Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Verizon Spectrum Aquisition

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,306
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    I've often wondered since I see "upgraded backhaul", "needs to upgrade backhaul", etc. a lot around here. Do you all have the inside scoop that this is actually happening at certain sites or is this a big assumption game based on purely running speedtests? There's a lot of confidence in these answers for something that I myself have never been able to get out of carrier techs even when asked in person.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GusHerb94 View Post
    The ones they put up by me are a failure, each one needs to be a macro. They also put them up in the city and more urban suburbs where they’re much better suited and do quite well. A lot of their newest macros are pretty low on towers, some as low as 45’. Even that low, signal can still carry pretty far.
    It's interesting to see areas where smaller and smaller macro sites are popping up. It's sort of foreign to me, since in my area they build as high as anyone will let them build, and go as high up the tower as they can. They get at an average of about 130-150', and are coverage limited. The places where most people live, work, and shop are more capacity limited though, so the lower sites make sense.

    They hardly use microwave on sites around here. All the newer ones are fed fiber from Comcast and idk about the older sites. Every site they’ve built since 2016 has been setup for 4x4 MIMO which is about 1/3rd of sites around here and 256/64 QAM is enabled market wide. They seem to just still have the slow moving telecom mentality to upgrading backhaul.
    I'm wonder if they are waiting to do some big deal with Comcast that includes 600mhz spectrum, Xfinity Mobile, and backhaul all in one deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    You just said the fiber( which is the backhaul ) is from Comcast so the backhaul needs upgrading it's on Comcast not Verizon.
    1. In most cases, it's all on Verizon, not Comcast. If we're talking 100mbps Metro-E, we can pretty much guarantee that there is no such thing, and it's at least a gig Metro-E connection provisioned at 100mbps. So Comcast needs to go into their little web interface, put their credit card in (so to speak, I'm sure they don't really pay Comcast with a credit card) and pay up for more bandwidth.

    2. The only case I could think of where they'd need a physical upgrade is upgrading gigabit Metro-E to 10gbps Metro-E, but Comcast is an extremely fast and responsive company for their business customers, and that would get done quickly if Verizon asked them to do it.

    So the bottom line is, it's all about how much Verizon is willing to pay them for backhaul and spectrum, and how much that nets out against XFinity Mobile service. I'd predict net-net with Verizon's backhaul and spectrum needs, Comcast won't need to pay Verizon for XM at all, it will just get netted against the other two, and Comcast is going to come out quite nicely in this whole deal as a partner of Verizon's.

    My sense is that Verizon focuses on dark fiber in non-Verizon ILEC (duh), and non-Comcast markets. However, with the deal with Charter coming in soon on mobile, they may be able to partner with them for backhaul as well, leaving relatively few small markets without a backhaul partner.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chicago/Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    4,527
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8+
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JimMcGraff View Post
    I've often wondered since I see "upgraded backhaul", "needs to upgrade backhaul", etc. a lot around here. Do you all have the inside scoop that this is actually happening at certain sites or is this a big assumption game based on purely running speedtests? There's a lot of confidence in these answers for something that I myself have never been able to get out of carrier techs even when asked in person.
    There is a lot of misinformation going around regarding how backhaul works. I have some knowledge of how carriers handle backhaul plus I can make a pretty good educated guess when testing sites as to what’s going on. The most obvious to me is testing a site at 1 AM with perfect LoS and signal quality and only maxing at around 85 mbps on 30 MHz of DL spectrum. Any site setup with more than 100 meg fiber enet can easily do over 100 on the airlink at those hours.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    499
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    My sense is that Verizon focuses on dark fiber in non-Verizon ILEC (duh), and non-Comcast markets. However, with the deal with Charter coming in soon on mobile, they may be able to partner with them for backhaul as well, leaving relatively few small markets without a backhaul partner.
    I agree. I think unlike most MVNOs which typically have to pay the carrier, Verizon will just swap out backhaul use on Comcast and Charter and those 2 get access to Verizon's network for their mobile plans. Mutually beneficial agreements. And of course Verizon has it's own fiber in some places.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    I agree. I think unlike most MVNOs which typically have to pay the carrier, Verizon will just swap out backhaul use on Comcast and Charter and those 2 get access to Verizon's network for their mobile plans. Mutually beneficial agreements. And of course Verizon has it's own fiber in some places.
    Yeah, Comcast is in a good position, as they have fiber and spectrum that Verizon wants. Verizon has done some dark fiber stuff, like in New Hampshire, I'd imagine they'll do that in markets that don't have Verizon (ILEC), Comcast, or Charter backhaul available. And of course most of the Northeast is Verizon ILEC territory, except for most of Connecticut, but most of Connecticut has Comcast or Charter.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    From the speedtest thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by fgpalm View Post
    I think the density that Verizon is building will blow others out of the water in the 5G era. In my local area they are so far ahead in the small cell race it’s not even funny. When 5G does launch I think that Verizon will hold 5G deep into buildings with their small cell density. I think others will be relying on their macro grid at least initially and it will be a disaster for the high frequencies that 5G will use.
    We don't really know what 5G is going to be yet. In terms of mmWave deployment, yes, Verizon is going to blow everyone else out of the water. However, that is likely going to be a competitive home internet service, and is unlikely to be mobile. Even if mobile phones can get mmWave, I don't think it will really help them, as the areas with small cells are already incredibly fast on LTE, it's the macros where Verizon is struggling due to their relatively weak spectrum position. The macro grid isn't going to do much for mmWave in most areas. AT&T is playing a content-focused bundling game, especially within their much larger ILEC territory, while T-Mobile is playing the UnCarrier game with mobile.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,821
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    From the speedtest thread:



    We don't really know what 5G is going to be yet. In terms of mmWave deployment, yes, Verizon is going to blow everyone else out of the water. However, that is likely going to be a competitive home internet service, and is unlikely to be mobile. Even if mobile phones can get mmWave, I don't think it will really help them, as the areas with small cells are already incredibly fast on LTE, it's the macros where Verizon is struggling due to their relatively weak spectrum position. The macro grid isn't going to do much for mmWave in most areas. AT&T is playing a content-focused bundling game, especially within their much larger ILEC territory, while T-Mobile is playing the UnCarrier game with mobile.
    Its sad because i feel like with Verizon’s Fios brand they could make an extremely strong OTT play with video. Call it “Fios mobile”.....with mmwave holdings they could offer home internet, home tv and home phone all over the air someday....maybe across the entire network. They seem to not really care about the video part....just being the pipe. Im fine with that as long as they dont mess around with “the pipe” too much.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    499
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    From the speedtest thread:



    We don't really know what 5G is going to be yet. In terms of mmWave deployment, yes, Verizon is going to blow everyone else out of the water. However, that is likely going to be a competitive home internet service, and is unlikely to be mobile. Even if mobile phones can get mmWave, I don't think it will really help them, as the areas with small cells are already incredibly fast on LTE, it's the macros where Verizon is struggling due to their relatively weak spectrum position. The macro grid isn't going to do much for mmWave in most areas. AT&T is playing a content-focused bundling game, especially within their much larger ILEC territory, while T-Mobile is playing the UnCarrier game with mobile.
    It WILL help. How people want truly unlimited plan so they can use it as home internet. How many try anyway? So instead these people can use Verizon fixed wireless for that. They can also use this service to connect their phones to it since the inside signal is going to be standard wi-fi thus saving bandwidth on the regular phone network. People I rural area won't get fixed service but Verizon will be ok in those areas anyway.

    there are many people in rural areas that COULD use Verizon as home internet now and not cause an issue in their area because there are so few people. but Verizon doesn't have plans on where you live, they have to have plans based on what the majority can actually do without harming the network. In the large metros you can't have people using 500 GB a month or more. Once mm is out you can because people can just add fixed wireless to their plan. Thus the bottom is raised and Verizon can greatly increase mobile plans even if mm is not specifically for mobile.

