Results 1 to 15 of 20
- 02-19-2004, 04:19 PM #1Andrew ShepherdGuest
I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
(800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
to be finalized today. Combined Cingular-AT&TWS PCS (1900 MHz)
spectrum is not reflected at the moment, though that may become a
future project.
Please take a look if you are interested in viewing how the Cellular
spectrum assets of the merged company will interlock & overlap,
conform & conflict. Thanks...
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http:/www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
› See More: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
- 02-19-2004, 04:45 PM #2Robert M.Guest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
> I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
> (800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
> to be finalized today. Combined Cingular-AT&TWS PCS (1900 MHz)
> spectrum is not reflected at the moment, though that may become a
> future project.
>
> Please take a look if you are interested in viewing how the Cellular
> spectrum assets of the merged company will interlock & overlap,
> conform & conflict. Thanks...
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html
This makes the unwarranted assumption that no divestitures (like Dallas
or Miami) will be required.
- 02-19-2004, 09:42 PM #3dirty rat 753Guest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
Interesting. thanks. If you were to add extended coverage areas, that
would be an interesting map. I traveled across the US and back noticing I
nearly continuous ATTWS Network coverage, and Verizon America's Choice.
Coverage was so good, I did not activate my ATTWS Digital One Rate digital
phone for the trip.
"Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
> (800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
- 02-19-2004, 10:28 PM #4Andrew ShepherdGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:
>
> > I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
> > (800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
> > to be finalized today. Combined Cingular-AT&TWS PCS (1900 MHz)
> > spectrum is not reflected at the moment, though that may become a
> > future project.
> >
> > Please take a look if you are interested in viewing how the Cellular
> > spectrum assets of the merged company will interlock & overlap,
> > conform & conflict. Thanks...
> >
> > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html
>
>
> This makes the unwarranted assumption that no divestitures (like Dallas
> or Miami) will be required.
No unwarranted assumptions were made whatsoever. You might want to
double-check the asterisked statement underneath the map legend. For
convenience sake, I will reproduce it here:
"*Conditional to FCC &/or DoJ regulatory approval of merger. Cellular
Market Areas (or Cellular Geographic Service Areas) in which
coincident A-side & B-side Cellular licenses both controlled by the
merged entity may require divestment of one of the overlapping
licenses."
That being said, there is no guarantee that the FCC &/or DoJ will
require, as a regulatory condition of merger approval, that
Cingular-AT&TWS sell off any or all of the nearly 20 overlapping
Cellular licenses. The 45/55 MHz CMRS spectrum cap, which
precipitated numerous Cellular/PCS license divestments in the
creations of VZW or Cingular during 1999-2000, sunset completely over
a year ago. Cingular-AT&TWS could successfully argue that required
divestiture would be an unfair regulatory burden on Cellular (800/850
MHz) licensees, as any two PCS (1900 MHz) licensees, even the 30 MHz
PCS A & PCS B 30 licensees, would be free to merge in a given market
w/o dispossession of any CMRS spectrum. Why should 60 MHz or more of
accumulated PCS spectrum be permissible but not 50 MHz of aggregated
Cellular spectrum?
However, I do believe that Cingular-AT&TWS merger approval will
necessitate divestiture of certain spectrum assets, including one of
the two licenses in each of the coincident CGSAs. Consumer advocacy
groups, like the Consumers Union, will lobby for the preservation of
as much wireless competition as possible. In the case of the affected
overlapping Cellular licenses, one condition might be that no loss of
competition in said markets would be allowed, thus it would be
impermissible for Cingular-AT&TWS to divest any to existing PCS
licensees in any of the markets, thereby forcing the sale of the
licenses to new entrants into the markets. (If such were to come to
pass, the big winners would be carriers like ALLTEL, USCC, & WWCA; VZW
would be shut out of the Cellular licenses it would surely covet in
Florida & Texas.) Cingular-AT&TWS might even have the shed some PCS
spectrum here & there in order to facilitate new competition to
replace the loss of AT&TWS.
And, finally, unlike the CMRS spectrum cap, the AMPS requirement has
not yet sunset. As AMPS remains the regulated air-interface for
Cellular, as well as the lowest common denominator for wireless
emergency, I feel that the FCC would be quite loathe to allow any lone
entity to control all AMPS capability in any given market.
