Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Spectrum squatting

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Pocatello,ID
    Posts
    29,638
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, Samsung Galaxy Watch (AT&T), Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    USCC may not be a 100% spectrum squatter, but they seem to be playing the same game the Twin Bells play by sitting on resources to stifle competition or purposely breaking up spectrum so smaller carriers cannot gain the same handset access.
    USCC IS a smaller carrier, a regional carrier, but still number 5 in the carrier size list, so I doubt they'd do anything to stifle competition.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lower Earth Orbit
    Posts
    4,437
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CavanalClimber View Post
    This is a King Street Wireless website that advertises fixed wireless service in the western half of Oklahoma: http://www.kingstreetwireless.com/ki..._oklahoma.html

    I have a friend who lives in Clinton, Oklahoma, right in the middle of one of those CMA's listed on the website. He has emailed the address on the site and called the number (which leads to an answering service) about signing up for this supposed service, and received no response from King Street after multiple attempts.

    Here is US Cellular's voice coverage map for the same area. Attachment 132988

    As you can see, US Cellular offers little native service at all in those areas. All that hatched blue is "partner coverage"

    Therefore, after these several attempts at contacting King Street, one would have to conclude that this supposed service possibly doesn't really exist. If you can't contact the company to sign up, how can it really exist? The site he has seen consists of 3 antenna panels, pointing north, east, and south on the tower. I haven't been there, so I don't know if there are electric meters, if they are connected, or what ground equipment there is. But based on what he has told me, it is purely a protection site that really isn't doing anything to put the valuable resource to actual use. I can't find anywhere else where this service is advertised or shown as being available, no other sites and nothing on US Cellular's website either. My friend says there are no listings in the local phone directories of fixed wireless service other than a couple of local providers who use Motorola's Canopy hardware to provide a wifi-like service.

    Point is, I don't think all these companies are doing anything other than following the strictest letter of the law and relying on the fact that no one knows that these supposed "services" even exist.
    The areas west of Tulsa is all 1900 MHz for USCC. (And I think they only have about 10 MHz.) Their Oklahoma build out was fairly aggressive, they may be planning on launching additional markets in KS, OK, and WI, where they have unused 700 MHz. The FCC has a 1/3 POP buildout requirement with a "substantial product." If USCC has 700 in OKC, and Tulsa they're pretty much there, the western part of the coverage really is probably just waiting for the PCS buildout to complete. 700 MHz only for USCC is pointless, it would be data only since they don't have VoLTE.
    Worn out retail warrior. Now retired on the golf course.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lower Earth Orbit
    Posts
    4,437
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    That was a cluster. I remember hearing how USCC bought several 1900 MHz markets to fill in gaps in their map. They lost the Kansas City MSA, Orlando MSA, Portland OR MSA, and Raleigh MSA. That loss was directly responsible for the sale of their S. Georgia and Florida properties.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lower Earth Orbit
    Posts
    4,437
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ilvla2 View Post
    USCC IS a smaller carrier, a regional carrier, but still number 5 in the carrier size list, so I doubt they'd do anything to stifle competition.

