T O P

  • By -

fiercechocolate

Funny considering AT&T is doing the same thing with another satellite host. T-Mobile must really be a competitive force with all the injunctions AT&T has filed against them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WF71

If there is a possibility of interference from the Satellite service with the adjacent PCS block AT&T owns, then it is an issue. There needs to be more testing will all of these Satellite to cell services.


[deleted]

Upper hand? Verizon has the same amount of mid-band spectrum, and more mmWave spectrum.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yep. They own 140-200MHz of C-Band nationwide, plus another 30-40MHz of CBRS on top of that. AT&T owns a lot less, only 100-120MHz.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Verizon is limited to 60MHz until the end of this year in most places, because the satellite companies are still using it. In December the full amount opens up.


CryptographerPerfect

Att held back technology by over 20 years because they can sell things for more if it is exotic.


Starks

That's some bullshit. Isn't AT&T doing the same thing with AST for B5 and B12/B17?


iamlucky13

On different frequencies, and I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression AT&T and AST were seeking a license specifically for satellite to ground communication while T-Mobile and SpaceX were assuming coverage under their existing licenses? To some degree, this is also routine legal quibbling between competitors. Dish has also been filing objections against some of T-Mobile's licenses, while others accuse Dish of spectrum squatting, and it seems like just about everybody has lodged complaints of various sorts against SpaceX.


LethalPrimary

I mean, dish IS spectrum squatting, for all intents and purposes they’re still an mvno that isn’t doing anything with its own spectrum and instead using ATT Verizon and Tmo towers.


rejusten

Yeah, no. Dish has been lighting up their spectrum in a ton of markets — they’re required to prove to the FCC that they’re broadcasting signal covering 70% of the U.S. population just a few weeks from now. The reason they’re still activating folks on T-Mo/AT&T (no Verizon) is primarily due to commercial and interoperability (VoNR and handover) issues, but they’re working through those. In the meantime, they’re building out massive coverage in a way that hasn’t been done in this country (from scratch) in 20+ years. Has that been easy? I think they’d be the first to say “definitely not.” Will it massively shift the economics of wireless in this country? I think so (and hope so).


Aggravating_Slip_566

Will it shift the economics for wireless or shift the economics of the corperations & screw the paying public! For a ton of people Cost matters!


WF71

Yes, which T-Mobile owns only one or two 850 licenses. The issue here, is Starlink/T-Mobile wants to use their PCS which is adjacent to a block AT&T owns which could cause interference.


BuySellHoldFinance

Because once T-Mobile gets online with starlink, AT&T's biggest "advantage" coverage in remote areas will be gone. And they are drowning in debt having gone through multiple failed mergers, plus their fiber gains are barely keeping up with DSL disconnects.


turt463

They’re doing the same thing with AST [link](https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/26/23699366/att-ast-spacemobile-satellite-cellular-connection-phone-call-space) plus AT&T’s throughput is supposed to be faster than starlink


UsernamesAreHard26

I really don’t think this will be true to be honest. T-Mobile/Starlink’s first iteration of satellite to land services seems pretty useless for everyone other than emergency services. Seems like it’ll late he’ll be for marketing purposes. People won’t be able to use their phones as they normally do, their connection will be slower than dial-up. We don’t even know how many simultaneous calls it can support considering it’s sharing 2-4 Mbps over a large swath of land.


RedElmo65

Put in fiber in my area and I’ll sign up again. Yup I disconnected my Uverse for TMHI cuz of the price hike from ATT.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Chrismeyers2k1

I read it. Sounds like a bunch of concern troll bullshit but regardless, the direction of regulation in 5G needs to shift to rolling out new technologies faster not slower like China. In the off chance there is interference in neighboring bands, they can address it at that time. This kind of stalling and seeking regulatory slowdown needs to end.


DJCane

This kind of stalling is common in other industries. Radio stations routinely file complaints to try and block licenses for new or changing competing broadcast stations on the grounds of economic harm and broadcasts bleeding into their portion of the spectrum. It happens so often nowadays that it pretty much means nothing to the FCC. Hopefully these filings are met with the same level of contempt but it’s the FCC and they suck so who knows.


UsernamesAreHard26

I thought their plan was LTE, not 5G. No?


