Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 141

Thread: Verizon, T-Mobile bicker over C-band auction rules

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    BTA-44: MTA-29: MSA-41: PEA-40: CMA-41: BEA-78: MEA-24
    Posts
    5,778
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S10+ (unlocked), Galaxy S8, LG K7, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6, iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 3G
    Carrier(s)
    at&t
    Feedback Score
    0

    Verizon, T-Mobile bicker over C-band auction rules

    Who do you agree with, Tmobile or Verizon? Personally I dont see why there should be a limit on the amount of spectrum a carrier can buy. Well at least not when it concerns a nationwide license.

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...-auction-rules

    Citing the vast amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum that T-Mobile stands to obtain from the merger with Sprint, Verizon is urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reject calls for limits on the amount of C-band spectrum a provider can obtain at auction.

    The FCC is due to vote on a draft order on the C-band at its next open meeting on February 28. The FCC has promised to commence a C-band auction before the end of the year, but it has yet to set the rules.

    As drafted, the current proposal before the commission argues that it is unnecessary to impose an in-band limit on the 3.7-3.98 GHz band, saying that a case-by-case review of acquisitions in the band will allow the commission to review spectrum aggregation without unnecessarily restricting entities from acquiring spectrum for 5G.

    In meetings earlier this month (PDF), T-Mobile urged the FCC to adopt a “sensible spectrum aggregation limit that ensures multiple providers have the opportunity to access the C-band,” saying the commission should impose a limit on how much C-band spectrum can be acquired in the initial tranche and overall in the auction.
    Specifically, T-Mobile said the FCC should adopt a spectrum aggregation limit for the initial tranche of one-third of the spectrum that will be made available in that tranche, and an overall spectrum aggregation limit of one-third of the total amount of spectrum that will be made available in the C-band auction.

    T-Mobile pointed to recent spectrum auctions in other countries as examples of the success spectrum aggregation limits had in promoting auction participation and competitive bidding. Taiwan’s 3.5 GHz band auction established a spectrum aggregation limit so that no one provider could obtain more than 100 megahertz of the 270 megahertz up for auction, and it raised about $4.61 billion in revenues, well exceeding the regulator’s target of $1.47 billion.
    In Italy, where a cap of 100 megahertz was imposed, an auction of spectrum in the 3.7 GHz band resulted in “intense competition,” and surpassed the regulator’s expectations by raising a total of $4.8 billion in revenues.

    But Verizon, in a filing this week (PDF), is having none of it, and told the FCC to stick with the wording in the draft order. “Setting aside the irony that T-Mobile would make such a proposal given the positions it has taken in support of its proposed acquisition of Sprint – and the vast swath of 2.5 GHz spectrum that T-Mobile stands to obtain if that deal is consummated – such rigid pre-auction limits would flip existing precedent on its head and are contrary to the public interest,” Verizon told the commission.
    “T-Mobile has argued that recent mid-band aggregation limits used in Taiwan and Italy support similar limits in this country, but those international examples ignore the fact that established U.S. precedent strongly disfavors inflexible spectrum limits absent clear evidence of a specific competitive concern – evidence the draft order correctly finds is absent from the record,” Verizon added.

    The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA), the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, INCOMPAS and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) sent a letter (PDF) to the FCC this week saying a spectrum aggregation limit is a “modest step” that would provide a significant benefit for competition and for rural America.
    “A requirement that no single entity can acquire more than one-third of the spectrum in a geographic area would give bidders of all sizes, including smaller providers, a reasonable opportunity to acquire scarce mid-band spectrum,” they told the commission.


    Sent from my SM-G975U1 using HoFo mobile app
    AT&T Unlimited & More w/ 2 Lines
    AT&T TV w/ HBO

    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,046
    Feedback Score
    0
    Let's see T-Mobile gets 196 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum with their merger with Sprint but insists there should be a 100 MHz limit in the C-band auction. An auction they are in no way going to participate in anyway. So basically wanting to knee-cap the competition. So already T-Mobile acting like the big 2 and the merger hasn't even closed yet. T-Mobile insisted on and got limits for the 600 MHz auction. You know the one everyone agrees was a failure. But they conned their way to some cheap 600 MHz spectrum.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,978
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shortyd999 View Post
    Who do you agree with, Tmobile or Verizon?
    I agree with T-Mobile. If the goal is competition, the FCC should spread the spectrum out.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    16,054
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I agree with T-Mobile. If the goal is competition, the FCC should spread the spectrum out.
    I agree that the spectrum should be spread out but the FCC needs to take into account the carriers' current spectrum holdings. There needs to be a formula that takes current holdings into account.
    Donald Newcomb

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    423
    Feedback Score
    0
    I agree with tmobile on this one

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,710
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    I agree with T-Mobile rule. Everyone including Dish should have a chance to win spectrum since is designed to help all networks not just one or two. Verizon and AT&T bought up most of the mmWave spectrum before the first FCC mmWave auction. Really with out this rule Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon or SpaceX could out bid everyone for all the spectrum.

