Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Henry Cohen]

What are your thoughts on part 74 licensees applying for STA or Experimental service licenses in 600 band spectrum on blocks not licensed to telecom at specific locations? I remember reading about a certain professional wireless sys... er, company doing just that for gigs after the 700 MHz reallocations, with equipment that had lost certification.

It's certainly something we'll be doing, and have done in 700MHz after that transition period ended.

[Jason Glass]

Speaking Los Angeles, Block G went unauctioned in that market. That's 10MHz of unused, and unusable spectrum in a market that will probably end up with 18MHz-24MHz of useable spectrum.

Hi Cameron,

I was just examining the data found here https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/1000/reports/assignment-results_by_license and see that block G is indeed missing from LA.  This strikes me as strange, because it's the one of very few examples that I can find on the list where a block isn't shown as sold.  Considering that LA is the second largest market in the nation, I must wonder if we're certain that this omission from the list isn't an error?

UPDATE:
I just noticed discrepancies between license grant announcements here https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/1000/reports/assignment-results_by_license and here https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0614/DA-17-582A3.pdf I hope the former is kept up to date, and the latter was published 6/14/17.  Nashville, for example, shows blocks A through G on the current PRS page, while the PDF shows only blocks A through F.

Looks like we'll have to continually sift through multiple documents to get to the bottom of what's actually happening.

[Cameron Stuckey]

UPDATE:
I just noticed discrepancies between license grant announcements here https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/1000/reports/assignment-results_by_license and here https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0614/DA-17-582A3.pdf I hope the former is kept up to date, and the latter was published 6/14/17.  Nashville, for example, shows blocks A through G on the current PRS page, while the PDF shows only blocks A through F.

Looks like we'll have to continually sift through multiple documents to get to the bottom of what's actually happening.

I actually trust the PRS over that Attachment B at this moment.

Last week after the FCC had granted all the licenses to the bidders a few of us discovered the licenses were granted using the 126MHz band plan, and not the correct 84MHz band plan. The FCC has now rectified the error and all the licenses correctly reflect the correct frequency changes. So, I would trust documents prior to June 9th, or after today. That June 14th license release had errors from top to bottom.

[Jason Glass]

I actually trust the PRS over that Attachment B at this moment.

Last week after the FCC had granted all the licenses to the bidders a few of us discovered the licenses were granted using the 126MHz band plan, and not the correct 84MHz band plan. The FCC has now rectified the error and all the licenses correctly reflect the correct frequency changes. So, I would trust documents prior to June 9th, or after today. That June 14th license release had errors from top to bottom.

Thank you, Cameron.  I appreciate the info.

[ProSoundWeb Community]