Verizon is ok for me most of the time but not always. But my frustration was mostly with T-Mobile. Many times I was in areas with strong coverage, but no throughput. Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the main topic of this thread.
C Band Dish Registration
- Thread starter towerdude
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 144
- Views 14K
- Status
I agree to the accountability of the service for which we pay. If, Verizon, for instance, wants to use this "new" band stolen from us, (or not stolen from us) it should, at least, be accountable in some way for service quality to it's intended area. I recently wrote Verizon. Recently being about 6 months back. Our town has serious issues that were not there originally. Calls that take forever to connect, zero signal in formerly strong areas. The corporate "suits" actually told me the following BS which reads like a standard response combined with zero knowledge or care for their customers. You can see why my distaste for Verizon in general, the only major carrier in our area that has ANY signal.
Thank you for contacting Verizon's Executive Office. We thank you for being a valued customer and for your time and patience with this matter. We have reached out to our network team in regards to your service issues. It has been identified that the cell serving your location is functioning normally at this time. It has been identified that due to cell capacity, there are identified congestion issues. There were modifications made to address this concern but it has been identified that the serving cell is still in congestion at times even with the modifications made. These capacity issues lead to issues like those you have experienced and in-building coverage could be degraded further. Verizon Wireless is making every effort to assist with the service concerns in the Ionia area. There are plans to deploy multiple small cells and a few Macro sites for your area but the exact timeframe and locations of these new cell deployments cannot be shared at this time. Again, thank you for your time and patience with this matter. Have a wonderful day.
So, if you want the right to use MORE bandwidth, how about responsibility to today's customers who are probably not going to change phones just because
you have a new band in which to operate? It's like broadcasting. Preach problems of AM radio all you want...the solution is not changing bands, it's changing the people who run the stations IN the existing bands and making the stations viable again for the public. Seems a good analogy.
So, I agree. Stay the hell away from our C-band....and fix what you already have out there in huge amounts before trying to sweet-talk our FCC into doing
something stupid which will affect thousands of radio and TV stations and many, many home FTA enthusiasts.
The FCC's Open Meeting for July was held earlier today. The commission voted unanimously to proceed with the C-band rulemaking, setting the stage for the final rules concerning the future of C-band to be published later this year.
FCC moves ahead on 3.7-4.2 GHz order seeking more details | FierceWireless
The FCC news release and official statements of the commissioners are available here:
FCC Proposes to Expand Flexible Use of Mid-Band Spectrum
FCC moves ahead on 3.7-4.2 GHz order seeking more details | FierceWireless
The FCC news release and official statements of the commissioners are available here:
FCC Proposes to Expand Flexible Use of Mid-Band Spectrum
Glad I didn’t submit my comments to the FCC; it’s clear they didn’t read any of them anyhow. Would have been a waste of time
It’s not even worth my energy anymore. I submitted a comment, but they don’t give a crap. Too be expected......... The end of FTA as we know it is here 
. The broadcasters will have to move to ku band so they will probably scramble EVERYTHING. I’m not mad anymore. Just sick to my stomach
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
. The broadcasters will have to move to ku band so they will probably scramble EVERYTHING. I’m not mad anymore. Just sick to my stomach Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Dear Chicken Littles,
The sky is not falling....
Frequency sharing and minimizing the available bandwidth is not the end of the C-band hobby. We will need to be more creative in dealing with terrestrial interference and adjacent satellite interference with overlapping frequency use. Bigger and more efficient dishes, filters and RF fences...
Why would C-band services relocate to KU band and what would the reasoning be to encrypt? Very unlikely. More probable that services will aggregate into the available spectrum and use higher efficiency encoding. Satellite distribution cost will likely increase as spectrum availability decreases.
The sky is not falling....
Frequency sharing and minimizing the available bandwidth is not the end of the C-band hobby. We will need to be more creative in dealing with terrestrial interference and adjacent satellite interference with overlapping frequency use. Bigger and more efficient dishes, filters and RF fences...
Why would C-band services relocate to KU band and what would the reasoning be to encrypt? Very unlikely. More probable that services will aggregate into the available spectrum and use higher efficiency encoding. Satellite distribution cost will likely increase as spectrum availability decreases.
Hi All,
Most times I can enjoy this hobby without having to voice my opinion on government matters. I try to stay a-political.
However, I feel I must voice my opinion on this spectrum grabbing matter.
The cell phone companies can't appropriately handle the spectrum they currently have and now they want more bandwidth to screw up ??
Where's the logic ??
How can a company apply for more of something, when they can't even handle what they currently have ??
The answer...money talks...logic walks.