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
- 02-19-2004, 10:43 PM #5Andrew ShepherdGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> This makes the unwarranted assumption that no divestitures (like Dallas
> or Miami) will be required.
Additionally, excerpted from my writings in private correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: Shepherd, Andrew J
Sent: Tue 2/17/2004 13:51
To: (removed)
Cc:
Subject: (removed)
"So, let us now begin discussion of the fallout & ramifications of a
combined Cingular-AT&TWS. AT&TWS & Cingular are the coincident
incumbent A-side & B-side Cellular licensees, respectively, in seven
major markets: Austin, Dallas, Jacksonville, Miami, Oklahoma City,
Orlando, & San Antonio. Though the CMRS spectrum cap has sunset, AMPS
concerns are still valid, such that presumably the FCC &/or JD will
still not allow Cingular-AT&TWS to control both Cellular licenses in a
given market. Look for Cingular-AT&TWS to retain the contiguity of
the SBC Mobile Systems B-side CMAs in its Texas home market, divesting
the AT&TWS A-side licenses, while keeping the AT&TWS nee McCaw A-side
strongholds in Florida & Oklahoma intact, selling the BellSouth
Mobility & SBC Mobile Systems CMAs, respectively.
The other pertinent question than is: which carrier(s) will be the
beneficiaries of the soon-to-be available Cellular licenses in Dallas,
Jacksonville, & Miami? You know that VZW has to strongly covet those
800/850 MHz licenses, as VZW is legacy PrimeCo 1900 MHz in six of the
markets w/ currently no Cellular or PCS spectrum whatsoever in
Oklahoma City. ALLTEL could greatly strengthen its position in both
Florida & Texas, but might it just defer to VZW? Even more
intriguing, could one of the smaller regional/rural carriers make a
run at the licenses? WWCA has no experience in any major markets yet
would be a natural to acquire the AT&TWS Dallas region A-side CMAs.
USCC does already have major market experience in Des Moines,
Milwaukee, & Tulsa and could greatly expand its territorial reach in
Oklahoma & northern Texas w/ the divested Cingular-AT&TWS CMAs."
-----Original Message-----
From: Shepherd, Andrew J
Sent: Wed 2/18/2004 01:11
To: (removed)
Cc:
Subject: (removed)
"Regarding the almost certain divestiture of all overlapping Cellular
licenses for the combined Cingular-AT&TWS, I had an additional thought
on the matter. Might the FCC &/or DoJ require no loss of competition
in said markets? In other words, Cingular-AT&TWS would be required to
divest the affected license to a new carrier entering the market, thus
replacing AT&TWS and retaining the same number of competitors. I
believe confidently that such could ostensibly be a regulatory
condition of the merger. Therefore, if VZW already has a PCS license,
as it does in all of the seven affected majors (other than Oklahoma
City) that I previously mentioned, as much as I think VZW would love
to augment the PCS system(s) w/ 800 MHz spectrum, it would be
completely ineligible to acquire the divested Cellular license(s). If
my theory does prove true, any competition for the spun off CMAs
(other than OKC which I think VZW will want badly) will be limited to
the smaller CDMA carriers in a three-horse race: ALLTEL, USCC, or
WWCA."
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
- 02-20-2004, 03:31 AM #6Terry KnabGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> That being said, there is no guarantee that the FCC &/or DoJ will
> require, as a regulatory condition of merger approval, that
> Cingular-AT&TWS sell off any or all of the nearly 20 overlapping
> Cellular licenses. The 45/55 MHz CMRS spectrum cap, which
> precipitated numerous Cellular/PCS license divestments in the
> creations of VZW or Cingular during 1999-2000, sunset completely over
> a year ago. Cingular-AT&TWS could successfully argue that required
> divestiture would be an unfair regulatory burden on Cellular (800/850
> MHz) licensees, as any two PCS (1900 MHz) licensees, even the 30 MHz
> PCS A & PCS B 30 licensees, would be free to merge in a given market
> w/o dispossession of any CMRS spectrum. Why should 60 MHz or more of
> accumulated PCS spectrum be permissible but not 50 MHz of aggregated
> Cellular spectrum?
