<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FCC signs off on AT&amp;T&#8217;s massive 4G spectrum buy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2012/12/19/fcc-signs-off-on-atts-massive-4g-spectrum-buy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/12/19/fcc-signs-off-on-atts-massive-4g-spectrum-buy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 04:40:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike williams</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/12/19/fcc-signs-off-on-atts-massive-4g-spectrum-buy/#comment-1298425</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike williams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=596000#comment-1298425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kevin is pretty much 100 percent correct with his assessment. This deal will put AT&amp;T into a pretty good spectrum position and give them basically a nationwide band that they didn&#039;t have before with the 700 spectrum. It will be a while before they have phones with the proper chips, standards and approvals etc in order to utilize the band. 2015 sounds like a good timeframe to start seeing the benefits of this band.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin is pretty much 100 percent correct with his assessment. This deal will put AT&amp;T into a pretty good spectrum position and give them basically a nationwide band that they didn&#8217;t have before with the 700 spectrum. It will be a while before they have phones with the proper chips, standards and approvals etc in order to utilize the band. 2015 sounds like a good timeframe to start seeing the benefits of this band.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Fitchard</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/12/19/fcc-signs-off-on-atts-massive-4g-spectrum-buy/#comment-1268464</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin Fitchard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=596000#comment-1268464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian, I accept the criticism in the spirit it was given, but I do believe you are nitpicking.

First off. Getting 20 MHz of a nationwide band is a very big deal. If we used your definition, every spectrum deal compared Sprint-Clearwire would be tiny: Verizon&#039;s original 700 MHz auction win, the cableco deal, etc. The fact is AT&amp;T will get a nationwide 4G band where it never had one before. It will be able to use that spectrum to launch much higher bandwidth LTE networks than it currently has in places like Chicago and LA. I consider that significant.

Second, 10 + 10 = 20. I realize they are not contiguous channels -- and perhaps you are only disagreeing with my use of the word &quot;swathe&quot; -- but that level of technical detail isn&#039;t necessary for what is essentially an update post on an ongoing news story. If you like, feel free to click through the links where delve into all of that. But for the fact that AT&amp;T is getting 20 MHz of usable spectrum is really what&#039;s important here.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian, I accept the criticism in the spirit it was given, but I do believe you are nitpicking.</p>
<p>First off. Getting 20 MHz of a nationwide band is a very big deal. If we used your definition, every spectrum deal compared Sprint-Clearwire would be tiny: Verizon&#8217;s original 700 MHz auction win, the cableco deal, etc. The fact is AT&amp;T will get a nationwide 4G band where it never had one before. It will be able to use that spectrum to launch much higher bandwidth LTE networks than it currently has in places like Chicago and LA. I consider that significant.</p>
<p>Second, 10 + 10 = 20. I realize they are not contiguous channels &#8212; and perhaps you are only disagreeing with my use of the word &#8220;swathe&#8221; &#8212; but that level of technical detail isn&#8217;t necessary for what is essentially an update post on an ongoing news story. If you like, feel free to click through the links where delve into all of that. But for the fact that AT&amp;T is getting 20 MHz of usable spectrum is really what&#8217;s important here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Goemmer</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/12/19/fcc-signs-off-on-atts-massive-4g-spectrum-buy/#comment-1268445</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian Goemmer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=596000#comment-1268445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kevin:  I take two issues with this article.  First, &quot;massive&quot; spectrum buy seems an significant exaggeration.  A spectrum buy that only nets the next channel of LTE growth would actually seem to be a &quot;budget&quot; buy.  Massive would seem to be more appropriate for Sprint&#039;s spectrum purchase, which nets roughly 160MHz of spectrum versus 20MHz of spectrum.  My second issue is more of a technical point....AT&amp;T doesn&#039;t get a 20MHz swathe of 4G bandwidth, it gets 2 - 10MHz swathes of bandwidth.  They will only be able to launch a 10x10 FDD-LTE channel on the spectrum.  A 20MHz swathe of either FDD or TDD spectrum would be much better for AT&amp;T.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin:  I take two issues with this article.  First, &#8220;massive&#8221; spectrum buy seems an significant exaggeration.  A spectrum buy that only nets the next channel of LTE growth would actually seem to be a &#8220;budget&#8221; buy.  Massive would seem to be more appropriate for Sprint&#8217;s spectrum purchase, which nets roughly 160MHz of spectrum versus 20MHz of spectrum.  My second issue is more of a technical point&#8230;.AT&amp;T doesn&#8217;t get a 20MHz swathe of 4G bandwidth, it gets 2 &#8211; 10MHz swathes of bandwidth.  They will only be able to launch a 10&#215;10 FDD-LTE channel on the spectrum.  A 20MHz swathe of either FDD or TDD spectrum would be much better for AT&amp;T.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