    They're not exactly pushing change like they did several years ago. Much of what T-Mobile is doing now is reminiscent of what USCC tried to do.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Pocatello,ID
    Posts
    29,638
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, Samsung Galaxy Watch (AT&T), Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CkZX2 View Post
    They're not exactly pushing change like they did several years ago. Much of what T-Mobile is doing now is reminiscent of what USCC tried to do.
    That's true, I think they're in a rethink mode right now.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    470
    Device(s)
    Moto X 2015
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CkZX2 View Post
    The areas west of Tulsa is all 1900 MHz for USCC. (And I think they only have about 10 MHz.) Their Oklahoma build out was fairly aggressive, they may be planning on launching additional markets in KS, OK, and WI, where they have unused 700 MHz. The FCC has a 1/3 POP buildout requirement with a "substantial product." If USCC has 700 in OKC, and Tulsa they're pretty much there, the western part of the coverage really is probably just waiting for the PCS buildout to complete. 700 MHz only for USCC is pointless, it would be data only since they don't have VoLTE.
    According to my friend, USCC has said nothing about expanding native coverage in western OK and there has been no construction activity for them, only for T-Mobile's upgrade of their 2G straight to LTE, which they have almost finished, and by the way he says is working great, an excellent option now for all the people in the mostly small to medium sized cities and towns there. Like they did here in New Mexico, T-Mobile has shown they do care about the smaller places over there, they've done a great job.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lower Earth Orbit
    Posts
    4,437
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CavanalClimber View Post
    According to my friend, USCC has said nothing about expanding native coverage in western OK and there has been no construction activity for them, only for T-Mobile's upgrade of their 2G straight to LTE, which they have almost finished, and by the way he says is working great, an excellent option now for all the people in the mostly small to medium sized cities and towns there. Like they did here in New Mexico, T-Mobile has shown they do care about the smaller places over there, they've done a great job.
    It would make sense for them to. They have the PCS license for the rest of the state aside from the panhandle, and OK is one of their legacy markets. Their coverage has been creeping westward since OKC has been launched. Aside from the larger markets they don't tend to say much about buildout until they've been completed. (Though if you're able to actually talk to an engineer, you may find out more information. Though many of them are now 3rd party vendors.)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    96
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CavanalClimber View Post
    I have a friend who lives in Clinton, Oklahoma, right in the middle of one of those CMA's listed on the website. He has emailed the address on the site and called the number (which leads to an answering service) about signing up for this supposed service, and received no response from King Street after multiple attempts.
    If you hover your cursor over the coverage picture specifically for CMA600 on the King Street site, you will see that Clinton is near the edge of an area shown as covered, which means in reality there is likely little/no coverage in Clinton, given the way carrier coverage estimates are typically exaggerated. If you know someone in Woodward, Sayre, Chickasha or Altus (among others), you might ask them to make the same inquiry, since those cities appear to be well within the coverage pictured. No response from King Street for those locations would significantly strengthen your case.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    15,006
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post

    I think your unwavering position on these is a bit short sighted. This spectrum is all leased to the companies, they don't own it.
    They don't lease anything. They own a license with no specific expiration date. A license they can sell to other companies.

    In this country, the owner of something typically has many rights. Additionally, the government could claim many things to take back spectrum - either precedent like eminent domain or something new we haven't seen.
    The agreement was made that the owner would acquire the license for a one-time upfront fee and could hold onto the license indefinitely as long as they met certain requirements and could sell the license to others. They could have set it up differently including receiving a yearly fee or make it for a limited term, but they didn't. Yes, if we lived in some kind of third world dictatorship, they might change the rules as they go which is what you advocate. Of course, doing so kills private investment into the country's economy and evidence of that can be seen around the world.

    The fact is, paying a one-time upfront fee for an indefinite period of time brought in record-high revenue for the government at the AWS-3 auction. A system like you advocate would not have generated that much revenue.

    Next, why not give USCC or someone else spectrum without payment to use? They did it with ATT and VZW, who then say most of what they acquired without a fee was small.
    Well the spectrum that you're talking about was when there was no such thing as existing cellular networks. The companies involved had to spend a lot of money out of pocket to construct a network with no guarantee that it would be a success or that there would be any kind of financial return. They took a big risk. The government sold the licenses for a small fee because they wanted to see such a network built quickly. A high fee on the spectrum would have discouraged that.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    15,006
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE92 View Post
    Low Band spectrum needs to be re-evaluated.
    Re-evaluated how? By ripping away licenses from their current owners?

    Absolutely ridiculous that either AT&T or Verizon amass entire low band spectrum blocks in various markets, with no competition.
    No competition? T-Mobile is competing just fine. Maybe you should check T-Mobile subscribers adds for the 3rd quarter and compare that to AT&T before you say they don't have any competition.


    to tell me this is a good thing and that the government should not have intervened.
    Well on the subject of low-band spectrum they are intervening in that they are setting aside low-band spectrum that owners with high current inventories won't be able to initially bid on. They are actually forgoing higher revenue to satisfy the wishes of the smaller carriers. That should certainly please someone like yourself who advocates for heavy government intervention.

    Competition cannot exist within monopolies or duopolies, particularly in sectors like wireless, where spectrum is limited.
    Oh no?

    "T-Mobile Delivers Industry-Leading Customer and Financial Growth in Q3 2015
    2.3 Million New Customers Join the Un-carrier Revolution as the Company Delivers
    11% Service Revenue Growth and 42% Adjusted EBITDA Growth Year-over-Year"


    https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t...in-q3-2015.htm

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,635
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Not familiar with the NextWave C-block debacle, are we?
    http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/c...scholarlyworks

    I was not very familiar with it until reading a bit more. It would seem the issue was more how the FCC wanted to get paid and acting in a dual role. I know the bidders owe some money upfront, but they essentially pay it at once now so this unique thing wouldn't happen again (at least in the same fashion, new things always come up)

    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    They don't lease anything. They own a license with no specific expiration date. A license they can sell to other companies.