>
> However, I do believe that Cingular-AT&TWS merger approval will
> necessitate divestiture of certain spectrum assets, including one of
> the two licenses in each of the coincident CGSAs. Consumer advocacy
> groups, like the Consumers Union, will lobby for the preservation of
> as much wireless competition as possible. In the case of the affected
> overlapping Cellular licenses, one condition might be that no loss of
> competition in said markets would be allowed, thus it would be
> impermissible for Cingular-AT&TWS to divest any to existing PCS
> licensees in any of the markets, thereby forcing the sale of the
> licenses to new entrants into the markets. (If such were to come to
> pass, the big winners would be carriers like ALLTEL, USCC, & WWCA; VZW
> would be shut out of the Cellular licenses it would surely covet in
> Florida & Texas.) Cingular-AT&TWS might even have the shed some PCS
> spectrum here & there in order to facilitate new competition to
> replace the loss of AT&TWS.
Actually VZW wouldn't be shut out of those Florida licenses. Bear in mind
on the maps that have been shown, ATTWS and Cingular do compete in Los
Angeles, Chicago, Kansas City, and quite a few other places one on the PCS
band, the other on the Cellular band (in CA for example, ATTWS is the 'A'
Carrier cellular and Cingular is on PCS. Under current rules, VZW can own
both PCS and cellular licenses in a market)
One other likely senario would be for Cingular to divest overlap to T-Mobile
(like in Kansas City and Southern Missouri). (T-Mobile and Cingular
currently have a network sharing arrangement in LA and NYC, IIRC.
Cingular's purchase of ATTWS means they could rather easily convert their
customers to the ATTWS network and sell the bandwidth to TMO very quickly)
- 02-20-2004, 03:34 AM #7Terry KnabGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> "Regarding the almost certain divestiture of all overlapping Cellular
> licenses for the combined Cingular-AT&TWS, I had an additional thought
> on the matter. Might the FCC &/or DoJ require no loss of competition
> in said markets? In other words, Cingular-AT&TWS would be required to
> divest the affected license to a new carrier entering the market, thus
> replacing AT&TWS and retaining the same number of competitors. I
> believe confidently that such could ostensibly be a regulatory
> condition of the merger. Therefore, if VZW already has a PCS license,
> as it does in all of the seven affected majors (other than Oklahoma
> City) that I previously mentioned, as much as I think VZW would love
> to augment the PCS system(s) w/ 800 MHz spectrum, it would be
> completely ineligible to acquire the divested Cellular license(s). If
> my theory does prove true, any competition for the spun off CMAs
> (other than OKC which I think VZW will want badly) will be limited to
> the smaller CDMA carriers in a three-horse race: ALLTEL, USCC, or
> WWCA."
Actually VZW already has PCS and Cellular licenses in Kansas City. They
bought the PCS licenses from ALLTEL in '01 I think. I believe as well, ATT
did own both some 1900 and 850 licenses in some markets as well.
- 02-20-2004, 11:15 AM #8WAWGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
There's a map that includes all AWE and Cingular coverage available
from SBC's Investor relations site. It's in a large PDF located at
http://www.sbc.com/Investor/Financia...s/slide_c.pdf.
Check out page 9.
"dirty rat 753" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Interesting. thanks. If you were to add extended coverage areas, that
> would be an interesting map. I traveled across the US and back noticing I
> nearly continuous ATTWS Network coverage, and Verizon America's Choice.
> Coverage was so good, I did not activate my ATTWS Digital One Rate digital
> phone for the trip.
>
> "Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
> > (800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
- 02-20-2004, 07:20 PM #9dirty rat 753Guest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
Great coverage map. Thanks.
"WAW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's a map that includes all AWE and Cingular coverage available
> from SBC's Investor relations site. It's in a large PDF located at
> http://www.sbc.com/Investor/Financia...s/slide_c.pdf.
> Check out page 9.
- 02-20-2004, 10:57 PM #10Andrew ShepherdGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Terry Knab" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Actually VZW wouldn't be shut out of those Florida licenses. Bear in mind
> on the maps that have been shown, ATTWS and Cingular do compete in Los
> Angeles, Chicago, Kansas City, and quite a few other places one on the PCS
> band, the other on the Cellular band (in CA for example, ATTWS is the 'A'
> Carrier cellular and Cingular is on PCS. Under current rules, VZW can own
> both PCS and cellular licenses in a market)
You are absolutely correct that no regulation prohibits VZW or any
other licensee from controlling both a Cellular license & PCS
license(s) in any given market. No such prohibition has ever existed,
only the now defunct 45/55 MHz (urban/rural) CMRS spectrum cap
effectively limited the amount of Cellular, PCS, & SMR spectrum that
any one licensee could aggregate in a given area.
