Spectrum

M2Z asks FCC to reject more AWS-3 interference tests

Lynnette Luna — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:10:51 -0400

M2Z Networks said it has submitted evidence to the FCC to confirm that no further interference testing is needed to auction off the AWS-3 spectrum, which will be designed for an operator willing to offer free broadband wireless services. T-Mobile has been a vocal opponent of the plan, saying the FCC is rushing into an auction without adequately testing for potential interference. T-Mobile is the largest spectrum holder in the adjacent AWS-1 band and is concerned about interference. M2Z and T-Mobile have been trading barbs over the issue. M2Z says its latest filing with the FCC specifically rebuts the false assertions of T-Mobile based on its recent test, but also provides reference to two recent additional tests on the exact same interference scenarios that were conducted by the International Telecommunications Union and the United Kingdom's spectrum regulator, Ofcom. The recent tests also contradict T-Mobile's assertions.

According to M2Z, the fact that T-Mobile and the other carriers are now seeking an additional fifth round of testing on mobile to mobile interference issues without addressing any of the countervailing evidence in front of the FCC is further proof that these large phone companies are using "interference testing" as a veiled attempt to prevent nationwide broadband competition. The FCC wants to create a 25-megahertz swath of spectrum that would support a nationwide license. The AWS-3 spectrum would require the licensee to dedicate 25 percent of its network capacity to free broadband service, install a network-based Internet filtering system to block pornography and allow open access to third-party devices and applications.

For more:
- check out this release

Related stories:
M2Z: T-Mobile's interference argument over AWS-3 spectrum flawed. M2Z story
T-Mobile takes M2Z to task over AWS-3 auction arguments. T-Mobile story

Sprint/Clearwire to AT&T: public in favor of JV

Sue Marek — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:44:58 -0400

Sprint and Clearwire wasted no time responding to AT&T's request to deny the planned joint venture between the two companies. Last week, AT&T said that the Sprint/Clearwire venture would eventually use spectrum leased from schools, cities and non-profits and that the planned venture hadn't fully accounted for that spectrum in its proposed merger. AT&T said that when it purchased Dobson Communications last year the FCC took into account all the spectrum that AT&T hadn't accessed yet.

In its response, Sprint and Clearwire said that nearly 100 parties including educational and religious institutions, have filed comments urging the FCC to approve this transaction. The companies said that this proves that the public interest weighs in favor of this merger. In addition, because the 2.5 MHz spectrum has historically been under-utilized, many commentators are in favor of using this spectrum. They believe that the merger will lower costs for consumers by providing new products and services based upon WiMAX.

Sprint and Clearwire also said that they thought it was ironic that AT&T, the largest telecom company in the world, wants to invoke in applicable regulatory restraints that would stifle and delay Clearwire.

For more:
- see this Sprint/Clearwire FCC filing

Related articles:
AT&T asks FCC to deny Sprint-Clearwire merger
Sprint affiliate battles Clearwire JV

AT&T asks FCC to deny Sprint-Clearwire merger

Lynnette Luna — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:31:13 -0400

AT&T has asked the FCC to deny the planned merger between Sprint Nextel and Clearwire. The operator, which has the largest subscriber base in the U.S., argued that the venture would eventually use spectrum leased from schools, cities and nonprofits and that the spectrum hasn't been fully accounted for in the proposed merger. Earlier this year, Clearwire and Sprint announced their intention to combine their WiMAX businesses with the help of $3.2 billion from Intel, Google, Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House.

AT&T argues that when it purchased Dobson Communications last year, the FCC took into account spectrum AT&T has not yet accessed. In its filing, AT&T states that Clearwire and Sprint "openly state that they intend to compete with other national wireless providers--including AT&T--yet they fail to make the required showings necessary for the commission's review."

AT&T said Sprint and Clearwire, in listing their spectrum holdings, have discounted some spectrum they intend to use because it isn't operational yet. If the FCC would take into account all of the combined entity's spectrum holdings, the merger would be put under much higher scrutiny, AT&T argued.

For more:
- read Dow Jones

Related story:
A breakdown of the Sprint-Clearwire deal. Sprint-Clearwire deal story

Andrew Seybold - A New Wireless Opportunity!

