WiWavelength

Band 26 is a superset of both SMR 800 MHz and Cellular 850 MHz bands. AJ

Comcast Metrophone was the Cellular A block licensee in the Philadelphia, PA-NJ market, but never in NYC. In the late 1990s, SBC (which would become Cingular, then the "new" AT&T) bought out Comcast's wireless assets -- that is, until Comcast joined up with Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Sprint to become SpectrumCo in the AWS-1 auction in 2006. But we all know where the SpectrumCo-Cox licenses reside now -- with VZW. AJ, the wireless historian

It does still hold true for most CMAs across the country but certainly not all, as evidenced by the CMAs I mentioned where AT&T or VZW holds both Cellular 850 MHz A/B block licenses. As for the New York, NY-NJ market, my knowledge of the Cellular license heritage runs like this: Cellular A block: LIN Broadcasting -> McCaw Cellular -> AT&TWS -> Cingular ("new" AT&T) Cellular B block: Bell Atlantic Mobile (VZW) NYNEX certainly could have held a piece of the Cellular A block. Minority ownership was quite common on the A-side. But Bell Atlantic-NYNEX would have had to divest any Cellular cross ownership in their 1997 merger. AJ

Josh, it seems that you have figured out how to parse the FCC OET database. I am not sure that I like you stealing my thunder... AJ

Yes and no. Sprint and T-Mobile together do hold the majority of PCS 1900 MHz spectrum. But neither is head and shoulders above the rest. On MHz·POPs basis (nationwide or average per market), Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T are all relatively close in PCS holdings. Even with all of its other spectrum, AT&T still has the arguable lead in PCS. Sprint actually surges barely ahead -- but only if we count the effectively proprietary PCS G block. If we exclude the PCS G block, then both Sprint and T-Mobile have roughly equivalent PCS holdings, and AT&T has about a 10 MHz lead. As for VZW, it lags behind a bit but makes up for it in Cellular 850 MHz holdings. AJ

The reason is relatively simple. No wireless carrier guarantees indoor coverage -- unless DAS has been set up to address indoor coverage/capacity within a specific building. Otherwise, because of metallic construction, Low-E glass, high rises, basements, etc., it is nary impossible for a wireless carrier to project and ensure indoor coverage. Any indoor coverage -- short of the aforementioned DAS -- is largely a happy accident, not an intentional result. And it does not matter if you are smack dab in the heart of Silicon Valley or in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Now, if you are inside your own office, you should have other connectivity options besides cellular. If you absolutely need cellular, then you should find a carrier that -- by happy accident -- just so happens to provide coverage in your office AJ

You needed a Rebound, not a Rezound. AJ

This is so AT&T, but is it so Raven? Robert, do your daughters have any comment? AJ

Correct. Under the W. Bush administration, the FCC did away with the Cellular 850 MHz cross ownership rule because "competition" would self regulate the industry. Since eliminating the cross ownership rule and greatly relaxing the spectrum cap, we can readily see what has happened to "competition." In 2000, prior to W. Bush, when AirTouch-Bell Atlantic Mobile-GTE-PrimeCo merged to form VZW, the combined entity was required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Phoenix, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Charlotte) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. In 2008, at the end of W. Bush's second term, when VZW-Alltel merged, VZW got essentially all of those divested Cellular licenses back, thus controlling all Cellular spectrum in those markets. In 2004, at the end of W. Bush's first term, when Cingular-AT&TWS merged, the combined entity was not unilaterally required to divest one of two Cellular A/B block licenses in markets (e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Jacksonville, Miami) where it would have held both Cellular licenses. The combined entity was forced to divest one of the two Cellular licenses in only Oklahoma City, where market was (and still is) heavily tilted toward AT&T nee Cingular. AJ

You have talked many times of your state issued VZW work phone. But I never knew that you had a Rezound. I am not sure why I find that so interesting. AJ

And if my understanding is correct, even recent T-Mobile handsets do not support Wi-Fi to cellular handoff any longer. That requires optimized hardware, but recent T-Mobile handsets have transitioned to an Android app to support Wi-Fi calling. AJ