When in the process of the BAM-AirTouch-GTE merger, several of the
PrimeCo PCS licenses were divested, as such would have placed VZW at
55 MHz (25 MHz Cellular + 30 MHz PCS) in several MSAs, over the
spectrum cap at the time, VZW typically disaggregated 10 MHz to keep
for itself from the PrimeCo PCS licenses before selling the remaining
20 MHz to AT&TWS, nTelos, or the independent PrimeCo in Chicago,
respectively.
In the later PCS auctions, AT&TWS (or its affiliates) acquired at
least 10 MHz of overlapping PCS spectrum in each of its Cellular
markets, which allowed AT&TWS to overlay GSM/GPRS/EDGE 1900 across all
of its markets, both Cellular/PCS & solely PCS, w/o touching its
IS-136 TDMA/AMPS 800 spectrum.
So, to reiterate, you are entirely in the right that licensees can and
do possess both Cellular & PCS licenses in overlapping markets. But
conditional approval of the Cingular-AT&TWS merger will likely go
above & beyond the minimum regulations facing CMRS licensees.
Anti-trust will play an even larger role.
As agreed upon by most, the overlapping Cellular licenses of
Cingular-AT&TWS will almost certainly prove problematic, thus
requiring divestment. PCS overlap or Cellular/PCS overlap for
Cingular-AT&TWS is far more of a question mark, possibly prompting no
regulatory fallout whatsoever. On the latter point, monopolistic
competition more than any spectrum concerns will dictate whether or
not Cingular-AT&TWS will be required to shed any spectrum, networks,
&/or customers in coincident markets.
Therefore, my point in hypothesizing that VZW could be prevented from
attempting to acquire the divested Cellular licenses is that the FCC
very likely could mandate as condition of approval of the merger that
Cingular-AT&TWS sell the affected licenses only to new entrants into
the markets, thereby in those markets preserving the current level of
competition w/ Cingular & AT&TWS as separate competing entities.
> One other likely senario would be for Cingular to divest overlap to T-Mobile
> (like in Kansas City and Southern Missouri). (T-Mobile and Cingular
> currently have a network sharing arrangement in LA and NYC, IIRC.
> Cingular's purchase of ATTWS means they could rather easily convert their
> customers to the ATTWS network and sell the bandwidth to TMO very quickly)
In a nutshell, the network-sharing agreement in NYC & California gave
Cingular 10 MHz of T-Mobile's PCS spectrum in NYC and conversely gave
T-Mobile 10 MHz of Cingular's PCS spectrum in California. Though the
disaggregated blocks of spectrum in each locale are technically now
separate PCS licenses, for all intents & purposes the licenses were
never disaggregated, as the two companies pooled the spectrum together
as part of their infrastructure-sharing arrangement.
In NYC, AT&TWS controls 35 MHz of total CMRS spectrum (Cellular A-side
25 MHz + PCS E 10 MHz). Cingular possesses only the PCS A3 10 MHz, a
disagg from T-Mobile's PCS A 30 MHz license.
In California, of which we are really only discussing LA & the Bay
Area, AT&TWS controls 35 MHz total CMRS spectrum (Cellular A-side 25
MHz + PCS D 10 MHz) in LA and 45 MHz total CMRS spectrum (Cellular
A-side 25 MHz + PCS D 10 MHz + PCS A5 10 MHz - the last a disagg from
Sprint PCS) in the Bay Area. Cingular has the upper 20 MHz of the PCS
B 20 MHz license (the PCS B 30 MHz minus the 10 MHz disagg to
T-Mobile) in both LA & the Bay Area.
Cingular, being the former PacBell, the RBOC in California, has a lot
of wireless customers in that state. All of those Cingular subs are
GSM 1900, none IS-136 TDMA 800, which renders the AT&TWS 25 MHz
Cellular licenses irrelevant for the time being, such that all would
have to crowd into the 10 MHz or 20 MHz of GSM/GPRS/EDGE 1900
bandwidth that AT&TWS possesses. Even in NYC, where Cingular is a
relatively new entrant to the market, hence has fewer subs, all again
are GSM 1900 users, while AT&TWS once again controls only 10 MHz of
GSM/GPRS/EDGE 1900 spectrum. By your scenario, in NYC or California,
it is quite unlikely that AT&TWS w/ its current spectrum holdings
could readily absorb all of Cingular's subs.
