Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Andrew Shepherd
    Guest
    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




  2. #2
    Robert 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.



  3. #3
    dirty rat 753
    Guest

    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






  4. #4
    Andrew Shepherd
    Guest

    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/



  5. #5
    Andrew Shepherd
    Guest

    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/



  6. #6
    Terry Knab
    Guest

    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)






  7. #7
    Terry Knab
    Guest

    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.





  8. #8
    WAW
    Guest

    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




  9. #9
    dirty rat 753
    Guest

    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.






  10. #10
    Andrew Shepherd
    Guest

    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/



  11. #11
    Terry Knab
    Guest

    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.






  12. #12
    Stephen R. Conrad
    Guest

    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





  13. #13
    Andrew Shepherd
    Guest

    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/



  14. #14
    tom glaab
    Guest

    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.



  15. #15
    XFF
    Guest

    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




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast