FCC seeks comment on Cingular-AT&TWS waiver

> And whose fault is that? Should the FCC & the American public bend
> over backwards to accomodate Cingular & AT&TWS because they - of their
> own volition - selected less efficient 3G migration paths that require
> the reinvention of their networks every few years in conjunction w/
> the maintainance of multiple legacy air-interfaces beyond AMPS?

To be blunt.
(This is not aimed at you, but more of a general rant.)
I am getting sick and tired of people talking about 3G.
I hope cingular sticks to what one of the officials said.
That they will change to 3G only if they see a market for it.
It may be 10 years before they do, or they may skip it and
go directly to 4G or something else.
As of this time, EDGE is their end game.
ALL the new WCDMA stuff on ATT"s system will
probably go to storage bin for a while, if not for eternity.
3G is the most stupid, blown out of proportion thing I have ever seen!

> Consolidation of both customer bases into one Cellular system will not
> be an issue. Cingular-AT&TWS should not be allowed to keep both sets
> of customers either. Just as in the detritus markets of the VZW
> merger or the original Cingular partnership, the subs in the markets
> affected by required regulatory divestiture will become transitioned
> customers of ALLTEL or USCC or WWC, etc.

That is one place where I think the laws are being used for something
they were not intended for.
If the provider has no way of serving them after the divesture,
then the users should go with the band, but if the users
can be supported after the divesture, then they should not force the
company to sell the users with the band.
The law states that a company can not own both blocks.
If the company wants to sell the towers and customers with
the one cell block that it is selling, that is it's own business.
It is not the FCC's job to micromanage things.
The FCC and DOJ doing that is pure communism.

> The FCC has prime opportunity to preserve the current levels of
> wireless competition in the applicable 11 RSAs by mandating
> single-side divestments to new entrants into the markets. If the
> merger is approved, as competition will be lost - a nod to big
> business, not to the consumer - in a plurality of markets nationwide,
> the least that can be done is to maintain the status quo in as many
> markets as possible - both RSAs & MSAs alike. Additionally, as the
> most interested parties in the divested licenses would likely be one
> or more of the three aforementioned above - all CDMA carriers -
> diversity of technology in the markets would be improved which would
> also be toward the greater public good.

The job of the FCC is to make sure that there is adequate competition.
Not dictate how many companies should be serving an area.
If there is adequate competition, then the FCC should not stick it's nose in

> The airwaves are the dominion of all Americans. The burden of proof
> should be upon Cingular & AT&TWS to demonstrate that they are
> efficient & responsible public stewards of that very privileged
> resource. As it stands, their case for Cellular monopoly is less than
> compelling.

The band was won by them on a fair auction.
If they abuse it, then there is a right to take away their use of that band.
The band is public property above all.
But the FCC and DOJ has no right to make them sell their customers,
their property, or their equipment with that band.
That is what a government of a communist nation does.
I feel very strongly about that.
The agreement between the customer and the provider is the
responsibility of the two parties involved.

The government is overstepping it's bounds in those cases,
And I will not support it in any way shape or form.
That is what I believe, nothing more, nothing less.

This will be my last post on this subject.
I have nothing more to add.
Any other arguments will just be a rerun of the stuff
already posted, and a total waste of time.
Good day.

---

› See More: FCC seeks comment on Cingular-AT&TWS waiver

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> You don't want to confuse area covered and population covered.
> The FCC considers a service area as properly covered when
> the majority of the population is within the covered area.
> If 90% of the population is concentrated in 10% of the land area,
> you just have to cover 10% of the land area, and you have an easy majority.

And you do not want to confuse the area-based construction requirement
of Cellular w/ the population-based benchmarks of PCS!

To briefly summarize, Cellular's area-based stipulation is
geographically a "use it or lose it" proposition. The Phase 1
five-year buildout period gives the Cellular licensee exclusive domain
over the entire CMA. At the end of the initial five-year grant, the
licensed service area is fixed as either - whichever is lesser - the
entire CMA or the Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) as the
composite of all Service Area Boundaries (SABs) as 32 dBu AMPS
contours of all sites inside the CMA. In other words, if the licensee
does not deploy AMPS throughout the CMA w/in five years, it loses
exclusive right to the unserved areas. In Phase 2, all entrants to
the market may submit applications to claim & deploy at least AMPS to
any unserved areas - of which Commnet Wireless has made a cottage
industry in the American west.