The following is my potential theory regarding T-Mobile. Again an
excerpt from my personal correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: Shepherd, Andrew J
Sent: Wed 2/18/2004 01:11
To: (removed)
Cc:
Subject: (removed)
"And, here is an interesting potentiality: Cingular-AT&TWS could
presumably opt out of its network-sharing arrangement w/ T-Mobile in
NYC & California. AT&TWS brings at least 35 MHz if not 45 MHz of
combined Cellular/PCS spectrum to the table in each of NYC, LA, & SF.
In but a New York minute, Cingular-AT&TWS suddenly gains the upper
hand on T-Mobile in NYC. The disaggregated 10 MHz blocks of PCS
spectrum that Cingular transferred to T-Mobile in California and
T-Mobile in turn traded to Cingular in NYC, respectively, are
permanent swaps. But Cingular-AT&TWS will no longer need the T-Mobile
infrastructure in NYC. T-Mobile will lose all leverage in California,
hence Cingular-AT&TWS could tell T-Mobile to get lost and go build its
own California network."
On that last point, T-Mobile, which is truly the odd man out now,
needs to find a merger partner ASAP. The problem is that either
Cingular or AT&TWS were far & away the two most obvious candidates,
leaving T-Mobile the redundant third wheel, like the wallflower w/o a
dance partner. Nextel needs a way out of the iDEN deadend, while its
interleaved SMR 800 spectrum is far better suited to GSM than to CDMA,
such that Nextel & T-Mobile could be the next pair down the aisle.
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
- 02-21-2004, 04:07 AM #11Terry KnabGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Terry Knab" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Therefore, my point in hypothesizing that VZW could be prevented from
> attempting to acquire the divested Cellular licenses is that the FCC
> very likely could mandate as condition of approval of the merger that
> Cingular-AT&TWS sell the affected licenses only to new entrants into
> the markets, thereby in those markets preserving the current level of
> competition w/ Cingular & AT&TWS as separate competing entities.
Selling to new entrants in a market? That would be pretty difficult
especially considering that we're talking about TDMA systems here, ones that
would have to be migrated one way or another to GSM or CDMA. I doubt
ALLTEL, WW, or USCC has that kind of cash to do a full scale conversion.
I believe WW actually *sold* a couple of markets to ATT not too long ago.
To bring a totally new entrant into a market will be a challenge in and of
itself. In the case of Florida, there's not really one of the big regionals
who can buy the overlapping licenses, simply because ALLTEL is already
there, USCC is still getting Chicago in order, and WW would find it too far
east for their liking.
There's also a lesson in the economics of scale. Don't think for a second
VZW will not try to buy as much as they can. The only way they can grow is
to buy as much they can from a competitor. A smaller regional carrier (I'd
consider ALLTEL to have the upper hand in this one) can't really compete
because they can't afford to offer the coverage or the rate plans that
people would expect. (Imagine if you will a customer in Florida on ATTWS
now who might get sold to Brand X cellular and had a One Rate plan or some
national roaming plan. They're SOL if that carrier is small enough not to
have comparable rate plans and/or phones)
USCC may be a condtender for the Florida properties, because they're already
selling service out there as it is in one county that Cingular doesn't have.
I also suspect VZ may have the best financial shot at it as well.
- 02-21-2004, 07:26 AM #12Stephen R. ConradGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
Am I misunderstanding the map?
Do the white areas represent no coverage? Thus, no cingular or att in the
Cleveland, OH market. This is clearly not the case.
"Andrew Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
> (800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
> to be finalized today. Combined Cingular-AT&TWS PCS (1900 MHz)
> spectrum is not reflected at the moment, though that may become a
> future project.
>
> Please take a look if you are interested in viewing how the Cellular
> spectrum assets of the merged company will interlock & overlap,
> conform & conflict. Thanks...
>
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/main.html
>
> Andrew
> --
> Andrew Shepherd
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> http:/www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 2/13/2004
- 02-21-2004, 01:27 PM #13Andrew ShepherdGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Stephen R. Conrad" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Am I misunderstanding the map?
> Do the white areas represent no coverage? Thus, no cingular or att in the
> Cleveland, OH market. This is clearly not the case.
