Template Tools
AT&T's Marsh: We Would Give Up Qualcomm Spectrum
Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:58
Truth or Dare? AT&T would rather give up 12 Mhz of precious spectrum than to allow their phones to work on competitors’ networks. That’s according to VP Joan Marsh in an official document Currently, AT&T’s LTE phones can’t work on 700 MHz LTE networks (Lower A Block) owned by regional carriers such as Vulcan, Cavalier, PCS and Cox. The FCC is seriously considering a petition by those carriers to make interoperability a condition of the spectrum transfer. AT&T and Verizon LTE phones apparently are not compatible either.
     AT&T is right about real problems of cost/device size in supporting all the 19! frequency bands used for LTE around the world. I’m working on a story Cold Equations: All Bands, All World LTE Phone an Inch Too Far about those issues. It looks like the LTE market will require different phones for the U.S., Europe, and Asia. The phones would support the major bands in their territories but would fall back to 3G speeds on other continents.
     Fortunately, there is only modest cost in covering all the U.S. bands. Each additional band requires less than $1 in parts and about 10 square millimeters of board space. That may not even be required, because a modest change in band plans might solve any problems without additional hardware. Phones that work on multiple networks have a larger market, meaning a likely result is lower per phone costs, not the much higher costs Ms. Marsh asserts. I’ve asked AT&T for an engineering breakdown of the necessary parts so I can price out the costs precisely, or any other data that implies the cost would be high.
     Interoperability across LTE networks is a crucial step for future competition. If the FCC required phones to cover all the 700 MHz bands, people could take their phones with them to one of the other LTE networks being constructed AT&T hasn’t provided me any evidence the costs would be large. If the costs are moderate, the right decision is obvious.
The Commission is looking closely at this one. Chief of Staff Eddie Lazarus, Amy Levine, and Chief of the Engineering Bureau Julie Knapp (with three engineering staffers) met with engineer Paul Kolodzy and the lawyers for the alternate wireless carriers. Such senior FCC staffers don’t get involved unless they are taking this seriously. Senator Rockefeller wrote the FCC about the advantages of interoperability for public safety. Free Press added their comments. Sara Jerome reports Mignon Clyburn has an effective veto and is considering exercising it.
Here’s the quote from AT&T’s Marsh
“imposition of an interoperability commitment like that proposed by Vulcan Wireless and other A block licensees would be a materially adverse regulatory condition on this
transaction that would result in an AT&T decision to abandon the transaction.”

   AT&T and Dean Brenner of their supplier Qualcomm have been particularly disingenuous claiming AT&T’s limited band plan support is inspired by the international standards 3GPP consortium. The 3GPP people have explained they’ve adjusted their band plans to meet the requirements of the major carriers in each country. AT&T plays a major role in 3GPP and is one of the world’s largest customers for the driving forces in 3GPP, Alcatel and Ericsson. 3GPP almost certainly reflects AT&T’s desires in this. In fact, the AT&Tsupported changes in the band plans may be the only reason extra components are needed. Marsh also raises a red herring about interference from broadcast channel 51, a minor problem at most.
   Thanks to Phil Goldstein of Fierce Wireless whose excellent coverage pointed me to the story.