    Look at it this way even if you wanted to say Above has a fixed cap of 75 GB( and it's not ). Compare that to getting 1 line and 60 GB on the older plans it's what $270? Or for $110 you get one line with 16 GB on the old plans. $15 less and 59 GB more. And even if you want to complain about the 4G hotspot only be 20 GB that still 4 GB more than the entire 16 GB plan. And let's not forget in mid 2012 More Everything came out and you got 1 line with 2 GB for $100. So I expect vastly better plans in 2 years.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,993
    Feedback Score
    0

    Verizon Spectrum Aquisition

    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    From the speedtest thread:



    We don't really know what 5G is going to be yet. In terms of mmWave deployment, yes, Verizon is going to blow everyone else out of the water. However, that is likely going to be a competitive home internet service, and is unlikely to be mobile. Even if mobile phones can get mmWave, I don't think it will really help them, as the areas with small cells are already incredibly fast on LTE, it's the macros where Verizon is struggling due to their relatively weak spectrum position. The macro grid isn't going to do much for mmWave in most areas. AT&T is playing a content-focused bundling game, especially within their much larger ILEC territory, while T-Mobile is playing the UnCarrier game with mobile.
    I like the content focused bundling game. The only problem is AT&T doesn’t offer a home internet solution in Philly. Philly is Comcast Country. Even VZW FIOS internet is limited.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    It WILL help. How people want truly unlimited plan so they can use it as home internet. How many try anyway? So instead these people can use Verizon fixed wireless for that. They can also use this service to connect their phones to it since the inside signal is going to be standard wi-fi thus saving bandwidth on the regular phone network. People I rural area won't get fixed service but Verizon will be ok in those areas anyway.
    What? Something about Wi-Fi? That's not any different than cable or VDSL or fiber at that point. I don't think phones really need it, because the areas that will have mmWave are served off of small cells that don't have capacity issues on the LTE bands, since they are so dense already. Phones may get it eventually, but I don't see that as a priority for anyone at this point. I suppose it could work on a macro if the macro is in a shopping plaza or something, but it doesn't scale on macros in general.

    there are many people in rural areas that COULD use Verizon as home internet now and not cause an issue in their area because there are so few people. but Verizon doesn't have plans on where you live, they have to have plans based on what the majority can actually do without harming the network. In the large metros you can't have people using 500 GB a month or more. Once mm is out you can because people can just add fixed wireless to their plan. Thus the bottom is raised and Verizon can greatly increase mobile plans even if mm is not specifically for mobile.
    They do need plans for rural areas based on LTE, or better cantenna plans. However, they need to build out more bands of LTE to rural sites first, like AT&T is doing, in order to have the capacity to do that and not kill their mobile network in those areas. They don't have as much spectrum as AT&T, but they still have B2/5/66

    And let's not forget in mid 2012 More Everything came out and you got 1 line with 2 GB for $100. So I expect vastly better plans in 2 years.
    I think they'll do plans for home internet that have 1TB of data or more, but they will only work on mmWave. They might even do mobile 1TB plans, but again, they will be mmWave only. I think mmWave might finally deliver the promise that Clear WiMAX failed to deliver.

    Quote Originally Posted by macher52 View Post
    I like the content focused bundling game. The only problem is AT&T doesn’t offer a home internet solution in Philly. Philly is Comcast Country. Even VZW FIOS internet is limited.
    I think content is a loser in the long run. People are cutting the cord, and not looking back. It might work in the short term, but I wish AT&T would focus on their network, and the actual service, not content. The bundle is a big deal though, at least for now. in AT&T ILEC territory, but AT&T and Comcast are aggressively bundling up to Quad-Play with AT&T using DirecTV for video, and Comcast using XFinity Mobile for mobile.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,993
    Feedback Score
    0

    Verizon Spectrum Aquisition

    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    What? Something about Wi-Fi? That's not any different than cable or VDSL or fiber at that point. I don't think phones really need it, because the areas that will have mmWave are served off of small cells that don't have capacity issues on the LTE bands, since they are so dense already. Phones may get it eventually, but I don't see that as a priority for anyone at this point. I suppose it could work on a macro if the macro is in a shopping plaza or something, but it doesn't scale on macros in general.



