Should the cell bands be reallocated to all carriers?

Think about this. Let us say for argument that Verizon has the best service. Cell bands are reallocated, Verizon service deteriorates. The worst service provider improves. What do we have now, everyone meets in the middle and we have no outstanding service. Furthermore, Gov't is now involved get ready to pay some extra money to someone.

 

If it only were that easy!

Your theory doesn't work for a simple reason: you can't give all carriers a chunk of the 800Mhz spectrum because there isn't enough. Even with analog removed there isn't enough for all carriers in a market. You would have to give a small insignificant chunk to each carrier which will create coverage problems because the lack of spectrum in each tower won't allow for enough towers to be in service. There's only two 25Mhz blocks in the 800Mhz band. That's a total of 50Mhz for cell service. In the 1900Mhz band, the FCC allocated 120Mhz for cell service, that's a huge difference.

Also, I would like to know why you think an all 800Mhz system is a waste. In reality, it is not a waste at all. It is simply a system just like any other that needs less towers to operate than any 1900Mhz system. But it is not a waste at all.

 

Another flaw will be each carrier will have to have additional panels on their cellsites, so on a three sector site, which generally has a send and receive panel on each sector for a total of six panels, the carrier would now need six additional panels, which in many areas with 6-8 competitors already fighting over vertical real estate it would get pretty ugly.

Also for other structures such as buildings and stealth sites it would get pretty silly.

You would also need to revamp the sid listings because you would need a seperate system ID for the 800 mhz and 1900 mhz for each carrier, so many of your existing phones would not be compatible with the changes, so not only would it mean replacing all of the carriers equipment but also the consumers equipment.

 

This seems like an awful lot of work and bringing the Government back into wireless doesn't sit right with me. They already overregulate everything as it is, we don't need them doing more and driving up costs which is ultimately what this reorganization would do. My wireless service is great the way it is, sure there are dead spots and roaming areas but you're going to get that with every carrier. What we need is an end to subsidized handsets and the development of CDMA/GSM handsets for use on all spectrums with SIM cards. That way people would get used to paying $200-$300 for a phone but they could use it with all providers and if they didn't like one provider they could just switch their SIM card out and go with Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile, etc. The world has decided, and pretty much GSM & CDMA are the two technologies that will be used for the forseeable future... with my luck, the only phone that will incorporate these mutiple technology/multiple spectrum pipe dreams of mine is going to look something like the Curitel Identity. I guess I'll just keep using my Motorola Timeport until it eats itself or TDMA is not longer supported.

 

I don't think it would require additonal panels on each tower. AT&T overlayed 1900 Mhz on their 800 Mhz towers without adding new panels. But if it did require adding more panels that could be a serious problem. Many new sites being built here in So. Calif. are not in tower form (church crosses, flagpoles, unipoles, etc) and likely aren't tall enough to add more panels to. Then there are microcells and other stealthed sites which don't have panels. What would be the workaround to this?

 

I think what TKR was thinking (which I agree with) is that when Verizon (for example) puts up a new capacity only tower in an already well built out area they really don't need it to be a strong 800 Mhz signal. The 800 Mhz signal (which is designed to travel further and cover wider areas) would be a waste in those situations when 1900 Mhz would be sufficient. I think TKR brings up a good theory here.

 

Indeed, a good point. I didn't quite grasp what you were saying, TKR. Surely it would be a very complex undertaking, it's hard to tell what the outcome would be just speculating about it. We ought to comission a study.

 

So basically if the purpose of a new capacity only site is to provide coverage to a single block isn't it a waste to use an 800 Mhz site for that when 1900 Mhz would do just fine?

 

I think the complexity and THE COST of doing all this will overwhelm the benefits. There are better, simpler and more cost effective ways of accomplishing the same: If you need more capacity and you only have one band, all you need to do is lower the power on a cell site and add another site closeby. In other words, tighten the cell site population and accomplish tighter frequency reuse.