dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1084
share rss forum feed

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

1 recommendation

Karl is at it again

Trying to propagate the lie that AT&T is a massive spectrum squatter (CLR and PCS are used for HSPA+, SMH and AWS will be used for LTE), and that their network would magically fix itself if it were somehow "managed" better, whatever that means. Maybe capping users off at 100MB? I'm sure he'd be real happy about THAT.


Alex J

@ecatel.net
AT&T is awful. They're spectrum squatters, anti-competitive, price gougers and suffer from the lowest customer satisfaction rates in the industry. They use bogus groups to bullhorn nonsense and they bribe Congress into passing protectionist crap law. There's a lot of lies out there, but AT&T being pretty disgusting is not among them...

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.


Alex J

@jillyred.net
Yeah it's just quirky happenstance that all the spectrum is headed right into the pockets of AT&T and Verizon: »www.dailywireless.org/2010/06/18···carcity/


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

yeah they are awesome. I love how they mandate a minimum $20 data on smartphones but only provides EDGE data in my area which tops out at 130 kbps. On the plus side I don't have to worry about going over my data limit since it so fucking slow.

WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS
reply to BiggA
You accuse others of being "Sprint fanboys" when they reject what they perceive as your biased criticism of Sprint, yet you are always quick to jump in and deflect what you perceive as unfair accusations against AT&T. So, by your own standards of behavior, it must be fair to call you an "AT&T fanboy," correct? If not, then take a good look in the mirror, recognize your hypocritical actions, and admit that you, too, are operating on an agenda.

AJ

WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

To quote Jim Calhoun, the blowhard basketball coach from your home state of Connecticut, "Get some facts! And come back and see me."

AJ


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
said by WiWavelength:

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

That seems like a fair request...perhaps we can ask the same of Karl regarding his repeated assertions and references to his own editorials as proof that they are lying


Jason Hansel

@speakeasy.net
To do this you'd need AT&T to reveal raw network data, and that's not going to happen for obvious reasons. AT&T is the one consistently claiming that an unmanageable spectrum and network capacity crisis requires regulation X, law Y, or acquisition Z, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They don't squat on spectrum, they're not any worse than any other carrier. In fact here, they are the best.

AT&T is your mother, your father, your wife, and your deity. It's a little disturbing.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by WiWavelength:

That you need to substantiate. Your repeated assertion is woefully insufficient proof. Show us some AT&T spectrum utilization data that you have compiled or from an independent source.

That seems like a fair request...perhaps we can ask the same of Karl regarding his repeated assertions and references to his own editorials as proof that they are lying

Dude, AT&T and Verizon have all the money. They were the only ones who could afford the beachfront 700 MHz spectrum in the last auction, and now they're trying to bribe Congress into giving them the vast majority of the upcoming auction of 300 MHz of new spectrum.

AT&T spends more money lobbying Congress than any other corporation in the US.

T-Mobile has around 50 MHz of spectrum, Sprint a little more than that (not including Clearwire's junk 2.5 GHz). AT&T and Verizon own 100+ MHz, but the density of their towers is far, far less than European carriers. AT&T's own CEO admitted they massively underinvested in their network from 2007 onwards.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to 88615298
Then why don't you get a carrier that works? AT&T clearly isn't a good choice in your area. Verizon or a local carrier if they are around would be a better choice.

@WiWavelength: I call it like it is, regardless of who is impacts. If anyone wants to talk data in Manhattan, I'm gonna bash AT&T hardcore. Their network down there is a POS.

They are using all their CLR and PCS, and the SMH and AWS is for LTE. Do you think they would just purposefully not use spectrum when their network has capacity problems in some markets?

@bbeesley: Exactly. They would fall apart.

@sonicmerlin: No one else can afford to build out on the spectrum anyways. Verizon has enough, AT&T needs some more so that they can compete with Verizon.

mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
kudos:1
reply to BiggA
The statements Karl has been making on this website for years are not necessarily wrong or not credible.

The issue I have is that he is very one sided and passes off editorials as legitimate "news". It's the same old shit day after day: All big companies are bad and everything they do has an ulterior motive. It's boring and tiresome.

Not much going on in your life, is there Karl? You really need to get a hobby.

There's a reason why 99.999% of my activity here is in one of the social or General Question forums.



nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY
reply to bbeesley
There are two ways to have more wireless capacity.

1. Get more spectrum.
2. Build more towers.

One of these is cheaper and has the advantage of denying capacity to your competitors. Guess which?

The "spectrum crunch" is all about the bottom line. It's not that we'll "run out" and be unable to provide service one day. Operators can still maintain healthy margins but they just always want to squeeze that extra 0.5% out... Or more than 0.5% when it comes to fleecing their customers.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit
said by nothing00:

There are two ways to have more wireless capacity.