    The agreement was made that the owner would acquire the license for a one-time upfront fee and could hold onto the license indefinitely as long as they met certain requirements and could sell the license to others. They could have set it up differently including receiving a yearly fee or make it for a limited term, but they didn't. Yes, if we lived in some kind of third world dictatorship, they might change the rules as they go which is what you advocate. Of course, doing so kills private investment into the country's economy and evidence of that can be seen around the world.

    The fact is, paying a one-time upfront fee for an indefinite period of time brought in record-high revenue for the government at the AWS-3 auction. A system like you advocate would not have generated that much revenue.



    Well the spectrum that you're talking about was when there was no such thing as existing cellular networks. The companies involved had to spend a lot of money out of pocket to construct a network with no guarantee that it would be a success or that there would be any kind of financial return. They took a big risk. The government sold the licenses for a small fee because they wanted to see such a network built quickly. A high fee on the spectrum would have discouraged that.
    Ok, owning a license is very similar to a lease. The point is, just like software, they don't own the asset. The government continues to retain ownership. You bring up hyperbole all the time - 3rd world dictatorship? I've seen our local, state, and federal government continuously seize things for 'the greater good' or eminent domain things. That's with stuff they don't own - why would you think it's somehow evil with stuff they do own? A license may be good ongoing, but times change and the original reasons or conditions on the license may need to be re-looked at.

    I don't care if there were or weren't existing cellular networks. You speak out of both sides of your mouth - the government would be an evil dictator if it did something you perceive as 'bad' to the carriers. Yet, you then claim it was necessary that the government step in and award them essentially a free asset because they took a 'risk' and you think that's a 'good' thing. Business is all about risk and in many fields, the government isn't giving a red cent to a company to take a risk and try to better society. The US government has had a long, cozy, 100+ year relationship with Ma Bell. VZW and ATT are both directly and essentially that same company.

    If you look at VZW and ATT, separately they are HUGE companies. If you re-combined them, as they would want and were up until the 1980s, it would be one of the largest companies in the world. Offering services and products essentially in only 1 country (I know that ATT has recently moved into Mexico - but a blip on the radar). I cannot point to you a company that essentially operates in 1 country that is so large, let alone two companies like that. So, if you don't think that Sprint and Tmobile - the only other 2 national carriers who essentially don't own any of that original CLR and had to buy their spectrum at full price don't deserve a bit of a break, I don't know what else to say.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    16,096
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/c...scholarlyworks

    I was not very familiar with it until reading a bit more. It would seem the issue was more how the FCC wanted to get paid and acting in a dual role. I know the bidders owe some money upfront, but they essentially pay it at once now so this unique thing wouldn't happen again (at least in the same fashion, new things always come up).......
    The real issue with the NextWave mess is that the company did everything wrong and got away with it because the FCC missed one little step in the legal process. The point is that the FCC must obey the laws and their own rules in minuscule detail or a judge will toss out any decision they make. They can't just take arbitrary actions because they fit someone's idea of the "Public Interest".
    Donald Newcomb

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    15,006
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    Ok, owning a license is very similar to a lease.
    Here's the definition of a lease:

    "a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc., to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment."

    In this case there is no specified time and no periodic payment. So your use of the term lease is incorrect.

    The government continues to retain ownership. You bring up hyperbole all the time - 3rd world dictatorship? I've seen our local, state, and federal government continuously seize things for 'the greater good' or eminent domain things. That's with stuff they don't own - why would you think it's somehow evil with stuff they do own?
    They seize real estate in certain cases with compensation. That's true. But we're not talking about real estate here. We're talking about a license that has been purchased from the government per terms given by the government. Then the company has constructed an entire business around that operation including having millions of customers who use this licensed spectrum. Now you come along and at a whim and say, we are going to shut down that entire portion of your operation and we're going to give that license to a competitor. There is no local, state nor the federal government which does anything close to that. The only comparison, as I previously stated, is some third world dictator who seizes control of a private asset like that and reallocates it while completely ignoring the previous agreement made by two parties.

    So yes, you are clearly an advocate for such harsh totalitarianism.