Between now and then, I expect a day of reckoning regarding data roaming, since VoLTE will be equivalent to data. Depending upon who -- public servants or corporate stewards -- controls the FCC and/or the federal courts, an FCC rulemaking or court decision will come down, requiring FRAND terms for data roaming among carriers or allowing exclusion of other carriers on "private" networks. So, either way, I think that we will have some clarity a couple of years in advance of any major CDMA1X shut down in rural areas. AJ

At this point, VoLTE is little more than a popular mystique within the industry. VZW is not going to transition to VoLTE until it can meet or exceed current CDMA1X voice coverage, lest VZW risk its "best coverage" reputation, not to mention, the ire of the FCC. And in rural areas, VoLTE coverage is not going to meet or exceed CDMA1X voice coverage anytime soon. So, I am not the least bit worried about CDMA1X voice roaming for at least the next five years. AJ

One clarification: the satellite fed COWs are tuned to receive only Food Network. AJ

If precedent is any indication, AT&T will keep CDMA1X running at least through the length of any roaming contracts but will shut down EV-DO posthaste. AJ

And as soon as we have VoLTE, if not sooner, voice can also seamlessly run over Wi-Fi. So, the point of the Airave will become less and less. AJ

Okay. Do you not think that everyone here at this Sprint LTE focused site is already well aware of that fact? AJ

What relevance does that have to LTE Advanced? AJ

Nearly the opposite. When I come home (or when I am in another location with Wi-Fi), my handset sits idle 99 percent of the time, and my go to device is my Nexus 7. On my handset, I typically use about 500 MB of data per month, while on my tablet, I typically use about 5 GB of data per month. AJ

Not a coincidence. Miami is yet another market in which that FCC "administration" allowed AT&T to gobble up both Cellular 850 MHz licenses. The W. Bush FCC's theory of "free market competition" was flawed from the beginning. I knew it then. I formally opposed it then (filing a Petition to Deny). And I stand vindicated now. Oh, I am so happy, as you can tell. AJ

Thanks to the careful "oversight" of the W. Bush era FCC (chaired by Powell and Martin), the Cellular 850 MHz cross ownership rule was removed, and AT&T was allowed to acquire both Cellular A and B block licenses in DFW and Austin. So, no, I am not surprised at all at the results in Texas. That is a failure of pro big business regulators to do their jobs and to see the likely consequences of the actions (or, in this case, inaction). W. Bush from Texas -- shocking, just shocking -- did more to put AT&T nee SBC where it is today than any other, short of maybe Steve Jobs and the damn iPhone. AJ

Yeah, due to the drought depleted corn crop this past year, I read that western Kansas feedlots have contracted with both DirecTV and Dish Network to feed their cattle via satellite RF. You gotta admit, mirlyn, you left yourself wide open for that one... AJ

The initial thread is in the Premier section. Later, when it was revealed that the market share info had already been made public in other forums, it was posted again. But I cannot easily find that second thread. Regardless, the market share data is for the top 50 CMAs as they currently stand, not the top 50 CMAs as they were when the FCC licensed them in the 1980s (and as all FCC considerations still number them). That leads to some market omissions and inclusions. Las Vegas, for example, has jumped from #93 to #25. Meanwhile, decaying Rust Belt cities, such as Providence and Albany, have dropped out of the top 50 CMAs. AJ

Another interesting observation is that -- if our recently posted market share numbers are accurate -- AT&T, Sprint, VZW, and T-Mobile hold 94.5 percent of the market in Austin. In that case, Cricket has almost no market share and has barely any business case to operate a network in Austin, let alone operate one that supposedly has better coverage than the Sprint network does. I just find that hard to believe, particularly as Sprint has 5-10 times the market share and had roughly a five year head start on build out in Austin. South Texas, I could understand, as that area has far more low income consumers and illegal immigrants who could not pass a Sprint credit check. South Texas is a dream market for a bottom feeder like Cricket. AJ

Fair enough. But Ian seems quite knowledgeable about most/all carriers in the Austin area. And he has direct experience with many of them. However, I will let him speak for himself if he choose to do so. AJ