Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FCC seeks comment on Cingular-AT&TWS waiver

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • License
  • Verizon
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
April 9, 2004 11:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The FCC is seeking comment on Cingular-AT&TWS' request for waiver of
the Cellular cross-interest rule which prohibits a Cellular licensee
from controlling greater than 5% attributable interest in the opposite
license in the same Rural Service Area (RSA). Grant of the waiver
will be required for AT&TWS to transfer Cellular license control to
Cingular in the eleven RSAs in which AT&TWS' A-side Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) & SBC or BellSouth's B-side CGSA
overlap.

Unfortunately, the cross-interest rule has already sunset for
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). A formal waiver is not
required, thus the FCC is not seeking comment at this time on
Cingular-AT&TWS aggregation of both Cellular licenses in markets like
Dallas, Miami, or Oklahoma City, et al. However, despite the sunset,
subsequent FCC &/or DoJ scrutiny of the merger is unlikely to give
Cingular-AT&TWS a free pass in the coincident MSAs either.

If you feel grant of the waiver for the RSAs would not be in the
public good, if you oppose any precedent-setting dissolution of the
Cellular duopolies - on anti-monopolistic competitive grounds, for
public safety reasons, for further dwindling AMPS capacity concerns,
etc. - I encourage you to personally submit a petition to deny.

The Cingular-AT&TWS merger should be allowed to proceed to
consummation but not w/o modest & reasonable concessions that would
pose no direct harm to the synergies of the merger. The
electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people. Wireless companies
are only licensees of that public property. Let the voice of public
interest - particularly that of the wireless community - be heard loud
& clear.

Further background & instructions for submitting comment can be found
in the following FCC document:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04...

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/

More about : fcc seeks comment cingular tws waiver

Anonymous
April 10, 2004 7:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> If you feel grant of the waiver for the RSAs would not be in the
> public good, if you oppose any precedent-setting dissolution of the
> Cellular duopolies - on anti-monopolistic competitive grounds, for
> public safety reasons, for further dwindling AMPS capacity concerns,
> etc. - I encourage you to personally submit a petition to deny.
>
> The Cingular-AT&TWS merger should be allowed to proceed to
> consummation but not w/o modest & reasonable concessions that would
> pose no direct harm to the synergies of the merger. The
> electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people. Wireless companies
> are only licensees of that public property. Let the voice of public
> interest - particularly that of the wireless community - be heard loud
> & clear.

My own opinion, based on the public safety, and AMPS capacity concerns,
is that I support cingular getting both licenses because of them.

On the pure spectrum issue, I think they should be treated the same as if
they
was two PCS bands.
(ie) There is no current spectrum cap to worry about.

There is good competition in those areas by PCS providers, so
there is no monopoly worries.
Florida is a well covered area by a number of companies.

But on the AMPS concerns,
The main area of impact will be on the remaining analog only phones.
Verizon (a possible buyer) no longer supports credit card roaming
by unactivated phone on their network, and will no longer activate any
type of analog only phone on their network, under any plan.
Most other possible buyers will not activate any analog only phone on their
network.
So the cellular AMPS capacity is of no real concern to them.
And is, to some degree, a burden that they would have to support.

Cingular still allows activation of analog only phones, to some degree.
That being their prepaid service.
And they have a complete and open credit card, and collect calling
system for unsupported roamers, and any unactivated phone, analog or
otherwise.
So them having both bands will give more options to those types of users.
But as far as the other potential buyers go, the AMPS capability will be of
no real use.
It would basically be giving the AMPS capable bands to the only company
in those areas that still supports any new working service for analog only
phones.
That would be a good thing.

The only other note, Alltel still will activate analog phones in some cases.
But in most cases, an owner of an analog phone will get no where with them.

IF the bands are sold, Alltel should be given first shot at the.
But beyond that, cingular should not be forced to divest of them.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 9:00:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> On the pure spectrum issue, I think they should be treated the same as if
> they was two PCS bands.
> (ie) There is no current spectrum cap to worry about.
>
> There is good competition in those areas by PCS providers, so
> there is no monopoly worries.
> Florida is a well covered area by a number of companies.

And another note,
In the MSAs and even some of the RSAs in question,
the network for both cingular, and AT&T,
are near full capacity, if not down right oversold.

It would be stupid, if not down right ludicrous to take
one of the two bands away from them, and tell them
they have to support the customers from both companies.

The customers would suffer horribly from the
service of the one system that has enough users for two systems.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 3:39:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<mUJdc.5346$i74.102102@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> There is good competition in those areas by PCS providers, so
> there is no monopoly worries.

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.
The same is true for the portions of OK-3 and TX-11 RSAs that are
overlapping. Florida's east coast is probably much better covered by
PCS providers, so I could see your argument to hold validity there.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 8:31:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<VbLdc.3167$K_.92470@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> And another note,
> In the MSAs and even some of the RSAs in question,
> the network for both cingular, and AT&T,
> are near full capacity, if not down right oversold.
>
> It would be stupid, if not down right ludicrous to take
> one of the two bands away from them, and tell them
> they have to support the customers from both companies.
>
> The customers would suffer horribly from the
> service of the one system that has enough users for two systems.

Clearly, if one of the two licenses would have to be divested, the
network infrastructure, stores, customers, and all other associated
assets would be divested along with it.

The same thing happened when the Airtouch/BAM/GTE merger forced the
divestiture of certain markets. They didn't just sell the licenses,
but all associated assets, including customers.
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 9:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Andrew Shepherd <cinema@ku.edu> wrote:
> The FCC is seeking comment on Cingular-AT&TWS' request for waiver of
> the Cellular cross-interest rule which prohibits a Cellular licensee
> from controlling greater than 5% attributable interest in the opposite
> license in the same Rural Service Area (RSA).

Are they going to build out in those rural areas, something most larger
carriers refuse to do? If they're going to actually build a network out there,
I'd be 1000% in favor of waiving the rule.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 10, 2004 11:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<mUJdc.5346$i74.102102@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> My own opinion, based on the public safety, and AMPS capacity concerns,
> is that I support cingular getting both licenses because of them.
>
> On the pure spectrum issue, I think they should be treated the same as if
> they
> was two PCS bands.
> (ie) There is no current spectrum cap to worry about.

Indeed, the CMRS spectrum cap was raised to a consistent 55 MHz, then
sunset entirely over a year ago on January 1, 2003. However, that is
not to say that it is now open-season on spectrum accumulation.
Quoted below is language from the FCC WTB's web site:

"Instead of the bright-line rule limiting the amount of spectrum to
preserve competition, the Commission opted going forward to analyze
the competitive effects of transactions involving mobile telephony
service providers on a case-by-case basis."

To analogize, please show me any market where but one licensee
controls 100% of all PCS spectrum - in parallel to your assertion that
Cingular-AT&TWS should be able to retain both Cellular licenses in the
affected RSAs - and I will completely agree w/ your contention. If
the percentage comparison is not fair, show me a market where one
licensee has managed to aggregate PCS spectrum totaling 50 MHz or
more. On the latter count, you might be able to locate a few markets
where one primary carrier plus its affiliates (read: AT&TWS) has
assembled 50 MHz, 55 MHz, or even perhaps 65 MHz, but those markets
are very few & far between, almost inevitably a combination of
Cellular plus PCS spectrum. Allowing one licensee total control of
all Cellular or all PCS spectrum in any given market would set a
dangerous hegemonic precedent.

To address Cellular specifically, Cellular licensees greedily want to
have their cake & eat it too. They want the more laissez faire
regulatory oversight like that of the PCS band as well as the superior
propagation characteristics of 800/850 MHz spectrum. But the latter
point in conjunction w/ the not-yet-sunset AMPS mandate and the two
decade buildout legacy undeniably sets Cellular apart from PCS,
positions Cellular in a special responsibility toward public service,
and places the greater good ahead of Cellular's desires for further
deregulation.

> Cingular still allows activation of analog only phones, to some degree.
> That being their prepaid service.
> And they have a complete and open credit card, and collect calling
> system for unsupported roamers, and any unactivated phone, analog or
> otherwise.
> So them having both bands will give more options to those types of users.
> But as far as the other potential buyers go, the AMPS capability will be of
> no real use.
> It would basically be giving the AMPS capable bands to the only company
> in those areas that still supports any new working service for analog only
> phones.
> That would be a good thing.

Cingular has disclosed in its own regulatory filings that it typically
maintains only six AMPS channels per sector in an N=4*3
frequency-reuse pattern for a total AMPS bandwidth of ~4 MHz.

6(30 + 30 KHz)(4 * 3) = 4.32 MHz

If Cingular-AT&TWS were allowed to retain both Cellular licenses in
any or all of the eleven RSAs, it could not entirely remove AMPS from
either one of the coincident licenses (see below). The two Cellular
licences will always remain technically distinct, even if both are
ultimately controlled by a single licensee. But what would prevent
Cingular-AT&TWS from maintaining Cingular's current ~4 MHz AMPS outlay
by reducing capacity to three AMPS channels per sector per license or
even to the bare minimum of only one channel? Such would be a great
detriment to the public safety component of Cellular by potentially
jeopardizing the wireless emergency ability of the majority CDMA/AMPS
users.

> The only other note, Alltel still will activate analog phones in some cases.
> But in most cases, an owner of an analog phone will get no where with them.

Contractual AMPS service is beside the point. In North America, AMPS
is still the lingua franca - the lowest common language - the last
line of defense - for roaming & wireless E911. And, like it or not,
AMPS is still the only modulation that matters for AMPS regulatory
concerns. Until 2008, all Cellular licensees' CGSAs (i.e. licensed
coverage areas) will continue to be defined by the extent of their
AMPS footprints. TDMA or CDMA or GSM or W-CDMA are simply irrelevant
to that point. While the breadth of AMPS coverage will undoubtedly be
preserved, the fact that the GSM-MAP declines to cooperate w/ IS-41
AMPS is not an excuse to pare the depth of AMPS capacity to
dangerously low levels.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 12:08:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<VbLdc.3167$K_.92470@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> And another note,
> In the MSAs and even some of the RSAs in question,
> the network for both cingular, and AT&T,
> are near full capacity, if not down right oversold.

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?

> It would be stupid, if not down right ludicrous to take
> one of the two bands away from them, and tell them
> they have to support the customers from both companies.
>
> The customers would suffer horribly from the
> service of the one system that has enough users for two systems.

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.

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 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.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 12:24:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> 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.
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.

If the majority of the population live in those corridors, then the FCC
will consider that those companies are adequately serving that area.

I don't know about Oklahoma, and Texas at this point,
I will take the time to look over them in a minute,
but with the coverage that the sprint, verizon, and Nextel claim in Florida,
any one of them easily cover the majority of the population in the Florida
RSA's
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 1:15:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<QJYdc.9737$i74.187454@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> 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/e..."
"http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/e..."

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/e..."

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
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 1:31:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<QJYdc.9737$i74.187454@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> > 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.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 1:45:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

What good will all that AMPS spectrum do for you when AMPS phones have
essential been phased out? It's doubtful any other carrier can make a
profit trying to sell the old technology. Expecting some charitable org to
step in and offer an obsolete service to people with old existing phones
seems unlikely to me.


"Andrew Shepherd" <cinema@ku.edu> wrote in message
news:33e89561.0404091808.e085c18@posting.google.com...
> The FCC is seeking comment on Cingular-AT&TWS' request for waiver of
> the Cellular cross-interest rule which prohibits a Cellular licensee
> from controlling greater than 5% attributable interest in the opposite
> license in the same Rural Service Area (RSA). Grant of the waiver
> will be required for AT&TWS to transfer Cellular license control to
> Cingular in the eleven RSAs in which AT&TWS' A-side Cellular
> Geographic Service Area (CGSA) & SBC or BellSouth's B-side CGSA
> overlap.
>
> Unfortunately, the cross-interest rule has already sunset for
> Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). A formal waiver is not
> required, thus the FCC is not seeking comment at this time on
> Cingular-AT&TWS aggregation of both Cellular licenses in markets like
> Dallas, Miami, or Oklahoma City, et al. However, despite the sunset,
> subsequent FCC &/or DoJ scrutiny of the merger is unlikely to give
> Cingular-AT&TWS a free pass in the coincident MSAs either.
>
> If you feel grant of the waiver for the RSAs would not be in the
> public good, if you oppose any precedent-setting dissolution of the
> Cellular duopolies - on anti-monopolistic competitive grounds, for
> public safety reasons, for further dwindling AMPS capacity concerns,
> etc. - I encourage you to personally submit a petition to deny.
>
> The Cingular-AT&TWS merger should be allowed to proceed to
> consummation but not w/o modest & reasonable concessions that would
> pose no direct harm to the synergies of the merger. The
> electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people. Wireless companies
> are only licensees of that public property. Let the voice of public
> interest - particularly that of the wireless community - be heard loud
> & clear.
>
> Further background & instructions for submitting comment can be found
> in the following FCC document:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04...
>
> Andrew
> --
> Andrew Shepherd
> cinema@ku.edu
> cinema@sprintpcs.com
> http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 1:48:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> I don't know about Oklahoma, and Texas at this point,
> I will take the time to look over them in a minute,
> but with the coverage that the sprint, verizon, and Nextel claim in
Florida,
> any one of them easily cover the majority of the population in the Florida
> RSA's

After looking at those areas, I only see one service area that
is kinda hanging out in the dry.
That is the service area around Lufkin Texas.
The only other provider that has any measure of
coverage in that area is T mobile.

All the other providers (verizon, sprint.... +others) have licenses, but
they have never took the time to put any coverage down.
ATT has moderate coverage in the top part,
cingular shows the area as having relatively solid coverage.

In and of it's self, the ATT coverage in that RSA doesn't really
qualify as adequate coverage by it's self.
If someone bought it, they wouldn't be buying much.
And the buyer would have to change it over to CDMA,
unless T mobile bought it, which is not going to happen.

In my opinion.
The other carriers would get better coverage by putting the money
into the bands they already own in that RSA, not buying more to take care
of.
They would basically be buying a band with no equipment
that is really useable on their network.
That would be in addition to the band they already own
that has no operating equipment.
And they would get no new customers from the acquisition.

Yes, a few towers, but with the 30 mill+ that it will take to get the RSA,
you could build enough towers to totally cover the area with a PCS system.
So selling that RSA would not be in the best interest of the users.
tell the other providers to take any potential bid money and
apply it to the bands they already own in that area.
The users would be far better off.

There is a reason CDMA providers normal don't buy out TDMA providers.
(or vice versa)
It is a waste of money.
If they already own spectrum there, then it is a total waste of money.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 4:21:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Clearly, if one of the two licenses would have to be divested, the
> network infrastructure,

Network infrastructure will about be worthless to most potential buyers.
The tower it's self will be the only useable thing at the cell sites.
The equipment will have to be totally replaced on the change over to CDMA.

> stores,

Not much to talk about in that type of area.
Something that will be up for sale anyways.

>customers,

Which each and every one will have to have a new handset for cdma.
Either the company buys each one a new handset for free, no contract,
or the company forces them to sign a new contract for a new phone.
If they do the latter, I don't think any of the customers will hang around
for long.
They will keep their old phone and go to T mobile or Cingular

>and all other associated
> assets would be divested along with it.

Most of the other assets will be worthless to a CDMA carrier.
They will be starting from square one, if they got one of the RSAs.
There is not enough customers to justify keeping TDMA/GSM for a while,
and there will be no customers left to talk about after they change to CDMA.

> The same thing happened when the Airtouch/BAM/GTE merger forced the
> divestiture of certain markets. They didn't just sell the licenses,
> but all associated assets, including customers.

The technology divide wasn't nearly as large as it is today.
Today, the systems are almost totally incompatible.
If there was other 800Mhz TDMA/GSM carriers around,
then there would be basses for a divesture, but there is not.

And another thing, ATT uses 1900Mhz GSM and 800Mhz TDMA/AMPS.
The only customers that could even be argued to be customers of the 800Mhz
block that will be divested is the older TDMA/AMPS customers.
All the GSM users will go with the PCS block that will go to cingular.
There will be no customers worth talking about that can be connected to
the licenses.

And on the towers that have both PCS and cell antennas.......
Will they go to cingular because they go with the PCS band?
Or will they go with the divesture, because they are part of the cell band?

It is not as easy as it was with the air touch stuff.

In the end, the only thing the company would really be buying is the
spectrum.
And they already have spectrum which they are not using, so they are buying
nothing.
All other assets are of nominal worth, or rendered worthless.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 6:02:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> The technology divide wasn't nearly as large as it is today.
> Today, the systems are almost totally incompatible.
> If there was other 800Mhz TDMA/GSM carriers around,
> then there would be basses for a divesture, but there is not.

Well....... now that I think about it.... there is two
Dobson cellular systems, for the Lufkin Texas.
And US cellular for the RSA's around Dallas.
That is the only carriers that could make use of that system "as is".
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 7:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> To analogize, please show me any market where but one licensee
> controls 100% of all PCS spectrum - in parallel to your assertion that
> Cingular-AT&TWS should be able to retain both Cellular licenses in the
> affected RSAs -

I don't really see the logic in that statement.
The cellular blocks A and B should be considered part of the
telephony band in the same group with the PCS bands.
Same technology and application, just a separated by a large frequency
margin.

So, to have two Cellular bands is the same as having two PCS bands.
To own the two cell bands is not owning all the telephony spectrum that is
available.
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.
If they don't provide good service, then take some bandwidth away
from them and sell it to someone that will.

>and I will completely agree w/ your contention. If
> the percentage comparison is not fair, show me a market where one
> licensee has managed to aggregate PCS spectrum totaling 50 MHz or
> more. On the latter count, you might be able to locate a few markets
> where one primary carrier plus its affiliates (read: AT&TWS) has
> assembled 50 MHz, 55 MHz, or even perhaps 65 MHz, but those markets
> are very few & far between, almost inevitably a combination of
> Cellular plus PCS spectrum. Allowing one licensee total control of
> all Cellular or all PCS spectrum in any given market would set a
> dangerous hegemonic precedent.

I don't see the major difference between cellular and PCS licenses anymore.
The only arguable difference is the amps capacity.
But the FCC is no longer taking the AMPS subject very seriously any more.
All new phone can use the cell and PCS bands with indifference.
As long as other carriers have access reasonable access to that
area, and they have systems to support the area, I see nothing wrong with
it.

> To address Cellular specifically, Cellular licensees greedily want to
> have their cake & eat it too. They want the more laissez faire
> regulatory oversight like that of the PCS band as well as the superior
> propagation characteristics of 800/850 MHz spectrum. But the latter
> point in conjunction w/ the not-yet-sunset AMPS mandate and the two
> decade buildout legacy undeniably sets Cellular apart from PCS,
> positions Cellular in a special responsibility toward public service,
> and places the greater good ahead of Cellular's desires for further
> deregulation.

The AMPS mandate is something that the FCC is only for existing systems,
and new systems don't even have to meet that mandate.
As I said, the FCC is not taking the AMPS mandate with any vigor any more.
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.
And if it is evident that the cellular providers no longer have an advantage
in
the RSA's, then they will wave any rules regarding cellular ownership.

> Cingular has disclosed in its own regulatory filings that it typically
> maintains only six AMPS channels per sector in an N=4*3
> frequency-reuse pattern for a total AMPS bandwidth of ~4 MHz.
>
> 6(30 + 30 KHz)(4 * 3) = 4.32 MHz
> If Cingular-AT&TWS were allowed to retain both Cellular licenses in
> any or all of the eleven RSAs, it could not entirely remove AMPS from
> either one of the coincident licenses (see below). The two Cellular
> licences will always remain technically distinct, even if both are
> ultimately controlled by a single licensee. But what would prevent
> Cingular-AT&TWS from maintaining Cingular's current ~4 MHz AMPS outlay
> by reducing capacity to three AMPS channels per sector per license or
> even to the bare minimum of only one channel? Such would be a great
> detriment to the public safety component of Cellular by potentially
> jeopardizing the wireless emergency ability of the majority CDMA/AMPS
> users.

They keep enough channels to support the average users on the band.
As they said, "typically"
That is what they have found to be sufficient to do the job.
If they have an area that has higher amps usage,
they probably have a few more channels available to that area.
The amps load would be balance between both bands,
same as all the other system usage.
All the other carriers also keep the minimum AMPS channels to provide
service.

> > The only other note, Alltel still will activate analog phones in some
cases.
> > But in most cases, an owner of an analog phone will get no where with
them.
>
> Contractual AMPS service is beside the point. In North America, AMPS
> is still the lingua franca - the lowest common language - the last
> line of defense - for roaming & wireless E911. And, like it or not,
> AMPS is still the only modulation that matters for AMPS regulatory
> concerns.

And the amps capability will be there, irrelevant of who owns the band.
Cellular phone operation is not a requirement as far as the FCC is
concerned.
The only thing that is a requirement is that all carriers forward 911.
If they thought universal roaming was a requirement,
then it would be a law that all phones have AMPS.
They don't.
As long as the system will forward any 911 call from
any phone that can connect to it, the FCC is happy..

> Until 2008, all Cellular licensees' CGSAs (i.e. licensed
> coverage areas) will continue to be defined by the extent of their
> AMPS footprints.

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.
But what difference does that make as for who can own the band?

>TDMA or CDMA or GSM or W-CDMA are simply irrelevant
> to that point.

They are not irrelevant in today's world.

> While the breadth of AMPS coverage will undoubtedly be
> preserved, the fact that the GSM-MAP declines to cooperate w/ IS-41
> AMPS is not an excuse to pare the depth of AMPS capacity to
> dangerously low levels.


Now.... I am a supporter of AMPS, that you must know,
but that doesn't change the fact of the current cellular environment.
I have generally accepted that, no matter how much I like my bag phone,
AMPS should not have any part in the decision on the divesture of the bands.
The AMPS concern is only going to be around for 4 years.
The company must live with it for the rest of it's life.
The users must put up with the service as long as they are there.
Long after the AMPS mandates are long gone.
The choice should be based on the questions of......
Is there adequate competition provided by other service providers?
And is the other providers covering the majority of the population,
so that the majority of the population has a choice of what service provider
to use?
No about a mode that
(no matter how much I hate to admit it)
is not important any more.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 8:08:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> 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.
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 7:58:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<L_2ec.6592$K_.210187@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> 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.
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 12:39:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote in message news:<33e89561.0404102029.394ee46c@posting.google.com>...

> 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.
!