Jump to content

maximus1987/lou99

S4GRU Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,072

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by maximus1987/lou99

  1. maximus1987/lou99
    I don't think Verizon is eager to build another CDMA network when they're trying to shut it down in the US. How could they justify charging roaming to their American customers who "roam" onto the Verizon network in Canadia? I'm sure that Verizon-US customers are the biggest $$$ for roaming onto Canada. The Canadian 700 MHz auction is coming up very soon http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20130604/spectrum_auction/canada-looks-infuse-competition-mobile-space-delays-700-mhz-auction/#_ Don't expect Band 12 to get very high bids. I think Verizon is gonna buy Band 13 spectrum in Canada and create an all-LTE network just like they want to here. Their Canadian phones will have CDMA for roaming down south courtesy of Qualcomm. Also, the Tier 2 carriers they're buying don't even have any 850 MHz spectrum, right? It's Mobilicity, Wind Mobile, Public Mobile These carriers were created after Canada's AWS auction. That's who Verizon would be buying so they couldn't create a new CDMA network if they wanted.
  2. maximus1987/lou99
    What?
  3. maximus1987/lou99
    Why would they not add full sites including 3G? Same reason why they don't just upgrade rural right now: cost.
  4. maximus1987/lou99
    I just don't see how TMO can wait until 600 MHz can be flipped on to cover rural America. It's sad and all that TMO doesn't even some "sow's ear" spectrum to run even 3x3 LTE but that's not the customers' problem to deal with. ATT will destroy them with AIO. It can even debut a service that's capped at 1mbps - like TMO's GoSmart $45/month plan that has "3G" speeds - and use its scale to CRUSH them; that's what I'd do if I were ATT. Everyone here I think is understanding that TMO can't afford to put up MORE PCS towers but it should at least upgrade its current ones. I think a mod here said late 2016/early 2017 was the earliest it could be "flipped on" even if the towers are ready. AJ, can you comment?
  5. maximus1987/lou99
    Neither Sprint nor T-Mobile have been historically known as DAS rich carriers. Metro on the other hand... My disbelief is based on the fact that T-Mobile was historical known a 35-37,000 site carrier. All of a sudden this 51,000 site number appears without an announced large scale new site buildout program. So color me a sceptic. We found a Tmobile press release with that 51,000 number from 2012: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251624&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1804179&highlight=
  6. maximus1987/lou99
    Guys, end of 2014 we'll have final confirmation: if TMO has any native 2G left, then 37,000 is just 3G/4g but if it has no 2G left, then 37k is entire footprint. This is because TMO has said they're gonna finish upgrading 37k by end of 2014. " T-Mobile will be improving approximately 37,000 cell sites over the next 18 months. These upgrades include: Replacing copper lines with fiber optic lines Adding new radios Moving ground equipment to the top of towers Adding new antennas" https://t-mobile.jive-mobile.com/#jive-document?content=%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fv2%2Fdocuments%2F5736
  7. maximus1987/lou99
    Let me reiterate my disbelief that T-Mobile had 51,000 macro sites before the merger. They were always 1-2,000 sites behind Sprint. I am not convinced. I will find the truth even if it kills me or I have to use the wayback machine. The way that the confusion may arise is that T-Mobile might have 37,000 HSPA+ sites and about 14,000 GSM sites, but they are colocated. They might even have legacy basestations. They might have 51,000 leases. That's exclusive of Metro. It's not just me that has doubts. AJ, our local guru, is also incredulous and we have been around for awhile. John Legere has a Facebook account and follows TMONEWS' facebook. If we ALL pester him, he may answer us just to leave him alone. After all, TMO has stated in press release this 51,000 number so it's not as if he'd be giving up some proprietary information, just a clarification.
  8. maximus1987/lou99
    But Verizon Wireless is building a new network somewhat organically. It is deploying LTE 750 (Band 13) throughout its footprint. While it doesn't have to construct new towers, usually no one has to anymore. The United States is damn near the top in terms of cell tower density (India and China beat us, though maybe a couple of European countries do too). It all depends on whether Sprint is willing to go through that difficult process. I don't see it ever happening without some massive network changes, but perhaps it'll happen anyway. Yes but they already have a customer base and brand loyalty from which to eventually get a return on that LTE investment. Sprint doesn't.