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:22:28 -0400

Great! Chairman Martin of the FCC has decided to auction more spectrum. It is called AWS III (Advanced Wireless Services) and it is made up of 25 MHz of spectrum from 2155 MHz to 2180 MHz. Spectrum is valuable, so perhaps I should bid on it. What are the rules? Well, according to the Chairman, I will have to build a network that will cover 50 percent of the U.S. population (not geography) within five years and 95 percent of the U.S. population within ten years (the end of the license term). And, by the way, if I am the winning bidder I will have to provide at least 786 Kbps data service to anyone who wants it for free. Of course, I can charge for data speeds higher than that.

Several companies have suggested a variation of this to the FCC. M2Z agrees with free Internet access to 95 percent of the U.S. population but wants the spectrum awarded to it for free, and it would fund the free Internet with advertising revenue, as would several others.

Okay, I am interested in bidding for all 25 MHz of spectrum, which on a nationwide basis has to be worth a lot of money regardless of the restrictions. So I run a few numbers before I bid to make sure I can make some money building out this network. First, what is the spectrum worth? Well, Verizon bought the 700 MHz C block that covers 285,620,445 pops (population), which is about 94 percent of the U.S. population, for just under $5 billion ($4,748,319,000). I know the 700 MHz spectrum is worth more because it covers more area with fewer cell sites, so I could probably win the AWS III spectrum for a nice round $3 billion.

Now, what will it cost me to build out a network and operate it for ten years? The first question is whether the network will be fully mobile (which means cell site hand-offs and a more extensive backend) or only for fixed services. In these competitive times, I had better figure on a fully mobile network to attract more customers, so I need to base the math on a full IP backend with hand-offs between cell sites.

How many cell sites will I need? It has been documented that I could cover 75 percent of the U.S. population on 700 MHz with 22,000 cell sites, and that at 2.5 GHz it would take 65,000 cell sites to cover the same 75 percent of the population. This means I will have to build a network of 80,000 cell sites. Some of these will be large, metro-area cell sites and some will be smaller (and therefore less expensive) cell sites. So I'll figure the network build at $20 billion for sites. Then I have to build the backend and provide backhaul to each site, which will have to be fiber or microwave because of the amount of bandwidth at each site. So the entire network and construction will cost me about $25 billion. Since I paid $3 billion for the license, my total capital expenditure for the network will be about $28 billion.

Perhaps I can fund this capital expenditure, but I also need to consider the ongoing or operating expenses for the network. Again using averages, I would guess site rental would come in at $800 per site, $500 per month for the backhaul and another $100 per month for maintenance. Doing the math, this means just the cell sites and backhaul will cost $114 million a month or a total of $1.37 billion a year. I haven't yet added in other items such as insurance, electricity at each site, technical and administrative staff, marketing and device purchases, but let's see what we have so far.

At the bottom of my spreadsheet, my total costs at the end of ten years to build and operate this network come to $43 billion (give or take a few billion). To keep the math easy, let's say the network will be available to 290 million people, but only toward the end of the license period. Until then, I will be offering services to a much smaller number of people--in year five, for example, I would have a potential of reaching 150 million (roughly 50 percent of the U.S. population). Most of those 150 million potential customers will already have a choice for fixed services of DSL, cable, perhaps fiber and even WiMAX on a 2.5 GHZ network. For mobility services, they would probably have a choice of three or four 3G wide-area networks and, perhaps, WiMAX. Of course, WiFi hotspots are another option.

I wonder how many of these potential customers would leave their existing network provider for free 786-Kbps service when most of them are getting 3 Mbps and higher services for less than $40 per month? If they elect to join my network for free, would they stop paying for the other service? How much advertising would I have to sell to make a profit? How would I attract (or sell up) services at higher speeds competing with three, five or even seven other providers? What would be better about my network? Would I have more device choices? Would I be able to offer a service that one no else could offer? In rural areas, would the advertising revenue even cover the monthly cost of operating my system?

Why would I pay $43 billion for the privilege of giving away 786-Kbps wireless services? For the privilege of competing with existing wired and wireless providers already engaged in a price war? In five years, 786 Kbps will feel like today's dial-up speeds. You know what? I think I will pass and not bid on this chunk of spectrum this time around. I will wait until the "lucky" bidder files for bankruptcy and pick up the spectrum and the network for pennies on the dollar. Perhaps then I will be able to make money either by operating the network or selling off pieces of it.