"http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/47cfr22.947.htm"
"http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/47cfr22.911.htm"

In contrast, the PCS construction requirements are entirely predicated
on provision of adequate service to a mandated percentage of the
licensed population as defined by the tracts of the 1990 or 2000
census. The PCS A, PCS B, & PCS C 30 MHz licensees must serve 1/3
licensed POPs w/in five years and 2/3 POPs w/in 10 years. Licensees
of PCS D, PCS E, & PCS F 10 MHz or FCC-disaggregated PCS C 10 MHz or
15 MHz blocks must serve 1/4 POPs or "make a showing of substantial
service" w/in five years after which no further buildout is federally
mandated.

"http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/47cfr24.203.htm"

As PCS licensees are only compelled - by arguably flawed regulation -
to construct wireless coverage in areas of permanent population let
alone transient population such as highways, while Cellular licensees
- either original or unserved applicants - are bound to serve entire
geographic areas regardless of population density, the case is only
furthered for primacy of Cellular in the underlying public service
aspect of wireless.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Good idea!!!!!!!!!
>
> Stipulation on them keeping both bands.
> ......................................................
> If they build out both bands to reasonably cover ALL the
> service area within the RSAs in which they own both
> cellular bands, they get to keep both bands, by default.

Yeah yeah yeah. The RBOCs have advanced basically the same argument
over rural broadband Internet. If only the states will not require
them to lease their network facilities to competitors, then they will
extend DSL broadband service to outerlying areas. Well, the Baby
Bells should be trusted about as far as any of them can be thrown -
which is not very far to say the least! Let us face it, the RBOCs
want nothing more than to stymie competition through the preservation
of their regulated regional monopolies. And Cingular-AT&TWS' (read:
SBC's & BellSouth's) request for waiver of the Cellular cross-interest
rule is just more of the Baby Bell same!

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > That is definitely not true for the overlapping RSAs in Texas.
> > Specifically, TX-18, TX-19, and TX-20 RSAs have no usable PCS service
> > aside from the Interstate corridors covered by SPCS, VZW, and
> > T-Mobile. There are huge areas in those RSAs that have no PCS
> > coverage, in fact there are areas that barely have cellular coverage.
>
> You don't want to confuse area covered and population covered.

You're right, I don't :-)

> The FCC considers a service area as properly covered when
> the majority of the population is within the covered area.
> If 90% of the population is concentrated in 10% of the land area,
> you just have to cover 10% of the land area, and you have an easy majority.

TX-18/19/20 do not have much in terms of significant population
centers, unless you want to count Del Rio and Eagle Pass. It's pretty
sparsely populated land with whatever little population there is
spread over many many square miles.

In any case, while PCS coverage is being evaluated by population
covered, cellular coverage is not. Unserved and underserved cellular
license areas are always subject to the unserved and underserved
cellular license area clause which allows another provider to come in
and claim the license for that area and offer service, just like
Commnet Wireless is doing in many markets all over the western United
States.

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> So, to have two Cellular bands is the same as having two PCS bands.

No, that is far from true. Theoretically, spectrum is spectrum
regardless of frequency, but that's ignoring the historical,
technical, regulatory, and factual differences between cellular and
PCS.

If in fact, PCS buildout was anywhere near the levels of cellular
buildout I could go with your argument, but the fact of the matter is
that cellular coverage in most markets is wall-to-wall whereas PCS
coverage is more like a spiderweb. Major metro centers and connecting
major highway corridors have coverage and huge areas inbetween do not.
We all know the variuos reasons and justifications for the different
buildout patterns, but ignoring these facts is irresponsible when it
comes to such an important issue, the resolution of which could
conceivably result in a single company providng service to several
large rural areas.

> To own the two cell bands is not owning all the telephony spectrum that is
> available.

As a matter of fact, in the vast majority of TX-18/19/20 it is. There
is absolutly no usable PCS service aside from the Interstate and a
very few other selected highway corridors.

> The cellular and PCS bands should be considered as one pool.
> Example.
> As long as there is three or more users with access to spectrum in an area,
> there should be no restriction on what part of the pool they own, as long
> as all three of them have a part of it, and provide good service.

But as a matter of fact that is not the case in TX-18/19/20. There is
only AT&T (still operating under the USCC brand) and Cingular and
that's it.

> If they don't provide good service, then take some bandwidth away
> from them and sell it to someone that will.

Not possible. The PCS carriers operate under the 1/3, 2/3 population
coverage rule, as Andrew has explained in detail. So even though PCS
carriers are fulfilling their legal service obligations, large rural
areas are without PCS service and probably will remain without PCS
service for decades. Since the licensing rules have been defined as
to not require market-wide coverage, the PCS providers are in fact
complying with their mandate and there's no grounds to terminate any
licenses. Cellular is the communications lifeblood of these markets
and giving both bands to one company would set a dangerous precedent
that could be difficult to reverse and recover from.

> I don't see the major difference between cellular and PCS licenses anymore.

As explained earlier, the difference is beyond huge. In simple terms,
many rural areas have cellular coverage, but no PCS service of any
kind. Stating that there is no major difference between cellular and
PCS licenses is like saying there's no major difference between day
and night.

> And the FCC is getting to the point that they consider that PCS has had
> adequate
> time to build out in most heavily populated areas, and that cellular
> providers no
> longer have any arguable advantage.

That is true for "heavily populated areas", but keep in mind that this
entire discussion focuses around 11 RSAs, some of which are extremely
sparsely populated and have no PCS service of any kind in the vast
majority of the market.

> The coverage area will be what ever figure the company wants to make up.
> It could be based on a 3W bag phone, or .2W digi phone.
> There is a heavy fudge factor in that.

No, the CGSA criteria are very well defined, based on the 32 dBu
contours and have nothing to do with the handset whatsoever.

[email protected] (Andrew Shepherd) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Well, the Baby
> Bells should be trusted about as far as any of them can be thrown -
> which is not very far to say the least! Let us face it, the RBOCs
> want nothing more than to stymie competition through the preservation
> of their regulated regional monopolies. And Cingular-AT&TWS' (read:
> SBC's & BellSouth's) request for waiver of the Cellular cross-interest
> rule is just more of the Baby Bell same!

While I agree with your points, as N9WOS pointed out, Cingular is by
far the most "AMPS-friendly" of the national carriers. If someone had
to be allowed to control both A&B blocks, you could certainly do worse
than Cingular! ;-)

Besides, while divesting spectrum is easy, divesting customers isn't-
realistically those customers have little value to either company as
an asset since they're all free agents when their contracts expire.

The government realistically can't "give" Cingular customers to a
competitor anymore than they could announce that starting tomorrow 1/2
of McDonald's customers now "belong" to Arby's.

Any spectrum divestiture should be handled like radio and TV station
divestiture is handled (or, rather, WAS handled before those spectrum
caps went away!)- give the company a reasonable period, say 12-24
months to sell off the extra spectrum assets (with/without towers,
equipment, customers, or whatever- the "sin" we're addressing is
spectrum- anything else is between the buyer and the seller). If
someone wants it bad enough they can buy it, or swap for it (i.e.
Verizon might want 800MHz spectrum in a market they only have 1900MHz
in and could swap their PCS spectrum for the extra Cingular cellular
band.) If nobody buys the spectrum from Cingular by the deadline, it
goes back for reauctioning.

Also, divestiture isn't the only solution- the feds could instead
force Cingular to commit to alternative, more creative, methods of
fostering competition- forcing them to allow resellers, requiring
"good faith" negotiations of wholesale airtime rates to those
resellers as well as to competitors seeking roaming partners in those
CSAs, etc.

But a reasonable deadline spectrum-only divestiture or a
PCS-for-cellular band swap would certainly work, satisfying both those
who fear monopolist domination of 800MHz spectrum, and those who'd
prefer a (primarily) free-market solution to the problem.