-generate-60-billion-mhz-prices-cou/2015-09-30

[Rawvega]

Analysts: 600 MHz incentive auction could generate $60 billion, but per-MHz prices could be lower than AWS-3 auction

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/analysts-600-mhz-incentive-auction-could-generate-60-billion-mhz-prices-cou/2015-09-30

 

 

"...We anticipate bids in the broadcast-spectrum auction could approach $60 billion if non-traditional bidders -- cable MSOs and technology companies, such as Comcast, Dish Network, and Google -- decide to participate."

 

That seems to be a mighty big "if".

[caspar347]

That seems to be a mighty big "if".

 

Analysts: 600 MHz incentive auction could generate $60 billion, but per-MHz prices could be lower than AWS-3 auction

 

http://www.fiercewir...-cou/2015-09-30

 

Quote

 

"...We anticipate bids in the broadcast-spectrum auction could approach $60 billion if non-traditional bidders -- cable MSOs and technology companies, such as Comcast, Dish Network, and Google -- decide to participate."

 

Haven't analysts said the same thing about every auction dating back to 700Mhz? Granted, it kinda happened with Dish in AWS3, but the biggest consistent spenders were still VZ and AT&T, right? And Google's participation in the 700Mhz auction was purely political (they made sure the bid prices hit the minimum to trigger the open access clauses).

 

Unless more crazy cable-carrier M&A stuff is being arranged behind closed doors, I doubt the cable cos are gonna swoop in and buy tens of billions of $$$s worth of spectrum.

[Arysyn]

As a person who lives in an area where wired internet is not available/offered, OTA is my only option. I live two miles out of the city, but no ISP will make the investment to run service to our neighborhood. We've asked, every household is interested. We've looked into WISP, however, the local providers don't have a tower close enough. Are evaluating adding a new site close to us.

 

OTA is not a wasted resource, but a highly needed service for many people.

 

Sent from Moto X Pure via Tapatalk

Whereas I'm not a big fan of OTA, I do really like the idea of wisp content service companies, and I definitely think that as part of my spectrum auction reform ideas, the FCC ought to encourage wisp companies, even the growth of new ones, to participate in conferences with the FCC at the auction exclusively for wisps.

 

I think the 600mhz spectrum would be great for wisps, due to its long range and building penetration. I support the creation of wisps wherever there are not any reasonably priced satellite or land based options, and should be regulated, in exchange for affordable spectrum and build out support from the government, the wisps ensure fair equivalent or better pricing than the options not available in the areas the wisps serve.

[tmiw]

I think the 600mhz spectrum would be great for wisps, due to its long range and building penetration. I support the creation of wisps wherever there are not any reasonably priced satellite or land based options, and should be regulated, in exchange for affordable spectrum and build out support from the government, the wisps ensure fair equivalent or better pricing than the options not available in the areas the wisps serve.

 

Eh, I'd broaden that to just land based options. Satellite is basically available everywhere and is almost never a good option unless your only other choice is dialup simply because of the latency and very low data caps.

[S4GRU]

I use OTA for network television. I don't have cable service. I do have high speed broadband though.

I don't need to have my OTA service cut because my wireless service provider needs more capacity. They can densify, if there is no additional spectrum available. It doesn't have to be an either, or proposition.

If a TV station is unprofitable or barely profitable and in danger of going under anyway, I don't see much harm in them auctioning off their channels for data. It kind of irks me they would profit from spectrum that's really owned by the public, but I can get over that.

But I think it's dangerous thinking to say that we should not have OTA television at all because there is a data explosion. This is still a new thing. And by giving out spectrum over and over again, we stifle new technology that could make wireless much more efficient. So taking existing spectrum from other legitimate uses is not a good answer.

In my opinion, 600MHz is really only a good option for rural areas. And there should be no problem securing ample 600 in these areas. But no one is talking about the rurals. Wireless providers really only care about getting 600 in urban areas.

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.

The 600MHz auction, if it goes on as scheduled, will end up with tons of wideband rural spectrum that will be largely ignored by the national carriers and an intense fight for small slivers of urban spectrum. Meanwhile those of us who live in tertiary and rural markets will be passed over again from meaningful low frequency wideband development. And The Top 25 markets will end up with one or two 5x5 licenses that they don't need.

For the future, primary/secondary markets are about densification. Tertiary and rural markets are about low band spectrum and network expansion.

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[clbowens]

I use OTA for network television. I don't have cable service. I do have high speed broadband though.

 

I don't need to have my OTA service cut because my wireless service provider needs more capacity. They can densify, if there is no additional spectrum available. It doesn't have to be an either, or proposition.

 

If a TV station is unprofitable or barely profitable and in danger of going under anyway, I don't see much harm in them auctioning off their channels for data. It kind of irks me they would profit from spectrum that's really owned by the public, but I can get over that.

 

But I think it's dangerous thinking to say that we should not have OTA television at all because there is a data explosion. This is still a new thing. And by giving out spectrum over and over again, we stifle new technology that could make wireless much more efficient. So taking existing spectrum from other legitimate uses is not a good answer.

 

In my opinion, 600MHz is really only a good option for rural areas. And there should be no problem securing ample 600 in these areas. But no one is talking about the rurals. Wireless providers are really only care about getting 600 in urban areas.

 

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.