I see this sharing or giving up bandwidth to the cellphone companies similar to the captain of the Titanic inviting more passengers onboard AFTER they've hit an iceberg.
Okay...I'm off my soap box.
John
Most times I can enjoy this hobby without having to voice my opinion on government matters. I try to stay a-political.
However, I feel I must voice my opinion on this spectrum grabbing matter.
The cell phone companies can't appropriately handle the spectrum they currently have and now they want more bandwidth to screw up ??
Where's the logic ??
How can a company apply for more of something, when they can't even handle what they currently have ??
The answer...money talks...logic walks.
I see this sharing or giving up bandwidth to the cellphone companies similar to the captain of the Titanic inviting more passengers onboard AFTER they've hit an iceberg.
Okay...I'm off my soap box.
John
A few things.
1) Every comment submitted gets read. I've done it for dockets that I've been involved in (this isn't one of them) and sometimes it's a real slog. Many of them don't get cited, though, because they say things like "I think you should do x" without actually spelling out any reasons or rationale, or they're form letters that people submit over and over. That doesn't mean it wasn't read and considered, just that it wasn't useful to put in the adopted document.
2) For as much talk as there is about feeds disappearing by going to Internet distribution, is it any surprise that reducing the size of C-band would not follow? If demand for satellite services drops, or even if it doesn't and, as Titanium notes, better compression and coding methods are used to improve efficiency, fewer transponders are needed which means capacity on satellites gets wasted. Why shouldn't that capacity be used for something? (That said, I personally feel it should be a reduction in the width of the C-band, such that you can filter out the part of the band no longer used for satellite, and not sharing the entire band.)
3) Not sure I understand all the discussion of waste or poor management of spectrum by wireless companies. I will agree that much of it is not deployed in rural areas where demand is lower, though even that is starting to change recently based on my observations, but in urban areas it's pretty efficiently used. (Dish's warehousing of spectrum is a separate issue.)
- Trip
1) Every comment submitted gets read. I've done it for dockets that I've been involved in (this isn't one of them) and sometimes it's a real slog. Many of them don't get cited, though, because they say things like "I think you should do x" without actually spelling out any reasons or rationale, or they're form letters that people submit over and over. That doesn't mean it wasn't read and considered, just that it wasn't useful to put in the adopted document.
2) For as much talk as there is about feeds disappearing by going to Internet distribution, is it any surprise that reducing the size of C-band would not follow? If demand for satellite services drops, or even if it doesn't and, as Titanium notes, better compression and coding methods are used to improve efficiency, fewer transponders are needed which means capacity on satellites gets wasted. Why shouldn't that capacity be used for something? (That said, I personally feel it should be a reduction in the width of the C-band, such that you can filter out the part of the band no longer used for satellite, and not sharing the entire band.)
3) Not sure I understand all the discussion of waste or poor management of spectrum by wireless companies. I will agree that much of it is not deployed in rural areas where demand is lower, though even that is starting to change recently based on my observations, but in urban areas it's pretty efficiently used. (Dish's warehousing of spectrum is a separate issue.)
- Trip
Trip,
4G LTE has been both a technical and market success and continues to be enhanced. The FCC knows that 5G needs a lot of spectrum, so they're basically handing any and all available spectrum over to the big mobile carriers who are promising "5G". It's a sacrifice of precious spectrum.
4G LTE has also been gradually evolving to meet new demand, and the limiting factor on mobile speed is often battery drain – more bits mean more power. The far higher speeds promised for 5G don’t make much sense for mobility. Does a 5” screen need 4K video? Yet this is most definitely the driving force behind US spectrum policy.
In a related story dated yesterday...Intelsat and SES, the world’s two largest geostationary satellite operators, along with chip-maker Intel and, as of today Eutelsat, back a plan to free up 100 MHz of C-band as long as new users cover the cost of migrating customers and lost opportunities. The satellite companies are giving in. Some spectrum now and later down the line, the greedy cellphone companies will want the rest
John
4G LTE has been both a technical and market success and continues to be enhanced. The FCC knows that 5G needs a lot of spectrum, so they're basically handing any and all available spectrum over to the big mobile carriers who are promising "5G". It's a sacrifice of precious spectrum.
4G LTE has also been gradually evolving to meet new demand, and the limiting factor on mobile speed is often battery drain – more bits mean more power. The far higher speeds promised for 5G don’t make much sense for mobility. Does a 5” screen need 4K video? Yet this is most definitely the driving force behind US spectrum policy.