    They do need plans for rural areas based on LTE, or better cantenna plans. However, they need to build out more bands of LTE to rural sites first, like AT&T is doing, in order to have the capacity to do that and not kill their mobile network in those areas. They don't have as much spectrum as AT&T, but they still have B2/5/66



    I think they'll do plans for home internet that have 1TB of data or more, but they will only work on mmWave. They might even do mobile 1TB plans, but again, they will be mmWave only. I think mmWave might finally deliver the promise that Clear WiMAX failed to deliver.



    I think content is a loser in the long run. People are cutting the cord, and not looking back. It might work in the short term, but I wish AT&T would focus on their network, and the actual service, not content. The bundle is a big deal though, at least for now. in AT&T ILEC territory, but AT&T and Comcast are aggressively bundling up to Quad-Play with AT&T using DirecTV for video, and Comcast using XFinity Mobile for mobile.
    Cutting the cord meaning? People are cutting the cord and getting DirectTV Now which seems like a great option. My brother has it and he watched everything on his Smart TV via Direct TV Now.

    I questioned since Direct TV that AT&T would let their wireless network degrade but that hasn’t been happening. AT&T is building a portfolio which coincides with it’s wireless network.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by macher52 View Post
    Cutting the cord meaning? People are cutting the cord and getting DirectTV Now which seems like a great option. My brother has it and he watched everything on his Smart TV via Direct TV Now.

    I questioned since Direct TV that AT&T would let their wireless network degrade but that hasn’t been happening. AT&T is building a portfolio which coincides with it’s wireless network.
    Cutting the cord means not having pay TV, and using OTT SVOD and OTA exclusively. A lot of people incorrectly call subscribing to a vMVPD "cutting the cord" when it is not. vMVPDs would be better called cord replacement services or CoIP (Cable over IP). The trend is towards real cord-cutting, but there is some recapture inbetween with the vMVPDs. The vMVPDs are relatively new, so in their first year or two, depending on the service, they managed to re-capture some former cord-cutters who fell into that niche, but the pent up demand has now washed out of the system, so the trend is toward fully cutting the cord.

    So far AT&T's network is doing very well, even with a flood of data porkers. Their B14/29/30/66 tower rebuild plan should increase capacity immensely, so the network should stay very fast.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,993
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Cutting the cord means not having pay TV, and using OTT SVOD and OTA exclusively. A lot of people incorrectly call subscribing to a vMVPD "cutting the cord" when it is not. vMVPDs would be better called cord replacement services or CoIP (Cable over IP). The trend is towards real cord-cutting, but there is some recapture inbetween with the vMVPDs. The vMVPDs are relatively new, so in their first year or two, depending on the service, they managed to re-capture some former cord-cutters who fell into that niche, but the pent up demand has now washed out of the system, so the trend is toward fully cutting the cord.

    So far AT&T's network is doing very well, even with a flood of data porkers. Their B14/29/30/66 tower rebuild plan should increase capacity immensely, so the network should stay very fast.
    My brother has DirectTV Now and has been happy with it. I didn’t believe that he could totally ditch Comcast TV and replace it with a streaming solution like Direct TV but it seems to be working.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,406
    Device(s)
    SGS 7, Moto G6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T MSV 10+10GB, Sprint Free for a year
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by macher52 View Post
    My brother has DirectTV Now and has been happy with it. I didn’t believe that he could totally ditch Comcast TV and replace it with a streaming solution like Direct TV but it seems to be working.
    It's certainly an interesting service to fill the niche in-between the cord and not the cord. I think these services may be very disruptive to the industry, as people who just have pay tv for one sport or for other seasonal events can cancel and re-subscribe, reducing the amount of overall revenue and the stability of that revenue significantly. Others may cut the cord, knowing that they have a backup plan if they want some pay tv, and then end up finding that there is no good reason to subscribe, and they're lost to pay tv too.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Verizon spectrum/cable deals: what's the deal?
    By Steveanderson13 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2012, 05:44 PM
  2. Verizon Wireless buys up more radio spectrum
    By Cruzan2 in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-29-2003, 12:00 AM
  3. Verizon Wireless Acquires Radio Spectrum
    By Consultant in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-28-2003, 03:44 PM
  4. Verizon Wireless to Purchase Spectrum in NH and VT
    By Consultant in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2003, 08:59 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-20-2002, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks