Verizon to sell 700 MHz spectrum in A and B blocks to try to gain AWS spectrum in cable deal

[marioc21]

Ok spectrum gurus. Here's the story:

 

http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo

 

Is this 700mhz spectrum any good? Would it only be good for small regional carriers?

[ericdabbs]

It appears that Verizon is trying to make some concessions by selling its A and B blocks of 700 MHz spectrum in order to try to persuade the FCC to grant the cable company deal for the AWS spectrum. What do you guys think? Personally I would like to see how much spectrum Verizon is willing to give up in exchange for the AWS spectrum. Unless its a lot more than what Verizon is gaining in the AWS deal then I say no deal. I don't really know of any carrier besides AT&T that really deploys LTE at 700 MHz anyways.

 

http://www.slashgear...ctrum-18223439/

 

Hopefully AJ can chime in on this but if Verizon were to sell its A and B blocks of 700 MHz spectrum, what frequencies are we looking it becoming available to carriers and how much spectrum?

[ericdabbs]

Posted similar story here.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...-in-cable-deal/

 

I would need more details on how much spectrum is given up first. But on first impression I am still not sold. There are not or if any small regional carriers that use 700 MHz for LTE. We know that MetroPCS, Cricket, Tmobile, US Cellular are the other major carriers that rely primarily on AWS spectrum that could really use the central to east coast coverage that Verizon currently holds. I would much rather have Verizon divest some its PCS and all of its current AWS spectrum holdings. Verizon can keep the A and B blocks of 700 MHz.

 

I know that both MetroPCS and Cricket have a coverage gap in the central to east coast region that could really use the AWS spectrum from Verizon.

[omega]

It appears that Verizon is trying to make some concessions by selling its A and B blocks of 700 MHz spectrum in order to try to persuade the FCC to grant the cable company deal for the AWS spectrum. What do you guys think? Personally I would like to see how much spectrum Verizon is willing to give up in exchange for the AWS spectrum. Unless its a lot more than what Verizon is gaining in the AWS deal then I say no deal. I don't really know of any carrier besides AT&T that really deploys LTE at 700 MHz anyways.

 

http://www.slashgear...ctrum-18223439/

 

Hopefully AJ can chime in on this but if Verizon were to sell its A and B blocks of 700 MHz spectrum' date=' what frequencies are we looking it becoming available to carriers and how much spectrum?[/quote']

 

I don't think it would be enough spectrum to let it pass the FCC. They should be forced to add some of the C block to make it nation wide and at least 5x5.

[bigsnake49]

Posted similar story here.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...-in-cable-deal/

 

I would need more details on how much spectrum is given up first. But on first impression I am still not sold. There are not or if any small regional carriers that use 700 MHz for LTE. We know that MetroPCS, Cricket, Tmobile, US Cellular are the other major carriers that rely primarily on AWS spectrum that could really use the central to east coast coverage that Verizon currently holds. I would much rather have Verizon divest some its PCS and all of its current AWS spectrum holdings. Verizon can keep the A and B blocks of 700 MHz.

 

I know that both MetroPCS and Cricket have a coverage gap in the central to east coast region that could really use the AWS spectrum from Verizon.

 

I'm with you on that eric. I want them to divest their current AWS spectrum plus their 700MHz A&B before they're allowed to purchase the SpectrumCo licenses. I would also put a stipulation that the licenses be sold to small players before AT&T has a chance.

[irev210]

Posted similar story here.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...-in-cable-deal/

 

I would need more details on how much spectrum is given up first. But on first impression I am still not sold. There are not or if any small regional carriers that use 700 MHz for LTE. We know that MetroPCS, Cricket, Tmobile, US Cellular are the other major carriers that rely primarily on AWS spectrum that could really use the central to east coast coverage that Verizon currently holds. I would much rather have Verizon divest some its PCS and all of its current AWS spectrum holdings. Verizon can keep the A and B blocks of 700 MHz.

 

I know that both MetroPCS and Cricket have a coverage gap in the central to east coast region that could really use the AWS spectrum from Verizon.

 

Verizon is smart - they know that only AT&T will buy the A and B blocks in the 700MHz band. This is exactly what verizon would want - to strengthen the duopoly.

