Comments on: AT&T awfully picky about the spectrum it claims to need

By: Bob D

Bob D — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:58:07 +0000

I think AT&T should be treated the same as Verizon. I don’t know the nitty gritty details to answer that question. Verizon sure seems to be putting a lot of deals together and the Feds don’t seem to jump in. I’m certain AT&T has more than enough lawyers to state their case. Time will tell.

I must say the HSPA+ 14 service on my iPhone is pretty fast. I have played with a 4G LTE Verizon handset and can’t tell much difference as far a looking at web pages. Large files I’m sure are faster, but that is not a big deal with me. If I get 3-5 meg down I’m pretty happy.

By: Yzer Man

Yzer Man — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:58:43 +0000

AT&T should continue to expand it’s HSPA+ network along side the Lte build out. I think AT&T wireless customers would be happy if they rolled out HSPA+14 nationwide first like Verizon rolled out 3G on their network years back. There are far too many areas still on EDGE like northern Michigan that is a smartphone’s(like my HTC Inspire)worst nightmare.

By: Andrew J Shepherd

Andrew J Shepherd — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:59:25 +0000

Mea culpa, my comment was so long that I had to sign it twice.

By: Andrew J Shepherd

Andrew J Shepherd — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:54:21 +0000

No doubt, while Qualcomm would like to move on expeditiously from its MediaFLO disappointment, AT&T need not be in any great hurry to consummate this transaction for Qualcomm’s Lower 700 MHz D/E block 6 MHz unpaired spectrum. Professed “spectrum crunch” or not, AT&T cannot put the unpaired spectrum into service for at least another year or two until LTE-Advanced spectrum aggregation capabilities become a commercial reality.

Speaking of spectrum scrutiny, what is surprising is that all wireless carriers thus far have eschewed the Upper 700 MHz D block + Public Safety 34 MHz fully nationwide license. Since Auction 73 nearly four years ago, that prime spectrum has been left just sitting on the table. Is the public/private partnership requirement really that burdensome? With fully 17 MHz x 17 MHz, there is plenty of bandwidth to go around for both subscriber and public safety use.

For example, deploy three 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE carriers. Under normal circumstances, use LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation to tie together a single 15 MHz x 15 MHz super carrier. During those rare emergencies that require large scale public safety response, break the LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation links and shunt one, two, or even all three 5 MHz x 5 MHz carriers to public safety, as needed.

Ideally, a coalition of Sprint, T-Mobile, and regional/rural carriers (e.g. USCC, Cincinnati Bell, C Spire, Cellcom, Iowa Wireless, Viaero, Nex-Tech, Plateau, et al.) should band together and acquire the Upper 700 MHz D + Public Safety license. If VZW and AT&T are going to throw around their massive posteriors to compartmentalize LTE band classes 13 and 17, respectively, as essentially their own their own fiefdoms, unfriendly to all outsiders, then the carriers cowering below the Twin Bells should do likewise and make LTE band class 14 their nationwide “lingua franca.” After all, Sprint + T-Mobile + a bunch of regional/rural carriers would have just about as much collective buying power as AT&T does now.

As to LTE network build out, Sprint and T-Mobile could divvy up most of the major markets; the smaller carriers in the coalition could take on their respective regional/rural areas. Each carrier could add its own spectrum (e.g. Lower 700 MHz, SMR 800 MHz, Cellular 850 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, AWS 2100+1700 MHz, BRS/EBS 2500-2600 MHz) to the stew, but LTE band class 14 would remain the common denominator across all markets.

Even public safety could contribute quasi independently to the build out. Imagine public safety agencies in many traditionally under served rural counties using some investment and engineering expertise from the coalition to tilt up a few LTE 700 sites per county. By 2020, the result could be a third urban and rural truly nationwide network to give the domineering Twin Bells some seriously needed competition.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:54:49 +0000

This is not at all the same company from the 50s, 60s or even 80s and for that matter 2000. This company is very different – and it is no different than what VZW has done with their LTE restrictions. If C-Spire, et. al would like to roam on the national network, then they should be willing to negotiate at an executive level, rather than running their mouth about the hand that feeds them. C-Spire should be saying the same thing to Sprint – but they have to stay on good speaking terms – for now – do to their joint lawsuit against Big Blue.

By: John B.

John B. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:24:24 +0000

Hello Kevin,

I thoroughly enjoy your AT&T articles. They convey common sense and facts on the directive of Big Blue.

Your first paragraph had a quotation that explains AT&T’s persuasive attitude towards this deal.

They claim that if they need to have restrictive measures on the merge, then they would rather “Scrap” the whole idea. The truth now presides with no refutable argument.

If a company is going to control such a large percentage of prime spectrum holdings, they should have government mandate imposed regulations. Imagine our current utilities without the regulations that are in place. Now, transpose that detriment to our telecommunications industry. ATT clearly wants to smother out competition by acquiring all the spectrum it can, then forbid any other carrier to use it through roaming agreements.

Shame on AT&T. Shame on those not viewing the complete scope of the landscape on what AT&T is trying to do. We must all remember that this is the same company that possessed a monopoloy in the 50s and 60s, to finally be broken up in ’84. They are looking to reunite.

John B.