3. Actually upgrade your towers to OC3 instead of adding a T1 here and there.
4. Add more arrays to each tower.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to mocycler
I'll give him credit for bringing up issues that no one else does, but the insane editorializing just seems to get worse and worse.

@nothing00: There's only so many places to put towers. Maybe that's AT&T's issue in NYC, since there are many places there, and they don't use towers, they use rooftop sites, but in general, there are a certain amount of towers to get on, and from there you need spectrum. The T-Mobile merger would have given them better spectrum synergy, and better site synergy, which would have added multiplicatively, but no, the FCC didn't want that logical and simple solution.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to mocycler
said by mocycler:

It's the same old shit day after day: All big companies are bad and everything they do has an ulterior motive. It's boring and tiresome.

But it is true. Funny how truth is boring to some.


Paladin
Sage of the light

join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL
reply to BiggA
Read Kevin Fritchard's article on the Spectrum Crunch.

»gigaom.com/broadband/is-the-spec···-a-myth/

Stakey (AT&T's COO) also said data growth on cellular networks was 40% a year, a far cry from the crazy figure thrown out by Donovan that included anything and everything AT&T could throw in.


Paladin
Sage of the light

join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL

1 edit
reply to BiggA
Read Kevin Fritchard's article on the Spectrum Crunch.

»gigaom.com/broadband/is-the-spec···-a-myth/

Stakey (AT&T's COO) also said data growth on cellular networks was 40% a year, a far cry from the crazy figure thrown out by Donovan that included anything and everything AT&T could throw in.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
reply to Simba7
said by Simba7:

3. Actually upgrade your towers to OC3 instead of adding a T1 here and there.

the majority of carrier activity is bypassing TDM and going to Ethernet handoffs

at any rate, they have already for some time now been actively implementing much larger bandwidth adds than you suggest...an OC3 would only get them a bit less than 150Mbs max....from what I have seen from all the carriers, they are running more like 600-700Mbs per tower and trending has the industry expecting demand for 1G connections being the norm within the next 18months

I have spoken with numerous service providers who are looking for upgrade paths to take their current 1G service rings and spurs to 10G to facilitate this growing demand from cell providers at their towers.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Quite true. As I understand it, a lot of AT&T and Verizon towers are using 1gbps IP-RAN backhaul. Of course some rural towers are still using T1's, but when you have EDGE on the air interface, it would be kind of pointless to have more than a T1, if that, for data. I wish they would push the enhanced back-haul farther out, like Verizon is with their LTE upgrades, although they would have to push HSPA+ farther out first.

@WernerShutz: It's not always true. Like the T-Mobile merger, or trying to get more spectrum. And the unethical and dishonest practices that AT&T has, while true, like overage charges that are higher than the plan rate, international roaming fees that are in the stratosphere, no discount for BYOD (excepting some T-Mobile plans), are held by all four major carriers in the industry.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to Paladin
That article has another ridiculous quote by Karl in it.

The issue is not that there isn't enough spectrum- there is. The issue is that it is horribly divided, cut up into a ton of tiny chunks that are whackily distributed through a long history of M&A, instead of being leased by the government in the first place.

If you accept the status quo of ownership, then T-Mobile should have actual ownership of their spectrum, and with that ownership, the right to sell it to whoever they want.

AT&T is the shortest on spectrum relative to number of customers of any carrier. Verizon managed to nab plenty of spectrum through the 700mhz auctions, as well as from SpectrumCo, and likely they will buy SpectrumCo's 700mhz at some point as well. The T-Mobile spectrum, while not as clean as Verizon's purchase of greenfield low-band, would have at least helped them immensely, partly through the spectrum synergy, but also by acquiring more cell sites, which would have provided more density and more efficient use of the current spectrum. But no, the FCC doesn't like efficient use of spectrum apparently.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

They are using all their CLR and PCS, and the SMH and AWS is for LTE. Do you think they would just purposefully not use spectrum when their network has capacity problems in some markets?

Yes, it helps with their claim of a congested network which helps to justify their prices and "data management" practices.

The numbers are out there, do a little research and see how much they have and how much they actually use.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Tell me what exactly they are squatting on? You make these claims with nothing to back them up. For example, in the NYC market, AT&T is listed with three PCS blocks, one CLR block, and two SMH blocks. The SMH blocks are in use for LTE (maybe one is, and one will be, not sure), the PCS and CLR is in use for UMTS and GSM.

In my neck of the woods, they have 1 CLR, four PCS (which they use for most HSPA+ traffic), and two SMH. The SMH will eventually be LTE. And what are they squatting on again?