  9. maximus1987/lou99
    Will Sprint participate in any future mobility fund auction? "FCC kicks off $300M Mobility Fund auction for rural mobile broadband" Read more: FCC kicks off $300M Mobility Fund auction for rural mobile broadband - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-kicks-300m-mobility-fund-auction-rural-mobile-broadband/2012-09-27#ixzz2XpYO7EjN Subscribe at FierceWireless I understand that it couldn't participate in the first one cause it was busy not dying but what about in the future? This would be a cheaper and lower-risk way to get its foot in the door in rural areas.
  10. maximus1987/lou99
    Dish already has the spectrum to do home broadband without Clearwire. "MVDDS spectrum (214 licenses) is held by 11 companies, but the largest chunks are owned by three, South.com (an affiliate of Dish Network) with 37 areas, DTV Norwich (an affiliate of Cablevision) with 46 areas, and MDS Operations (an affiliate of MDS America) with 80 areas.[4][5] In 2012 DIsh Network acquired Cablevision's areas making Dish Network the largest owner of MVDDS spectrum in the US. [6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVDDS And the service is already commercially trialing under the brand called OMGFAST! http://www.omgfast.com/index.php "Cablevision launches 'OMGFAST' fixed wireless broadband service in Florida" Read more: Cablevision launches 'OMGFAST' fixed wireless broadband service in Florida - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/cablevision-launches-omgfast-fixed-wireless-broadband-service-florida/2012-07-18#ixzz2XpSDILHv Subscribe at FierceWireless
  11. maximus1987/lou99
    So it looks like Verizon's going to Canada but why? http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/canadas-new-spectrum-transfer-rules-could-open-door-verizon/2013-07-01 Well it might be because Canadians pay the highest rates in the world http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/canadas-cell-phone-rates-the-highest-in-the-world/ When most competitors enter a market, they make a splash by undercutting the incumbents but for some reason, I don't think Verizon's gonna do that. The Canadian government wants a 4th national competitor to drive down prices but I don't think Verizon is a good candidate for the role.
  12. maximus1987/lou99
    No, Dish wanted Sprint to host their spectrum but wanted it done under their terms, which is they would repay Sprint with capacity on Dish's hosted spectrum. Sprint wanted to get paid up front and then have an option to purchase capacity. Link please.
  13. maximus1987/lou99
    That is a very small FU. That is like Dish saying "well I didn't want it anyways." The FCC would still be the winner, plus wouldn't dish face strict fines and fees for not meeting build out requirements? If that is the case, then it would make the FCC an even bigger winner. I don't think there's fines, only reclamation.You don't think holding spectrum fallow for years is a big deal? Remember SoectrumCo and their 20MHz of AWS? They bought it in 2006 and did nothing with it. Then they sold it to Verizon.
  14. maximus1987/lou99
    Neither. I guess Dish can scoop up USCC, Leap and CSpire as well as some real small rural carriers and try to piece a network together. They can use white spaces spectrum to provide fixed broadband to rural and exurban customers, although I don't see why Sprint won't sell them spectrum in the EBS band in those same rural and exurban areas. Really? I see why: cause Dish screwed Sprint and cost them $3billion in cash infusion from SoftBank and Dish cost Softbank $1.5billion THAT is why Sprint-Bank should never TALK to Dish ever again.
  15. maximus1987/lou99
    In my opinion, the issue is moot since Dish never wanted to actually launch a network but to bid for Sprint and Clearwire to drive up the price for his spectrum. Then he would merge with DirecTV. But to answer your question, Sprint was happy to host Dish's spectrum in an arrangement similar to Lightsquared. And if that we're really Charlie's intentions, it'd be already happening.
  16. maximus1987/lou99
    How is it an FU to the FCC? FCC reclaims it, then uses it to sell to another party. That looks like free money to me. Possibly use it to for mobile spectrum in the future. That would be a big FU to Charlie. Dish is the only one that losses from being forced to sit on the spectrum until it is taken away from him. Building up the Duopoly is the last thing the FCC wants to do, even if it means letting Dish sit on the spectrum. If Charlie does nothing, FCC has to wait 6 years until it can reclaim it. That's the FU.
  17. maximus1987/lou99
    So all PCS and AWS are either ranges of frequencies or a particular frequency? A simple Wikipedia search will answer your questions.