[ericdabbs]

I'm with you on that eric. I want them to divest their current AWS spectrum plus their 700MHz A&B before they're allowed to purchase the SpectrumCo licenses. I would also put a stipulation that the licenses be sold to small players before AT&T has a chance.

 

Yeah putting a priority to smaller players for both the 700 MHz A&B and AWS spectrum would have to be the condition. If Verizon is serious about trying to get both the FCC and the RCA on approval with this deal they would need to do perform these divestitures at a minimum. I would also love to see Verizon have to divest some PCS for Sprint's sake but then it would then get into greedy territory.

 

What Verizon is doing with its current proposal of selling just the 700 MHz A&B blocks doesn't help the smaller carriers one bit except for AT&T since smaller carriers mainly use AWS spectrum. The last thing I want to see is both AT&T and Verizon become stronger by dominating the AWS spectrum as well as the cable companies enforcing more dominance over the TV airwaves.

[ericdabbs]

I don't think it would be enough spectrum to let it pass the FCC. They should be forced to add some of the C block to make it nation wide and at least 5x5.

 

Verizon will not sell the 700 MHz C block since they already have customers who are using the LTE service. Verizon can not just disrupt services like that without a nice transition plan. With all the first generation LTE phones in 2011 that only support the C block that won't happen.

 

To be honest, the 700 MHz C block is not enough of a divestitures to get the deal done. What the smaller carriers need is divestitures from Verizon on all of their current AWS spectrum. Tmobile, Cricket, MetroPCS and US Cellular all use AWS spectrum for their LTE and voice service. Since the cable company deal will grant Verizon a 20 MHz block of AWS spectrum that is nationwide, there is no need for Verizon to hold onto its current AWS spectrum assets and could be used by the smaller carriers to bolster their coverage. Cricket and MetroPCS both have a coverage gap in the central to east coast regions which could really use the AWS divestitures.

[ericdabbs]

Robert, not sure if this thread should be merged with the one below. Maybe close this thread and move the responses to the thread below.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/786-verizon-to-sell-spectrum-if-cable-deal-approved/

[gangrene]

I could be completely misreading this situation, but to me It honestly looks like Verizon is trying to exchange rural 700mhz licenses for more urban spectrum and back out of its obligation to service rural areas as comprehensively as they've done in the past.

[WiWavelength]

I have compiled a spreadsheet of the Lower 700 MHz A/B block licenses that VZW may open up for sale.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArY31Mr219-ydEc3RXozR3VzbTkyamdUZV9QX3RvdlE

 

AJ

[ericdabbs]

I have compiled a spreadsheet of the Lower 700 MHz A/B block licenses that VZW may open up for sale.

 

https://docs.google....amdUZV9QX3RvdlE

 

AJ

 

I would love to see MetroPCS and USCC scoop up the majority of the 700 MHz.

[ChadBroChillz]

I could be completely misreading this situation, but to me It honestly looks like Verizon is trying to exchange rural 700mhz licenses for more urban spectrum and back out of its obligation to service rural areas as comprehensively as they've done in the past.

 

I believe they would still have 20mhz from their upper c to cover the rural areas, which should be more than plenty.

 

I feel like it would be better to let tmobile put a bid on the spectrum over just letting Verizon grab it, but I do see why they want it. With it, they would have 40mhz in the northeast, midwest and southeast.

[ChadBroChillz]

 

 

I would love to see MetroPCS and USCC scoop up the majority of the 700 MHz.

 

While it would be awesome, you know the more likely benefactor would be att. They have more money and would easily pay doubt what uscc or metro would. It would end up being more spectrum for the duopoly.

[gangrene]

USCC expanding into the Northeast would be great.

[4ringsnbr]

I have contacts in Verizon and know they want to go to VoLTE and shutdown CDMA... they're already planning VoLTE feature phones. The problem is that feature phones (smaller than 4" in one dimension) are too small to use 750 LTE due to the antenna spacing requirements. They've been talking up AWS for VoLTE and future use. They already have 20 MHz east of the Mississippi- the whole cable co deal is to secure 20 MHz west of the Mississippi as well where their AWS holdings are sparse. I think all along they've planned to sell the excess-- the way they bid on the AWS trying to only get that big block shows you that. Long term, they will end up converting their PCS and probably even cellular 850 spectrum to LTE as well-- and the PCS spectrum LTE would allow small handsets just like the AWS would. I expect their fallback if the AWS plan falls through is to use PCS for this plan rather than AWS. Only time will tell what the future holds-- but I doubt they'll initiate any AWS LTE plans until they secure a nationwide spectrum holding there.