In a related story dated yesterday...Intelsat and SES, the world’s two largest geostationary satellite operators, along with chip-maker Intel and, as of today Eutelsat, back a plan to free up 100 MHz of C-band as long as new users cover the cost of migrating customers and lost opportunities. The satellite companies are giving in. Some spectrum now and later down the line, the greedy cellphone companies will want the rest
John
The FCC also sold off quite a bit of the OTA spectrum, despite the statistics showing an increase in viewership. These wireless companies must have considerable pull with the bureau.
I'm well aware of what the FCC knows; see my signature.
But I think "handing" is a bit of a loaded term. It's more like if you pay me $5 and I then hand you a burger. They're paying for it. In the case of C-band spectrum, the current licensees would be paid one way or another, which is why Intelsat and SES are playing ball. The market is speaking."5G" has been a very poorly defined term in any event. I've heard talk of it being used to give competition to cable companies for home service. I've heard talk of it being used to help with congestion problems in cities and at major events. I've heard talk of using it for applications that are still yet to come, like car-to-car communication or medical applications. I've heard talk of it used on existing spectrum in smaller amounts as well as in the ultra-wide configurations discussed elsewhere, leaving the question of whether it's more efficient than LTE without the massive extra spectrum allocations, and if so, by how much. (If not, then is it just LTE with very wide channels?) There are a lot of open questions still to be resolved, but in the mean time, mobile data usage does continue to rise. The market is speaking.
Congress passed a law requiring the auction to occur. That law made the Broadcast Incentive Auction a voluntary process; had none of the TV stations decided to sell, nothing would have happened. Not only did the stations sell, some of them sold at fire sale prices--those stations were desperate to get out of the business and evidently couldn't find other buyers who would pay what they wanted. Only two stations got the opening price offered, and most got substantially less. The market spoke.
In this case, C-band isn't targeted at the general public anymore, so unlike the Broadcast Incentive Auction where there was an argument to be made as to the value to the general public that may or may not have been captured in the process, I'm not sure there is one here considering that outside of the hobbyist market (which is what most of us here are) the general public doesn't have any interaction with C-band. The market is speaking.
Now whether or not the market should be allowed to speak on these issues is a matter for debate, one on which I won't state an opinion, but it's not as if the FCC is seizing spectrum and then turning around and giving it away for nothing. And please note that I'm not actually taking a position on anything here, I'm just trying to make sure readers here have a full picture of what's going on.
- Trip
Are they playing ball because they want to, or because they feel the FCC is going to proceed regardless of their position, so they’re trying to find a workable compromise?
I read the complete statement SES and Intelsat made to the Commission. Their position seems to be “Ok, we understand this is going forward, so this is how we propose to make it as painless for us and broadcasters as possible.” Also, they (SES and Intelsat) only propose giving up 100 MHz, while it appears the FCC is wanting to up a lot more.
Last edited:
As a terrestrial broadcaster, I don't see anybody in our business winning here.
....stay tuned....Maybe more later....as more articles are published and more facts and input are thrown in the mix.
....stay tuned....Maybe more later....as more articles are published and more facts and input are thrown in the mix.
If they weren't going to get paid in some form, one would think they would be fighting tooth and nail against it, not trying to manage it. They could line up the local TV stations, the cable companies, the cable channels, the radio stations, etc. to go lobby the FCC or Congress to kill it or have money made available. I would imagine that group, all pushing together, would wield some influence.
- Trip
If it fits their business model, of course. Think of the thousands of link budgets in the NA arc alone. Video and audio service providers are only a small slice of the bandwidth usage. Corporate, government military are major players with data transfer. Truth be told, many TV and Radio content providers have been wasting their money for years by distributing via satellite. Many should have migrated to alternative methods years ago, but continue to lease the bandwidth (used or unused) to mitigate risks for signal redundancy or to deliver to a target market.
Currently the cost point for IP vs satellite distribution for a HD resolution video service is approximately 20-25 downlink sites. What does this mean? If you are a broadcaster and you are providing a (non-customized) feed, it becomes less expensive to distribute via satellite at approximately 20 - 25 downlink centers. For IP services, the bandwidth cost increases for each distribution end point and with satellite, the cost per site decreases. For some content providers, it makes sense to only illuminate fiber for the occasional, limited served sites or own the fiber. Other broadcasters with unserved remote sites, hundreds or even thousands of downlink sites, satellite distribution makes a ton of sense.
FCC Advances Goal Of Opening C-Band, Enhances EAS Testing
Note that the NAB specifically mentions Dish Network and their unused spectrum as a caution to the FCC, which today voted unanimously to proceed unabated with their proposal of sharing all 500 MHz of C-Band for 5G.
Note that the NAB specifically mentions Dish Network and their unused spectrum as a caution to the FCC, which today voted unanimously to proceed unabated with their proposal of sharing all 500 MHz of C-Band for 5G.
- Status
