Jump to content

VZW Swap


grapkoski
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this has a separate thread, but it looks like the FCC is slowly working on the spectrum swap with big red.

 

Found this docket on FCC's ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=16-175&sort=date_received,DESC

 

Haven't found the equivalent for T-Mo yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 'general information request' it looks like the Ohio markets have sparked some questions:

 

On page 2 of the Public Interest Statement, the Applicants maintain that the proposed transaction would lead to “more efficient operations that would result from larger blocks of contiguous spectrum, allowing both service providers to provide more robust services to meet the needs of their customers, by providing additional spectrum capacity in certain markets to help meet the demands of their customers for broadband wireless services” and “n the case of BTA 444, Sprint’s total attributable spectrum holdings increase 5 MHz as a result of the proposed transaction.” Our review indicates that in those seven counties in all or parts of three CMAs – CMA 48 (Toledo, Ohio), CMA 585 (Ohio 1 – Williams), and CMA 586 (Ohio 2 – Sandusky) in which Sprint would realize a net gain in its PCS spectrum holdings, it would hold a maximum of 230.5 megahertz of spectrum in total post-transaction.
a. Provide a detailed description of how the Company would use the spectrum that it would acquire under the Proposed Transaction on a standalone basis and/or in conjunction with any other of the Company’s spectrum holdings, and how it would improve spectrum capacity and efficiency of operations.
b. Provide a detailed explanation of why this additional aggregation of spectrum is necessary to provide the Company’s customers with broadband wireless services, and why this additional aggregation of spectrum above the general spectrum screen does not raise any competitive concerns.

 

Sprint submitted a draft response on June 20, 2016 (meeting the FCC's request) and a final response by July 19, 2016. Hopefully, we are getting close!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toledo and Sandusky have had a 10x10 B25 LTE carrier for at least the past year, so I'm curious why they would want more. I tried looking at the PDF doc, but it won't download for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toledo and Sandusky have had a 10x10 B25 LTE carrier for at least the past year, so I'm curious why they would want more. I tried looking at the PDF doc, but it won't download for some reason.

 

Besides more efficient use of the spectrum, I believe they would be able to up their B25 carrier to 15mhz when the trades take place. It's an easy win that only requires paperwork, software updates and minimal truck rolling (if at all). 

 

Wall article: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-407-not-just-with-att-sprint-swaps-spectrum-with-t-mobile-and-vzw-too/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides more efficient use of the spectrum, I believe they would be able to up their B25 carrier to 15mhz when the trades take place. It's an easy win that only requires paperwork, software updates and minimal truck rolling (if at all).

 

Wall article: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-407-not-just-with-att-sprint-swaps-spectrum-with-t-mobile-and-vzw-too/

I thought equipment was only certified for up to 10x10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought equipment was only certified for up to 10x10?

I think it is, but the hardware is capable of 15x15. They just need to submit it to the FCC for approval, then push out a software update.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is, but the hardware is capable of 15x15. They just need to submit it to the FCC for approval, then push out a software update.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

Yea, that's what I meant. They might as well certify up to 20x20 this time because IIRC the equipment is capable and it will save them a lot of hassle in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Columbus is doing 10X10+5x5 and load balancing between the two carriers currently.  I would imagine that the same might happen for NW Ohio until the equipment approvals for more than 10x10 happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Columbus is doing 10X10+5x5 and load balancing between the two carriers currently. I would imagine that the same might happen for NW Ohio until the equipment approvals for more than 10x10 happen.

Can't wait for that here in Seattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Let me take a look tonight. 
    • Actually, I notice it says whole clusters were skipped because of invalid TAC values.  It says "File exported for inspection."  I do have Log Sites with Missing TAC checked. Robert
    • I was able to figure this out by looking at your diagnostic reports -- you're seeing n7 because your Galaxy A32 is reporting it natively as n7.. Samsung will have to fix that on their end unfortunately. Do the engineering screens report it correctly? I have an A32 test device but I have not seen it connect to n41 (or "n7") yet. If I do, I'll try to troubleshoot and nag Samsung. EDIT: After I installed the new Android 12 update, I'm now seeing the n7 bug too -- I will reach out to Samsung. They were very responsive when I reported some related glitches with the initial A32 software.
    • I appreciate the feedback today -- another new is SCP beta rolling out right now! It should resolve the force closes that started with yesterday's beta release; I also made additional improvements that hopefully(?) will reduce ongoing issues with overall app stability.
    • I'm noticing a spike in instability while driving around testing the app today also.. more freeze-ups than crashes, but it's probably all related. Hopefully any crash reports that are collected can shed some light on it for me. I'll be looking into it later tonight.
  • Recently Browsing

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