    You speak out of both sides of your mouth - the government would be an evil dictator if it did something you perceive as 'bad' to the carriers.
    No, it's not what I consider bad to the carrier. What is bad is your idea that the government should makes a written agreement with another party, take the financial benefit of such an agreement, and then unilaterally and underhandedly changes the terms. The agreement could have been good or bad. But to not follow an agreement made, is the sign of a third world country type of action and not of a large, thriving economy where businesses are protected by rules and laws.

    Yet, you then claim it was necessary that the government step in and award them essentially a free asset because they took a 'risk' and you think that's a 'good' thing.
    I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing. It was a decision made by those in authority to extend those terms. And it produced an asset for certain businesses which they are using per the terms of the original agreement. As long as they follow the terms of the license, there's no option in the agreement to take it away as you advocate.

    So, if you don't think that Sprint and Tmobile - the only other 2 national carriers who essentially don't own any of that original CLR and had to buy their spectrum at full price don't deserve a bit of a break, I don't know what else to say.
    They are getting a "bit of a break". Ever read the rules to the 600MHz auction? Ever heard of the 30MHz reserve? And how is Sprint responding to this break offered by the Federal Government? By already declaring that they aren't even going to participate! They don't even want this spectrum. If this low band spectrum is as important to them as you're claiming, then they would be bidding for it. But the fact is, it's not.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Re-evaluated how? By ripping away licenses from their current owners?

    No competition? T-Mobile is competing just fine. Maybe you should check T-Mobile subscribers adds for the 3rd quarter and compare that to AT&T before you say they don't have any competition.

    Well on the subject of low-band spectrum they are intervening in that they are setting aside low-band spectrum that owners with high current inventories won't be able to initially bid on. They are actually forgoing higher revenue to satisfy the wishes of the smaller carriers. That should certainly please someone like yourself who advocates for heavy government intervention.

    Oh no?

    "T-Mobile Delivers Industry-Leading Customer and Financial Growth in Q3 2015
    2.3 Million New Customers Join the Un-carrier Revolution as the Company Delivers
    11% Service Revenue Growth and 42% Adjusted EBITDA Growth Year-over-Year"
    That is exactly what I advocate. That any carrier who has a monopoly of an entire spectrum block in any given area must divest from this and it be allocated to other carriers.

    While this has no bearing on the original point being made, pretty much every single carrier out there is adding users. Therefore, based on your own logic, they too are doing awesome. Unfortunately, after years of “uncarrier”, AT&T and their profit margins are still doing just fine actually.

    In terms of native coverage, almost unanimously, T-Mobile is still ranked dead last, even with the “300 million pops”. Unfortunately, subscriber numbers have little bearing on actual network coverage or whether I can use my phone at an airport, at time square, or within any sort of structure. You know, the sort of places that you have stated T-Mobile works great. Oh wait, your knee-jerk response to this is usually to tell someone to leave T-Mobile and then quote subscriber gains.

    Surely you must be against the 30 Mhz being allocated to smaller carriers in the 600 Mhz range. Or are you one of those who has a problem with something, until you benefit from it directly? Basically a Republican.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    470
    Device(s)
    Moto X 2015
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VISIT0R View Post
    If you hover your cursor over the coverage picture specifically for CMA600 on the King Street site, you will see that Clinton is near the edge of an area shown as covered, which means in reality there is likely little/no coverage in Clinton, given the way carrier coverage estimates are typically exaggerated. If you know someone in Woodward, Sayre, Chickasha or Altus (among others), you might ask them to make the same inquiry, since those cities appear to be well within the coverage pictured. No response from King Street for those locations would significantly strengthen your case.
    He's already tried that, he asked a friend of his who lives north of Clinton at Putnam, which is 2 miles north of one of the towers that has some King Street equipment on, to try to call and email them, and he got no response either. They did that last week, I hadn't talked to him in a couple weeks, to give King Street a good amount of time to get back to him from the original inquiry. This just isn't a working service in my opinion. I don't live there, so it's up to someone there to take any action or just let it go, there are two other good LTE options already in place as I said, T-Mobile and Pioneer Cellular.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2002, 10:34 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-10-2002, 08:26 AM
  3. FS: Siemens Digital Spread Spectrum 2.4GHz Cordless Phone
    By mikelee in forum GSM phone Buy/Sell/Trade Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2002, 12:48 PM
  4. U.S. Frequency Spectrum Info
    By emag*rad in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-24-2002, 01:18 AM
  5. Nokia 2190 locked in Sprint Spectrum
    By Leoplugged in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2002, 10:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks