AT&T To Pay $1.93 Billion For FLO TV Spectrum

itwbennett writes "AT&T on Monday announced it is buying from Qualcomm $1.925 billion worth of wireless spectrum that it plans to use for a 4G network. The spectrum was bought by Qualcomm for $125 million and had powered FLO TV."

Comments

Two billion sounds about right

[MichaelSmith]

One link I found makes that the 698-806 MHz band so its about 100Mhz wide but I suppose the value is the universality of it. You can smother the US with microcells. Maximum individual throughput is limited by that 100Mhz bandwidth, and its not fantastic. Probably enough to put a serious dint into demand for ADSL, especially in low density areas.

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[adolf]

Microcells?

The 700MHz band penetrates buildings and foliage better than any current cellular frequency. It's best use is for long-distance links.

1800/1900MHz would be a far better bet for an army of microcells.

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[adolf]

Bandwith is limited so you want to use low power close to the user.

Your statement is absolutely true.

But bandwidth is (by definition) limited in any band. It is better to use those bands which are actually good at traversing long distances to traverse long distances, than to use those same bands to traverse short distances when other bands could perform the same job more efficiently.

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[commodore64_love]

UHF is better than the current gigahertz band, but still not great. UHF gets blocked by solid objects like trees, houses, skyscrapers, et cetera. It's a line-of-sight transmission. ----- In contrast VHF "bends" and can reach into the shadows behind these objects. I think an ideal place for cellphones would be Channels 1-6, since these are almost worthless for digital television (picture breaks-up). Also the space above AM upto channel 1, and the gap between FM and channel 7. All of these operate very long distance (50 miles) with minimal power (3000 watt).

Also as I mentioned below this FLO-TV was only a single channel (55) of six megahertz width. Just a teeny-tiny drop in the bucket in the overall bandwidth picture. I'm surprised ATT paid so much for it.

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[bledri]

You have to be careful. One time I bought a bunch of spectrum at 730MHz in Tallahassee, Florida , and the guy said it was supposed to be good for the microcells.

But I think I got ripped off, because the bandwidth is swamping me.

Same thing happened to me in New York, but I ended up with a baggy of oregano.

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[hazydave]

Both UHF and VHF get attenuated, not entirely blocked, by objects: trees, houses, skyscrapers, etc... and both diffract around said objects. That's why your cellphone works indoors.

Higher frequency UHF is strongly attenuated by foliage, lower frequency UHF and VHF, no so much. As a digital radio designer, I did a 2.4GHz ISM band radio, narrowband, fairly long range, but it stopped dead at the edge of a forest. My next radio, at 435MHz (used to control robots) went completely through the forest, over a slight hill, and out to a roadway 1/2 mile away.

That's big reason so much money changed hands in the FCC's 700MHz auction. Verizon nabbed 22MHz there, AT&T 12MHz. So Flo TV's 6MHz, 716-722MHz, may not seem like much, but it boosts AT&Ts 4G band by 50%. They're closing down Flo TV in March, AT&T is expected to launch their LTE-based "4G" (not real 4G yet, but a first step) sometime over the summer. Unless, like everyone else has been, they're six months late.

There's no value in a 50 mile range for cellular.... no matter how powerful the tower, the handset is still going to be limited to about a watt, maybe less (US cellular devices can run up to 3W, but handsets usually max out a 1W or less... the cell tower actually tweaks the handset's output to something it can hear).

The 700MHz band is bandwidth limited compared to Sprint, for example.. the Sprint/Clear/Comcast WiMax network has about 90MHz in the 2500MHz band, so they have a higher peak capacity, for sure. But they're going to need more power per cell in cities, if not more cells, to get into buildings. And they're going to have issues with rural coverage -- as Sprint and T-Mobile already do for 2G and 3G. They're limited to 1900MHz, while AT&T and Verizon both have slots at both 850MHz and 1900MHz. My house is centered in 26 acres of forest. I can get Verizon in my cellar, AT&T though most of the house, but T-Mobile is pretty much outdoors only, while Sprint, last I checked, is available at the end of my driveway.

Of course, you can always deal with the limited bandwidth issue by using more, lower powered cells in highly populated areas. The only real fix for the higher frequency stuff outside of high population areas is more cells, something historically just never done by these guys,

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[hazydave]

LTE supports 81.6Mb/s and 200 active data clients on a 5MHz channel, using 4x4 MIMO, 43.2Mb/s with 2x2 MIMO. Not quite as bad as you let on here. Obviously, if you had 200 data users on a cell, they're not all getting the high speed they're after... but no different than the 3G situation -- about 21Mb/s via HSPA or 56Mb/s with HSPA+ (2x2 MIMO and 64QAM).

AT&T has actually been buying up 700MHz spectrum for years now. Along with the national Block B 12MHz they bought at FCC Auction 73, they own up to 12MHz of Block C from some of these other purchases... I hadn't realized they bought Aloha Partners sometime back in 2007. So that's up to 24MHz in some areas, even before you factor in this new 6MHz block. LTE doesn't support more than 20MHz per channel, but in aggregate, AT&T may have up to 480Mb/s of LTE per cell. Not too shabby.

Verizon has been doing much the same thing... they spent $4.7 billion for the national 700MHz Block C (and a few licenses in Block A as well) they won in Auction 73, 22MHz wide. And another $4.66 billion buying up 700MHz spectrum owned by regional companies... no idea just how much, or where. But both companies are well situated for 4G, and clearly, the scarcity of this commodity is driving the price up. This has Verizon with up to 90MHz of aggregate spectrum in places (3G + 4G), over 45MHz through most of the country.

It'll be interesting to see if Echostar hangs on to their 6MHz Block E ($722 million), given they could better than double their money on it now. And the FCC still plans to run the Block D auction again, probably next year (Block D has to be shared with public service use).

Re:Two billion sounds about right

[camperslo]

I think an ideal place for cellphones would be Channels 1-6, since these are almost worthless for digital television (picture breaks-up).

There hasn't been an over-the-air channel 1 in the U.S. since 1941.

The "gap" between the FM band and TV channel 7 is spectrum a cable system can and do use because they control all of their signals, but those frequencies are already licensed for many over-the-air uses. It's NOT empty spectrum. AM broadcast through where channel 1 was isn't empty either.

The optimum length for antenna elements relates to the wavelength which is inversely proportional to the frequency. A 1/4 wave antenna for channel 2 would be close to five feet long. It's not practical to put a big whip or pair of rabbit ears on a cellphone.

Channels 2 - 6 may occasionally get some pulse noise from things like crackling dirty power line insulators, but the range for tv is actually better than any of the other channels provided that people put up full-sized antennas with the longer elements needed for lower frequencies. In practice many people are unwilling or unable to put up the larger antennas, and have an easier time with small UHF or medium sized high-band (7 - 13) VHF antennas. In any event, if people have trouble find room where they live for a low-band VHF antenna, they certainly won't have access to anything optimal (huge) on handheld devices. About twice the size of an FM whip, about half that of an old CB antenna, is what it would take. It would be great for emergency use in cars with long whip antennas.
Although rated at the same gain compared to reference dipoles, the larger lower frequency antennas pick up more energy due to their larger capture area. (dish antennas are an exception) That's the main reason VHF stations are licensed with less power than UHF to do the same job.

Except for areas with very low population density, long-range data access is not practical when a great deal of bandwidth is needed. The bandwidth basically has to be divided among the active users in the area covered. The area covered goes up with the square of the distance so the number of users would climb rapidly as range goes up.

Although a traditional DTV broadcast is seen by mnay people, since the transmission is one way with the same content available to all, the bandwidth then all goes to ONE user. A 6 MHz channel provides far less per person when each is doing their own thing.

If users need significant bandwidth, a better system would be to have a huge amount of very cheap bandwidth to our homes and public access spots, and wideband very short range hotspots all over.

I think it's a bit of an industry conspiracy that people are being scared into not sharing their wireless networks. The threats of malware and snooping exist for internet use in general. The focus for shared wireless should be use of well designed routers and access control. Control ports, bandwidth etc to protect performance of the host user(s), have guest authentication and controls to prevent abuses (p2p, underage porn or whatever). With well designed cooperative hardware we could easily have what amounts to free VOIP in many (stationary) places, and if we had home networks with the sort of bandwidth many abroad get, even guest sharing for video streaming would be viable.

The wireless part of this picture could be essentially free. Not what AT&T wants...

Let's see Apple or a new startup revolutionize wireless sharing by offering a new breed of router. Think DD-WRT with Apple DNA in it.

The end.

[adolf]

And this, friends, represents the end of the glory that should have been the giant swaths of 700MHz spectrum which were liberated as part of the move from NTSC to ATSC.

RIP, dreams.

Re:The end.

[adolf]

Channels 52-83 were owned by TV stations for their exclusive use, and now the frequencies have been leased to a singular Cell carrier for use by that carrier's customers. How is this a bad thing? Looks like a net positive to me.

There. Fixed that for you.

(Please realize that I draw my opinion from the fact that, once upon a time, nobody owned any airwaves but the people -- and that the initial concept of outside ownership was a transfer of rights from the people to corporations, not between corporations. They are inherently our airwaves, not those of whom are represented by a stock ticker.)

Re:The end.

[commodore64_love]

Disagree with your conclusion.

Yes the Congress & FCC spent millions on converter boxes, but they collected *billions* from the sale of channels 52-69 (and also 70-83 in the early 1990s). So it was a net win for the People's Treasury. You're right that most of these devices are built in China, but that's really a separate issue (US workers charge too much for their labor) which the FCC has no power to control.

Re:The end.

[cyber-vandal]

American workers charge too much for their labour? Are you working for Chinese money then?

Re:The end.

[aliquis]

You don't have to buy from China if you don't want to.

You could buy American made products, though that may cost American tax payers even more. But sure, will also benefit Americans more at other places.

Hardly a bandit though.

Capitalism is only good as long as the US is _GOD_ of capitalism? =P

Re:The end.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love when jackasses like you with no sense of social structure make comments like that. I'm sure later on, when your job ends up overseas, you will be whining about how the government wasn't protecting the citizens enough, while the same person saying that right now, you would be calling a jingoist moron calling for isolationism.

I've seen people yawp about that, "hey, I don't give a shit where the goods are made, as long as I can have my 20 pack of tube socks for $1.99 at Wal-Mart." Then they wonder why they don't get pay raises, their company goes into hiring freezes, or the company gets shut down, stomped by foreign competitors whose sole advantage is that they have a cheaper workforce. Not skilled, mind you. Cheaper.

Do you REALLY want to live in a country where its government's goal is to be economically competitive to any and all comers in the world? I sure don't. The US went through days of 12 hour workdays, 7 days a week in the Gilded Age, and those were for the children. Do you want to live in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle?" Most people sure don't.

The rhetoric you spout is spewed by two types of people in the US: The genuinely rich (and don't count yourself as that unless you are doing 7 digits worth of dollars a year), and those who have not completed a high school education, have little to no knowledge of basic economics or civics, and are just toeing the line on the far right propaganda machine.

Does that Brawndo taste good?

Re:Mobile IP.

[MichaelSmith]

Netcraft confirms it. Mobile TV is dead!

Long live youtube over 3G.

Re:One of the reasons for the failure was due to D

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the major problem is nobody wanted it. If the issues had been primarily technical, you'd have heard lots of people protesting that they tried it and it sucked. The problem is that you didn't hear anyone complaining about it at all...

oooooh is iiiiiiiiit

[unity100]

Thankfully wireless isn't the only way to get online, and even wired AT&T isn't the only one.

curious that at&t controls 25-35% of all american market in regard to telecommunication regarding internet, including backbone providing, even dial in.

too bad that the people in states which at&t contracted are not able to use anything than at&t

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/18/1318210

'The FCC's research shows that 78 percent of American households have access to only two land-based broadband providers and that 13 percent have one. Don't expect that to improve. Many competing DSL services have left the market, spurred by the end of line-sharing in 2005 and other corporate consolidations.

yes. believe in 'free market' like a moron, while 80% of you have only 2 land based providers to choose, and ALL of them consolidating and against net neutrality. yeah, you can 'choose'.

free market is not an economic system. its a religion.

Greedy Telcos

[ffejie]

There go those greedy telcos again, not taking any risk and expecting to be able to charge higher rates for certain types of service.

/sarcasm