 

The 600MHz auction, if it goes on as scheduled, will end up with tons of wideband rural spectrum that will be largely ignored by the national carriers and an intense fight for small slivers of urban spectrum. Meanwhile those of us who live in tertiary and rural markets will be passed over again from meaningful low frequency wideband development. And The Top 25 markets will end up with one or two 5x5 licenses that they don't need.

 

For the future, primary/secondary markets are about densification. Tertiary and rural markets are about low band spectrum and network expansion.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

I also use OTA for network television.  Mainly because of the ever increasing cost.

[Arysyn]

Eh, I'd broaden that to just land based options. Satellite is basically available everywhere and is almost never a good option unless your only other choice is dialup simply because of the latency and very low data caps.

That is a very good point! I don't like how satellite service has the data caps, but in my mind when mentioning the option, I kept thinking of it being regulated more strictly to provide more comparable service to landline cable, DSL, etc., though obviously it wouldn't be as vast of data offerings, though certainly more than what currently is being offered.

 

I still think expanding wisps is the way to go, though ultimately I'd like to see less restrictions on technology development that could provide better options than any of these. I know technology moves pretty fast, though I don't believe it is fast enough. I heavily believe in the social/technological ideas promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement. They often talk about how the economic system hinders technological development in a variety of ways, which I find interesting. Yet, I'll leave that alone here, as it gets political and I don't want to go against site policy by getting into it beyond that.

[WiWavelength]

Turn Down for What

 

We should turn down OTA TV for what?  Even more mobile spectrum?  Why?

 

We already have at the very least Lower 700 MHz, Upper 700 MHz, SMR 800 MHz, Cellular 850 MHz, AWS-1/3 1700+2100 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, PCS/AWS-2 1900 MHz, AWS-4 2000+2200 MHz, WCS 2300 MHz, and BRS/EBS 2600 MHz.  What more do we need?

 

This has all turned into a giant fustercluck.  And it is going to get worse, potentially collapsing on itself in the future.  Throwing copious amounts of mobile spectrum out there does not solve the mobile data capacity issue.  Only massive densification will solve that growing problem.  And once there are small cells every few blocks, if not even every block, having all of those disparate spectrum bands becomes a headache.  Operators will want to use primarily mid to high band spectrum -- because of availability of larger carrier bandwidths and feasibility of higher order MIMO.  Thus, many other bands deemed so important to refarm, auction, and/or devote to mobile stand to get neglected.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I definitely don't like how these auctions are just ways of throwing additional spectrum to the highest bidder without regard to the bidder's use of the current spectrum they have. I believe in eliminating these auctions, but rather have sensible conferences between the FCC and spectrum holders to examine the use of that spectrum they have, and what extra is needed, if so.

 

However, of course with a much better distribution model that is fair. I've mentioned this in past posts, hoping to get a better idea of spectrum as a whole from looking at charts. Although, I couldn't find online exactly what it is I'm looking for that I've seen in the past. It would greatly help me to better describe my outlook for this.

[jroepcke51]

fustercluck

AJ

I see what you did there..

[smooth25]

I cut cable as well. I use OTA and watch content through streaming.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

[Dkoellerwx]

I personally think it would be a better for people to rely on radio broadcasts than OTA antenna systems installed on their homes, for when they need emergency information, weather, etc. Again, I'm not trying to dictate this, its just a matter of my opinion about it.

 

I do however see the point about it being rather a waste financially to invest in such with little room to expand on that investment. Yet, as I am extremely progressive with issues relating to technology and its advancements, I really can't be supportive of what I believe is way outdated and in a sense, a hindrance of progression, in a way.

 

So you'd advocate radio over TV? That one I really don't get. When it comes to weather and other information, unfortunately if people can't see it, they don't react. If I can't show a picture of a tornado on air, people don't take shelter. If we can't show images of a hurricane causing damage, people don't evacuate. The chances that people react appropriate to a radio broadcast anymore are very slim, unfortunately. 

[WiWavelength]

So you'd advocate radio over TV? That one I really don't get. When it comes to weather and other information, unfortunately if people can't see it, they don't react. If I can't show a picture of a tornado on air...

 

I was going to save this for the really bad joke thread.  But I cannot resist the relevance here.  This tornado is not the "finger of God," it is the "penis of God."

 

 

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

So you'd advocate radio over TV? That one I really don't get. When it comes to weather and other information, unfortunately if people can't see it, they don't react. If I can't show a picture of a tornado on air, people don't take shelter. If we can't show images of a hurricane causing damage, people don't evacuate. The chances that people react appropriate to a radio broadcast anymore are very slim, unfortunately.

I should have been using my computer, but as I haven't had problems with this device automatically shutting off the past few days, I decided to write a post on it, which I was in the midst of writing, when suddenly this device reset and I lost what I was writing. So, I'm going to make this short.

 

I'm not advocating anything except for saying I support better use of spectrum through current and advanced technologies that ought to be provided affordably and in more places so that spectrum can be used more on those.

 

The radio mention was an example which I had a really good explanation and analogy for that I was writing, but that is all lost now and I'm upset about it. so, I'm going to just let what I've wrote up to now speak for my opinion on the subject.

[Deval]

Understanding the humor here requires a tri-band brain:

 

1. The ability to recognize pop culture references from the 1860s all the way up to one second ago.

2. Be equally engaged by the sophisticated and the base.

3. Be able to tolerate humor without guard bands.

 

I wish I could guild this!