  18. maximus1987/lou99
    If Charlie wanted to sell the spectrum and merge with DirectTV all along, the FCC can't force him to spend billions to launch service. If they do try that, he can sit on the spectrum for 6 years until the FCC can reclaim it in a big FU to the FCC. Isn't it better to get it in ATT's productive hands than keep it fallow for 6 years?
  19. maximus1987/lou99
    I personally think that they would have absolutely no problems gobbling up the spectrum. They might be the only ones in the running. It may be easier for Verizon just on the number of bands they have now vs ATT: • Verizon: 2 PCS; 4 AWS; 13 700MHz; 5 Cellular 850 • ATT: 17 700 MHz; 2 PCS; 4 AWS; 5 Cellular 850; WCS (band not assigned yet); and the downlink-only 700 MHz which is a separate band. That's 6 already for ATT and only 4 for Verizon.
  20. maximus1987/lou99
    AT&T's remaining AWS is a pittance compared to 40 MHz of AWS-4 A/B block spectrum completely nationwide. AT&T would lose very little and gain everything. Thus, that bargain might not gain much traction with regulators. It would be like Peter Minuit getting the island of Manhattan from Native Americans for $26 and a bottle of booze. AJ Yes but:•Sprint doesn't need it cause it has 2.5GHz •Tmobile doesn't have the scale to have a proprietary band nor does it need the spectrum. • US Cellular is retreating and looks like they're liquidating So we're left with Verizon or ATT. How much AWS does ATT have left? If it is a pittance then that means that TMO will be able to afford it. And since when have regulators ever extracted meaningful concessions in approval of spectrum purchase? What did Verizon have to give up when it got 20MHz of AWS from cable cos? A limit on the length of the agreement and removing the exclusivity part (I think). Wow. What a concession. Anyway, Tmobile won't need to ride on ATT's coattails anymore: the next Verizon iphone will have Band 4 and in 2015, Verizon said it will refarm PCS for LTE. Plus, the iphone will have Qualcomm's multimode for HSPA+ and enabling HSPA+ on AWS requires no additional hardware change if LTE Band 4 is present; I saw the FCC doc for Tmobile's iphone 5.
  21. maximus1987/lou99
    Some think that AT&T would not be allowed to gobble up yet another spectrum band, as it has largely done so with band 12 Lower 700 MHz and WCS 2300 MHz lately. So, AT&T might not be in the running. AJ If ATT offers to give up the rest of AWS in exchange?
  22. maximus1987/lou99
    Nope, not forever. But for a long time. It will take many years before small cells are as small as they can feasibly be and more spectrum must be obtained. AT&T will be refarming spectrum before that point. And even when that happens, it will only be in the largest cities. The top 10, or at worst, the Top 20. We really don't have a spectrum problem in this country. We have a spectrum crunch in the densest parts of our largest cities. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta So then why wouldn't ATT want spectrum that has a 3gpp band TODAY?
  23. maximus1987/lou99
    Most of it is roaming. The mods pounded it into our heads, in other threads, that Sprint will probably never match rural coverage of ATT and V even with its 800 MHz spectrum reframed to LTE and 1xA. I think the Direct Connect call setup time is slightly longer on roaming.
  24. maximus1987/lou99
    Whose money do the carriers use to build they networks, the government or investors? If governments don't like capitalism in the telecom sector, then they shouldn't lure investors into investing into building a network and then make it impossible to earn a return by using the coercive power of regulation to such a degree that it's the government effectively running the carrier to the detriment of the investors. And this is coming from someone who uses more data on Verizon's throttled 3G that most people use on Verizon's LTE. I agree that with something like infrastructure it's different. Eventually, all broadband and wireless will probably get consolidated into a national network similar to Australia's NBN. I'm not opposed to that. I expect the NSA would love that. No more dealing with individual carriers, no more passing embarrassing bills to give the carriers retroactive immunity. Just one clean interface to everyone's data. I expect Google will sell them their Search Appliance.
  25. maximus1987/lou99
    I mostly agree. Can you add capacity by adding more small cells forever? Eventually you're gonna have diminishing returns there just as you would putting up more macro cells. And I don't see ATT missing an opportunity to get another proprietary band. Also, you're assuming the FCC won't push back the coverage requirements if Dish sells.
×
×
  • Create New...