Comments on: How AT&T can create a fat nationwide 4G pipe to match Verizon’s

By: Laz Sanchez

Laz Sanchez — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:31:08 +0000

In a National picture. Dallas is a limited area. It is a “NFL” city as the industry calls it. That is to say; that these limited areas are always FIRST in a new generational launch.

By: Joan Bailey

Joan Bailey — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 05:30:35 +0000

I’m a designer in Atlanta and the plans are ridiculous. If AT&T is going to put 4G LTE in other markets, you would think the competition would keep driving down costs. Guess we can only hope.

By: lowyou

lowyou — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:32:34 +0000

Reblogged this on jamesaochoa and commented: Carriers are finally catching up to the mobile phenomena that is occurring. Market Research firm Gartner Inc. , said that it expects worldwide tablet sales to surge 98 percent in 2012 to 118.9 million units. Now with a mobile network to support this growth we can expect to see businesses push for a BYOD (bring your own device) environment.

By: Lynda Ulrich

Lynda Ulrich — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:23:27 +0000

Wish I understood what you mean here. I live in Dallas and use AT&T’s 4g LTE in my real estate practice and i’m all over the HUGE city with it. Never fails me. Well, almost never.

By: Kevin Fitchard

Kevin Fitchard — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:00:59 +0000

Hi Bradley,

The only problem with that scenario is huge infrastructure investments carriers have to make. They invest billions in building networks that they intend to run for 10 years. If they only had short leases then they couldn’t justify those investments. Startups would face the same problem if there was a more equitable distribution of spectrum. They might get the airwaves for cheap, but they would still need billions to build a network.

The odd thing is we are starting to see the “rental” model emerge with MVNOs. It’s becoming cheaper and easier to get into the wireless business with less than $100,000 of upfront of investment. You would think the FCC would have forced carriers to do this, but competition appears to be actually working. Sprint and T-Mobile see MVNOs as another way to get revenue streams and grow despite pressures from ATT and Verizon, so they’re encouraging new startups and making more of their network accessible. Look at Ting and FreedomPop. Sprint is giving both of them access to its LTE network just a few months after launching it,

By: Yacko

Yacko — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:19:32 +0000

Despite the terminology used, it isn’t a sale, it is a lease. A very long and exclusive lease. The US government (and most other world governments) consider the airwaves to be a public utility.

The FCC has always auctioned portions of the airwaves. See this 1994 story:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941027&slug=1938222

As to the temporary nature of the lease, this is what happened with the changeover of OTA TV from analog to digital. Took spectrum from one entity and auctioned to another. See:

http://www.bingham.com/Alerts/2011/02/FCC-Takes-First-Step-Toward-Repurposing-UHF-TV-Spectrum-for-Wireless-Broadband-Service

For a rundown of spectrum leasing:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/index.htm?job=spectrum_leasing

As to the haphazard apportion of the airwaves. Like any other land grab, it started that way in the private sector, the FCC was created to regulate in 1934 and we are continually victimized by history of that chaotic start.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:07:34 +0000

2.3 GHz sucks in urban areas. It’s actually less important to have lower frequencies in rural areas than it is in urban areas — depending on foliage. The urban area issue is getting through walls, not covering distance. The rural distance magic of lower frequency bands is very rarely determinative. It actually only matters in areas with large quantities of trees. But anyway…..

By: Bradley Baustert

Bradley Baustert — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:27:14 +0000

I never understood why the FCC sells spectrum to companies in the first place.
Spectrum ownership is a GIANT hurdle for any new wireless startups, so all it really does is hurt competition.

Is there a reason why they couldn’t standardize a huge block of spectrum for commercial use and rent it instead?

That way they would gain a constant stream of revenue and allow companies to expand or contract their usage as necessary.

By: Rob Adler

Rob Adler — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:44:11 +0000

This results in AT&T with the LTE equivalent of CDMA in the sense that their devices will only work in a limited area.