Please re-read the first paragraph of my post. Here it is once more:
"I have updated my site w/ a map depicting the conglomerated Cellular
(800/850 MHz) license holdings of Cingular-AT&TWS, if the merger were
to be finalized today. Combined Cingular-AT&TWS PCS (1900 MHz)
spectrum is not reflected at the moment, though that may become a
future project."
I tried to ***** it out as clearly as possible so there would be no
confusion. W/ a lowercase "c," cellular is often used as a generic
term to refer to the cellular or spatial re-use of all wireless
telephony regardless of spectrum. But Cellular w/ a capital "C" is
800/850 MHz. And PCS is 1900 MHz.
Neither Cingular nor AT&TWS nor Cingular-AT&TWS combined have even one
Cellular license in Cleveland. Both Cingular & AT&TWS are PCS
licensees and have 1900 MHz IS-136 TDMA/GSM/GPRS/EDGE (the last only
AT&TWS) networks in Cleveland. Cingular possesses from its Ameritech
legacy the PCS A 30 MHz license. And AT&TWS has the remaining upper
20 MHz of the PCS B 30 MHz license, the lower 10 MHz, the PCS B3, of
the license having been partitioned & disaggregated to Sprint PCS.
Lastly, my Cellular license map is not a coverage map per se but just
what the title indicates - a license map. A Cellular or PCS license
defines the geography of where a licensee is *permitted* to construct
coverage but not necessarily where a licensee *will* construct
coverage. Particularly in the case of PCS licenses, for which the
construction requirement(s) is defined by population, not by area, the
wireless footprint of the constructed system may cover a large
percentage of the contained population but only a small percentage of
the licensed area.
Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
- 02-21-2004, 02:14 PM #14tom glaabGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
"Stephen R. Conrad" <[email protected]> wrote
> Do the white areas represent no coverage? Thus, no cingular or att in the
> Cleveland, OH market. This is clearly not the case.
The maps only show cellular (800/850MHz) coverage. PCS (1900MHz)
coverage is NOT shown.
tg.
- 02-21-2004, 03:01 PM #15XFFGuest
Re: Cingular-AT&TWS combined Cellular map posted
Terry Knab wrote:
>
> Selling to new entrants in a market? That would be pretty difficult
> especially considering that we're talking about TDMA systems here, ones that
> would have to be migrated one way or another to GSM or CDMA. I doubt
> ALLTEL, WW, or USCC has that kind of cash to do a full scale conversion.
They've all done it in many other markets. USCC is still in the process
of converting a lot of their own markets from TDMA to CDMA. WWCA is
currently overlaying GSM in many of their TDMA/CDMA markets.
> I believe WW actually *sold* a couple of markets to ATT not too long ago.
No. You're probably thinking about USCC which sold 10 markets in FL/GA
to ATTWS last year or RCC which is in the process of selling OR-4 to
ATTWS.
> To bring a totally new entrant into a market will be a challenge in and of
> itself. In the case of Florida, there's not really one of the big regionals
> who can buy the overlapping licenses, simply because ALLTEL is already
> there, USCC is still getting Chicago in order, and WW would find it too far
> east for their liking.
Actually ALLTEL does not have any of the overlapping licenses in
question and would be a perfect fit for them. IMHO, there's a greater
than 50% chance that ALLTEL will end up with the overlapping markets in
FL.
> There's also a lesson in the economics of scale. Don't think for a second
> VZW will not try to buy as much as they can. The only way they can grow is
> to buy as much they can from a competitor. A smaller regional carrier (I'd
> consider ALLTEL to have the upper hand in this one) can't really compete
> because they can't afford to offer the coverage or the rate plans that
> people would expect. (Imagine if you will a customer in Florida on ATTWS
> now who might get sold to Brand X cellular and had a One Rate plan or some
> national roaming plan. They're SOL if that carrier is small enough not to
> have comparable rate plans and/or phones)
>
> USCC may be a condtender for the Florida properties, because they're already
> selling service out there as it is in one county that Cingular doesn't have.
USCC just sold 90% of their FL markets to ATTWS. They self-admittedly
want to focus on building out their network in the central United States
and de-emphasize their holdings in other regions.
Similar Threads
- Cricket
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.nokia.ringtones
- alt.cellular.cingular
Recover scammed cryptocurrency
in Samsung