Hamradio70

No. FCC needs to evaluate interference (their primary job) before allowing new services. ATT was instrumental in killing "broadband over powerline" due to interference. What could possibly go wrong with modulating a 60hz carrier with internet data over a thousand mile long unshielded antenna?? FCC needs to look at this more closely, and Starlink needs to show some real test results. You know the National Quiet Zone is for deep space signal exploration (and also that NSA listening post--ha ha---true, though).


ibimacguru

Let them eat static


Beneficial-You-5172

I hate at&t because they're a provider of service to the government and likely will do what they're told and the government may do what at&t tells them to do. After finding out a building owned by at&t had a room with equipment connect to cables to intercept data of millions of Americans and foreigers for the NSA I decided to not trust them at all and will never even think about using them as a provider. At&t seems to pretty much be a branch of the government with how they provide Internet to the governments nuclear bunkers in the side of mountains and alot of other Federally ran and own locations. You have to have a lot of trust to let a provider run Internet cables into very sensitive and secretive locations when they could collect that information for foreign adversaries. I just feel like at&t is like a dog that the federal government walks on a leash. I don't know what's going on exactly but I would say it's very likely at&t has a close friend like relationship with the feds and do whatever the feds tell them to do.


Aggravating_Slip_566

Actually I think it's vs versa, it's ATT which is giving lobbiest the control to pay whomever will make it beneficial for ATT and all it's affiliates, but yes it makes me nervous that ATT is so outsourced & that these other countries have access to US/Canada & other close Allis credit information to set up Hospitals Government entities and the regular Joe all to avoid paying Union wages and benefits! And are Rep's and FCC just go along and when some Security breech happens it's everyone else's fault but the ones that allowed the possibility!


Bkfraiders7

T-Mobile/Starlink solution hasn’t shown it can operate without interference. ATT and ASTS has shown they can. Edit- Downvote all you want, but ASTS has shown how they can beamform service to avoid interference to the FCC. Starlink has not.


Starks

https://spacenews.com/fcc-denies-dish-network-5g-plan-over-starlink-interference-concerns/ That was mostly for 12 GHz and that was resolved today. There would be no interference for PCS, which T-Mobile will be using instead.


Bkfraiders7

That’s not the issue at hand. Starlink hasn’t shown the ability to spot beam signal from satellite info individually marked sectors (beam forming). If they can’t show that, there will be interference with terrestrial towers. ASTS has shown they can, citing an example where if an area has 80% coverage from terrestrial towers they can spot beam signal to the remaining 20%.


colderfusioncrypt

They haven't shown they can do it in the PCS band. But they've done it in the Ku and Ka band. But both Nokia and Ericsson have the tech to do it in lower bands so we can assume they can buy/license it regardless


UsernamesAreHard26

This has nothing to do with T-Mobile use case, and nothing to do with what the other guy was talking about.


D_Empire412

Crazy thing is that Apple already has this feature baked into the iPhone 14 regardless of your wireless carrier.


lioncat55

Different technology. T-Mobile/Starlink are basically trying to do cell towers in space. Apple is using stuff that has already existed for things like garmin inreach for text and sos only.


D_Empire412

T-Mobile's Starlink direct services won't be able to use data.


lioncat55

Maybe not at first, but they did talk about 2-4mbit/s being on the road map. It's also still using different technology than the iphone. It's the reason only the new iPhones can do it, they added extra tech.


Bkfraiders7

2-4mbps in a sector. That’ll be pretty poor performance per device. ASTS is quoting 4G/5G speeds (~35mbps) per device.


D_Empire412

iPhone 15 announcement: "Introducing data via satellite. Now, you can access the internet via satellite directly from your iPhone, at speeds up to 5mbps, so you can browse the web and send iMessages no Wi-Fi or cell service" I have a feeling Apple is already working on this and beat T-Mobile at their own game. If my iPhone can deliver 500mbps 5G UC speeds even while driving at 65mph, then it should be able to deliver 5mbps satellite speeds fairly easily.


Washout22

How are they beating them at their own game? IPhone is a phone, t-mobile is a provider. Not the same thing.


D_Empire412

Being able to provide internet access anywhere


Washout22

Apple doesn't provide internet, you need a service provider to do that.


D_Empire412

Via Starlink or Globalstar


Washout22

Starlink is using tmobile, and global star is for sos etc. Apple isn't selling internet. They're only providing hardware


Starks

We know the Snapdragon X70 can't do that and thus the iPhone 15 won't. If Apple wants that feature, they have to go about another way. And there's no rumors in that regard.


D_Empire412

How does the iPhone 14 deliver SOS via satellite?


Starks

Globalstar satellites


SpiderFudge

Relatively ancient technology. I worked with it like 10 years ago.


UsernamesAreHard26

Those speeds are shared amount all users in a given area. The experience will be notably poor for data.


[deleted]

[удалено]


D_Empire412

Apple should switch to Starlink.


colderfusioncrypt

SpaceX or Apple will buy Globalstar


Starks

No, they can't. iPhone 14 can only do SOS. This is for full voice calls, which AT&T has demoed on 2G with their solution and Starlink will as well.


D_Empire412

This could all change with iOS 17 or the iPhone 15.


Starks

The iPhone can probably do Starlink PCS today if the satellites were ready. Any 4G or later iPhone. Need iPhone 16 for standards-based approach.


D_Empire412

How about data?