Andrew Seybold is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. www.andrewseybold.com

Roaming rules spark controversy

Sue Marek — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:46:59 -0400

Not everyone is happy with last year's FCC rules regarding roaming. The rules require carriers to allow roaming at reasonable rates for the requesting carrier so their customers can roam outside the carrier's network. At issue is the "in-market exception rule," which says that a roaming deal is not required if the competitor holds spectrum rights in an area where it would like to have a roaming agreement for its customers.

Smaller operators without national footprints argue that this is unfair because it can take several years for an operator to build out a network in a license area and in some cases, such as with AWS spectrum, the spectrum is encumbered for a number of years preventing the carrier from building there.

Now two congressmen have weighed in on the battle. In a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Reps. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) and Mike Doyle (D-Penn) said that the "in-market exception services as a secondary buildout requirement that does not serve our constituents who depend on small and regional carriers to provide competitive choice in the marketplace."

For more:
- see this RCR story

Related story:
Small players want review of roaming deals

Canadian spectrum auctions begin today

Sue Marek — Tue, 27 May 2008 10:49:40 -0400

Industry Canada is hoping to instigate more wireless competition in the Canadian market by auctioning off 40 megahertz of spectrum specifically intended for a new entrant to compete against established carriers Rogers Wireless, Telus and BCE Inc. The auction is expected to raise about $1.5 billion and will close by the end of June.

There are 23 companies participating in the auction, which begins today. Twenty of these firms are designated as new entrants. Possible spectrum winners include Shaw Communications, Manitoba Telecom Services, Quebecor, Globalive Communications Corp. and Data and Audio-Visual Enterprises.

For more:
- see this article

Related story:
Telus terminates Amp'd Mobile Canada deal. See this Telus story.

Leap rolls out Cricket in Las Vegas

Brian Dolan — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:07:52 -0400

Leap Wireless announced that its Cricket service is now available in Las Vegas. The new network is running on the carrier's AWS spectrum holdings. The carrier recently launched services over AWS spectrum in both Oklahoma City and southern Texas. The Vegas network will span 1,500 square miles and will cover about 2 million pops. While the carrier has three roaming partners for the service, it has not disclosed which carriers won the deal. The network will faciliate all of Cricket's current calling plan offerings plus its PC card unlimited data offering for Las Vegas subscribers.

For more on Leap's offering:
- read this press release

Verizon Wireless: 'Course will abide by the rules

Fri, 09 May 2008 06:59:55 -0400

After Google filed a petition with the FCC to insist that the regulator put in place stricter terms for Verizon Wireless' C Block 700 MHz spectrum, which requires open access for devices and applications, Verizon Wireless claimed the petition had "no legal basis." The carrier plans to file its own petition with the FCC soon, but noted that "it's really no surprise that despite not winning spectrum, [Google] continue[s] to try to change the rules and further their own business interests through the regulatory process." The carrier said it knew the rules before it took part in the auction and "of course" they will abide by them, but if it doesn't the carrier points out that "Google or anybody else..." can use "legitimate and expedited ways to address that."

For more on Verizon's response:
- read this article from Verizon's policy blog

Clearwire Spectrum Holdings - Graphic

Mike Dolan — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:43:18 -0400

See Clearwire's Spectrum Holdings in this chart.

Ofcom: No new wireless tech for 20 years

Wed, 07 May 2008 06:59:54 -0400

U.K. regulator Ofcom released a report called Tomorrow's Wireless World, which aimed to inform the government on how the wireless industry should be regulated during the next 20 years. Ofcom's head of research and development, William Webb said that Ofcom does not expect to see any new or different technology released during the next 20 years, but existing wireless technologies will be applied to new devices and services. Healthcare, transportation and food safety were chief among the future wireless services. Ofcom predicted sensors in cars would help prevent crashes or notify emergency services if and when they do and allergy sufferers could receive alerts when food products are unsafe for them. The report found that new spectrum will have to released to accommodate these future services but WiFi and existing cellular technologies will probably support them.

For more:
- read this BBC report