    Amazon will launch thousands of satellites to provide internet around the world. SpaceX has plans to launch as many as 12,000 satellites as part of its Starlink constellation, OneWeb wants to launch 650 satellites, and Facebook is also developing an internet satellite of its own. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18...pacex-starlink

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,046
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    I agree with T-Mobile. If the goal is competition, the FCC should spread the spectrum out.
    So when is the FCC going to force T-Mobile to share that 2.5 GHz?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,046
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    I agree with T-Mobile rule. Everyone including Dish should have a chance to win spectrum since is designed to help all networks not just one or two. Verizon and AT&T bought up most of the mmWave spectrum before the first FCC mmWave auction. Really with out this rule Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon or SpaceX could out bid everyone for all the spectrum.
    T-Mobile has plenty of mmwave. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Anyone that thing that T-Mobile should get access to nearly 200 MHz of 2.5 GHz all by itself but Verizon and at&t should be limited to 100 MHz of C-band is being a huge hypocrite

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    CMA003 (Chicagoland)
    Posts
    2,713
    Device(s)
    A bunch
    Carrier(s)
    Most of them
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's not the government's job to make things "fair". Let the market decide.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using HoFo mobile app

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by clonehappy View Post
    It's not the government's job to make things "fair". Let the market decide.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using HoFo mobile app
    So it's not the FCC's job to make sure the public's best interest is served when it comes to issuing publicly owned spectrum licenses? Lol really.......who's job is it then?
    Last edited by hofonewb9; 02-21-2020 at 09:20 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    423
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wrong it is their job
    Quote Originally Posted by clonehappy View Post
    It's not the government's job to make things "fair". Let the market decide.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using HoFo mobile app

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    542
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    So when is the FCC going to force T-Mobile to share that 2.5 GHz?
    Verizon had their chance to acquire 2.5 spectrum in the past. The declined to do so. Hell, they could of bought the 2.5 spectrum at&t had to divest when they merged with bell south. Instead Clearwire bought it all up. Not to mention you are making an unfair comparison. Verizon has hoarded it's fair share of spectrum also, with their xo and straight path purchases. These are companies that already held the license, and were purchased by verizon. Same with sprint and tmobile. Not really the same as the spectrum being available in an auction.
    Last edited by hofonewb9; 02-21-2020 at 09:32 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    16,054
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by clonehappy View Post
    It's not the government's job to make things "fair". Let the market decide.
    Congress disagrees. One of the FCC's mandates from Congress is to assure wireless competition. This is done by setting up fair-share bidding rules for auctions that prevent deep-pocket companies from cornering the market on spectrum. The question is, "What's fair?" In low-band auctions, T-Mobile wanted preferences for carriers who didn't have much low-band (e.g. T-Mobile). Now comes along a high-band auction and T-Mobile wants the FCC to just ignore their existing ~200 MHz of high-band allocations. Of course Verizon wants to just be able to open their checkbook and buy it all. Neither is "fair". What would be fair is to set up limits that take into account a bidder's existing high-band licenses and set limits on how much one carrier can buy. This way everyone gets a fair share of the available spectrum.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    249
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    So when is the FCC going to force T-Mobile to share that 2.5 GHz?
    I don't see how your comment is even relevant on something that already has been long paid for. Whats your point?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,710
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    T-Mobile has plenty of mmwave. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Anyone that thing that T-Mobile should get access to nearly 200 MHz of 2.5 GHz all by itself but Verizon and at&t should be limited to 100 MHz of C-band is being a huge hypocrite
    Both AT&T and Verizon went around the FCC to buy mmWave spectrum that was being repossessed by the FCC that would have auctioned it off. The Verizon and AT&T customers sure are afraid of having real competition. Then again T-Mobile can bid up the prices of C-Band so much that Verizon and AT&T has to raise their customers prices and then hemorrhage even more of their customers to T-Mobile. Either way it is a win win for T-Mobile that is going to grow faster than before the merger. Still think Amazon, Google, Facebook or SpaceX could out bid everyone one else to build their satellites WISP.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Telus loses court fight over Ottawa’s spectrum auction rules
    By underrated in forum Freedom Mobile (previously Wind Mobile)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-07-2014, 03:13 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 05:12 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 02:03 AM
  4. Verizon's Mobile Office Kit
    By elrod in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2002, 12:45 PM
  5. T-Mobile takes over...
    By dna48363 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-25-2002, 06:17 PM

Bookmarks