 

As far as the "duopoly"... Verizon's only plans for AT&T are probably to try to put them out of the wireless business if they can as any company should aim to do with its competitors-- they don't cooperate-- they compete! If they don't try to put each other out of business, they're not doing their jobs well, and will probably regret it in the long run.

[MacinJosh]

I have contacts in Verizon and know they want to go to VoLTE and shutdown CDMA... they're already planning VoLTE feature phones. The problem is that feature phones (smaller than 4" in one dimension) are too small to use 750 LTE due to the antenna spacing requirements. They've been talking up AWS for VoLTE and future use. They already have 20 MHz east of the Mississippi- the whole cable co deal is to secure 20 MHz west of the Mississippi as well where their AWS holdings are sparse. I think all along they've planned to sell the excess-- the way they bid on the AWS trying to only get that big block shows you that. Long term' date=' they will end up converting their PCS and probably even cellular 850 spectrum to LTE as well-- and the PCS spectrum LTE would allow small handsets just like the AWS would. I expect their fallback if the AWS plan falls through is to use PCS for this plan rather than AWS. Only time will tell what the future holds-- but I doubt they'll initiate any AWS LTE plans until they secure a nationwide spectrum holding there.

 

As far as the "duopoly"... Verizon's only plans for AT&T are probably to try to put them out of the wireless business if they can as any company should aim to do with its competitors-- they don't cooperate-- they compete! If they don't try to put each other out of business, they're not doing their jobs well, and will probably regret it in the long run.[/quote']

 

They can try to put each other out of business, but the government won't allow another monopoly on phone service. So if AT&T were to fail, as well as the other carriers, the government would just break VZW up like they did to Ma Bell. It'll be a vicious cycle all over again.

 

Sent from Joshs iPhone 3Gs using Forum Runner

[4ringsnbr]

They can try to put each other out of business, but the government won't allow another monopoly on phone service. So if AT&T were to fail, as well as the other carriers, the government would just break VZW up like they did to Ma Bell. It'll be a vicious cycle all over again.

 

Sent from Joshs iPhone 3Gs using Forum Runner

 

Perhaps so-- Government needs to stay out of it and let the market decide. Once a monopoly gets too comfortable, an innovator with a better product and /or price will come forth-- necessity is the mother of invention... and when it does, the customers quickly vote with their wallets. Always have faith in the consumer-- as long as he is well-informed!

[MacinJosh]

 

Perhaps so-- Government needs to stay out of it and let the market decide. Once a monopoly gets too comfortable' date=' an innovator with a better product and /or price will come forth-- necessity is the mother of invention... and when it does, the customers quickly vote with their wallets. Always have faith in the consumer-- as long as he is well-informed![/quote']

 

I hope to never see it get that far.

 

Sent from Joshs iPhone 3Gs using Forum Runner

[WiWavelength]

Perhaps so-- Government needs to stay out of it and let the market decide. Once a monopoly gets too comfortable, an innovator with a better product and /or price will come forth-- necessity is the mother of invention... and when it does, the customers quickly vote with their wallets. Always have faith in the consumer-- as long as he is well-informed!

 

And none of that applies to the wireless industry, which has become a de facto public utility and is an inherently closed market with huge barriers to entry. Oh, not to mention, carriers are using our public spectrum.

 

AJ

[omega]

 

Perhaps so-- Government needs to stay out of it and let the market decide. Once a monopoly gets too comfortable' date=' an innovator with a better product and /or price will come forth-- necessity is the mother of invention... and when it does, the customers quickly vote with their wallets. Always have faith in the consumer-- as long as he is well-informed![/quote']

 

I would have to 100% disagree with you government was a direct cause of this duo and should have every right and cause to break them up when the time comes.

[ericdabbs]

Perhaps so-- Government needs to stay out of it and let the market decide. Once a monopoly gets too comfortable, an innovator with a better product and /or price will come forth-- necessity is the mother of invention... and when it does, the customers quickly vote with their wallets. Always have faith in the consumer-- as long as he is well-informed!

 

Completely disagree with your statement. There are huge barriers for entry in the wireless carrier space of which your statement does not apply which is why the government and the FCC needs to become involved. I don't care if someone came up with a new invention in wireless to be more spectrally efficient because at the end of the day they will still need spectrum. Without spectrum this new invention is going to be mean diddly squat because it would be all gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T. This crap happened before with the Ma Bell situation and had to be broken up. Without checks and balances, Verizon and AT&T could easily form a duopoly which is bad for the consumer. I always laugh when I hear people do not want competition like its a good thing.

 

In the grocery market sector, I am glad I see Walmart and Target offering produce and deli (in Walmart at least) to compete with the supermarket chains like Safeway, Albertsons, Vons, Ralphs, Stater Bros. I always felt that the supermarkets chains were usually a rip off and I find myself buying a lot of stuff from Walmart and Target just because I have choice. Choice is always good for the consumer just like it is in the wireless space.

[MacinJosh]

Completely disagree with your statement. There are huge barriers for entry in the wireless carrier space of which your statement does not apply which is why the government and the FCC needs to become involved. I don't care if someone came up with a new invention in wireless to be more spectrally efficient because at the end of the day they will still need spectrum. Without spectrum this new invention is going to be mean diddly squat because it would be all gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T. This crap happened before with the Ma Bell situation and had to be broken up. Without checks and balances, Verizon and AT&T could easily form a duopoly which is bad for the consumer. I always laugh when I hear people do not want competition like its a good thing.

 

In the grocery market sector, I am glad I see Walmart and Target offering produce and deli (in Walmart at least) to compete with the supermarket chains like Safeway, Albertsons, Vons, Ralphs, Stater Bros. I always felt that the supermarkets chains were usually a rip off and I find myself buying a lot of stuff from Walmart and Target just because I have choice. Choice is always good for the consumer just like it is in the wireless space.

 

That is until a store closes down thereby reducing local competition. Rumor has it my local Albertsons is closing. That will leave us with Smith's Food & Drug (a Kroger company, like Ralph's in LA), and WalMart.

[bigsnake49]

And none of that applies to the wireless industry, which has become a de facto public utility and is an inherently closed market with huge barriers to entry. Oh, not to mention, carriers are using our public spectrum.

 

AJ

 

Yep, some of which got it for free in the beginning!

[4ringsnbr]

Completely disagree with your statement. There are huge barriers for entry in the wireless carrier space of which your statement does not apply which is why the government and the FCC needs to become involved. I don't care if someone came up with a new invention in wireless to be more spectrally efficient because at the end of the day they will still need spectrum. Without spectrum this new invention is going to be mean diddly squat because it would be all gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T. This crap happened before with the Ma Bell situation and had to be broken up. Without checks and balances, Verizon and AT&T could easily form a duopoly which is bad for the consumer. I always laugh when I hear people do not want competition like its a good thing.

 

In the grocery market sector, I am glad I see Walmart and Target offering produce and deli (in Walmart at least) to compete with the supermarket chains like Safeway, Albertsons, Vons, Ralphs, Stater Bros. I always felt that the supermarkets chains were usually a rip off and I find myself buying a lot of stuff from Walmart and Target just because I have choice. Choice is always good for the consumer just like it is in the wireless space.

 

You're assuming the next leap in communication requires electromagnetic fields to communicate. I think we'll move beyond that. Consider quantum entanglement (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance") for the next phase of communications. You would have limitless range communication at faster than the speed of light (that one is still being debated), bandwidth only limited by the number of fermion particles used, and a device that cannot be cloned or eavesdropped upon unless you had a particle accelerator handy. We're still in our infancy understanding these concepts and the science behind this, but no more so than we were a century ago when Tesla invented radio (credit often falsely given to Marconi) using EM waves. There are many possibilities out there-- we never know what may be next!

 

Besides, I think you misunderstood the gist of my message-- I'm all in favor of competition-- it does make things (generally) better for the consumer, and the struggle of companies against one another gives us more value and typically better service. I was pointing out that some consipracy theorists on this thread have suggested that Verizon is somehow colluding with AT&T to shutout everyone else. I'm simply pointing out that those two compete, not cooperate. AT&T is the one company Verizon considers a threat and vice-versa. If both companies were smart, they'd stay wary of Sprint and T-Mobile since the underdogs can sweep the rug out from underneath their competetors if they're underestimated.