dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to bartolo5

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
said by iansltx:

You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

What spectrum is this exactly? I couldn't find this info anywhere


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by bartolo5:

said by iansltx:

You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

What spectrum is this exactly? I couldn't find this info anywhere

Here is 1 article laying that out:
»www.dailywireless.org/2010/06/18···carcity/

Google is your friend. There are many other news items on spectrum hoarding:
»www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=n···a1673314

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
Article 1 is sort of biased and misleading in which it doesn't seem to put much differentiation on the frequency of the spectrum holding of the carriers.

It's really not the same to be holding vast amounts of spectrum on higher bands like AWS/2.6Ghz than on 700Mhz because of the different propagation capabilities of every band.

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

If a carrier was holding 700Mhz spectrum somehow it would be a different matter altogether but is that really happening? The first article mentions att holding some, but the article is dated in 2008 and ATT is about to start LTE in there very soon.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by bartolo5:

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

Then why did they spend billions buying it if they aren't going to use it?

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
said by FFH5:

said by bartolo5:

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

Then why did they spend billions buying it if they aren't going to use it?

Please, note I said "...deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz"

Meaning that while they may have a lot of spectrum they will never use in many areas, in some densely populated metros the use of those bands may still be viable if enough expenditures are put into the network deployment.

But frankly, I just think is all part of spectrum speculation and holding off on assets that investors may think they are valuable when they are not.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by bartolo5:

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

Then why did they spend billions buying it if they aren't going to use it?

That's easy, to keep the competition from getting it.
Here in Canada we have networks buying US programming and putting on the shelf (they have no space left in the schedule), to keep the other broadcasters from getting that show.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please"