Handset Frequency Spectrum Bands

If you have not noticed, the operating spectrum used by smartphones has undergone a major change in the last few years. It was not that long ago that if you had a handset capable of operating in the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands you were in pretty good shape.

That started to change with the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum auction in 2009 which opened up additional spectrum space in the 1700 MHz and 2100 MHz bands. With the conversion to digital TV freeing up spectrum space, the 700 MHz band came into play. The most recent announcement in June 213 delayed the 700 MHz spectrum auction until early 2014 but this has not stopped the handset manufacturers from building the 700 MHz capability into their handsets.

The latest frequency to be added to the mix is the 2.6 GHz band. This is being used by Rogers in its LTE mode branded as LTE Max.

The expanded use of the spectrum is being matched by changes in technology. In simply terms, the original technologies of CDMA and TDMA have morphed into the current HSPA+ and LTE mix; the so called 3G and 4G networks. While Bell, Tbaytel and Telus still operate legacy CDMA networks, only Public Mobile of the new AWS entrants opted for CDMA but did so in the little used PCS G band (1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995MHz). All the other networks in Canada operate as hybrid HSPA+ and LTE technology.

Most of the expanded demand for and use of spectrum is the direct result of the rapid growth of data transfer over smartphones. If you want to get a feel for this growth, I recommend you look at the Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2012–2017.

Not all smartphones are equal when it comes to frequency coverage outside the basic bands. There are literally thousands of smartphone designs on the market and they have different spectrum band options. I have chosen a few of the more popular units to show what one needs to be aware of when selecting a handset.

There are two spectrum bands which appear to be consistent across a wide range of phones. They are:

 a. The GSM bands operating at  850/900/1800/1900 MHz;

 b. The  HSPA/HSPA+ bands operating at 850/1900/2100 MHz.

Note: the 900/1800 MHz combination is used by many carriers overseas. I am not aware of any carriers using them in Canada. With these bands built in to the handset and if the handset is unlocked, a user can acquire fairly inexpensive cellular service overseas.

When it comes to the LTE bands, things are little different. It varies according to manufacturers and wireless carrier.

a. Samsung S4 and Blackberry Q10 have LTE 2100/2600 MHz versions available (Rogers LTE Max compatible)

b. Samsung SIII .has a LTE 1700/2100 MHz version available.

c. Apple iPhone 5 has a LTE 700/1700 Mhz version available

d. Apple iPhone 4 does not have a LTE frequency version

An example of having the right handset for the right expectations are the recent announcements by Rogers of the LTE and LTE Max network roll out in Sault Ste. Marie. One needs a 2100/2600 MHz capable phone to use the LTE Max network.

Within each band there are also frequency assignments amongst the carriers. This means that while a phone may have the necessary band installed it is locked to a specific carrier’s frequency allotment. Unlocking the phone, installing the appropriate network’s SIM card and signing up for either a pre-paid or post paid service plan will get the hand set working.

CRTC Questions Bell's Deferral Account Plans

Apparently I was not the only one that had issues with the Bell Deferral Account quarterly report for 15 Apr 13. The CRTC made a redacted version public by on 22 Apr 13. I discussed the report in this blog entry.

The CRTC wrote a letter to Bell on 05 Jun 13 questioning whether or not the company could meet the proposed August 2014 target date to have the project finished. They are particularly concerned that no new sites are scheduled for activation in 2013 as part of the Deferral Account program.

They raised questions about the amount of backhaul construction yet to be completed and the number of communities that need site acquisition negotiations to start or be finalized.

As the CRTC states in the letter: “In the Commission’s view, the rollout plan is significantly back-end loaded, jeopardizing the timely rollout of service to consumers” and also “Ultimately, it is the Canadians who live in those [Deferral Account] communities who will be impacted.”

The bottom line in the letter is “… the Commission directs the Bell companies to identify, by 17 June 2013, a) the major risks associated with its rollout plan, and b) its mitigation strategies to address each risk such as, for example, accelerating the rollout to specific communities.”

The full letter can be read on this CRTC site.

In a related matter, as reported in this blog entry, there are Deferral Account site surveys being conducted throughout the District. The latest reports indicated activity in the Nils Bay region of the Goulais Deferral Account area and the Sterling Bay region of St, Joseph Island Deferral Account area.  

Bell Heyden Greenbelt Cell Site Update

The tower for the new Bell cellular site identified in this blog and located in the North Sault area is now visible to the west of Hwy 17 North at the city limits. Today there were no cellular antennas or radio heads visible on the tower. The design is a self-supporting triangular shape similar to the ones across from Gino’s restaurant and at the Third Line and Black Road area.

There is no indication when the site work will be completed or when the site will become operational.

Is the Ontario Wireless Legislation Now Required?

As noted in this blog, a new national CRTC Wireless Code will come into effect on 02 Dec 2013.

The question I now have is what impact will this have on the proposed Ontario wireless code first announced in April 2012 and re-introduced in April 2013 with minor adjustments. This was discussed in this blog.   

Based on information available in public sources, most of the major points identified for inclusion in the Ontario legislation are included in the CRTC Wireless Code.

The only significant differences, in my opinion, are:

a     The Ontario proposal allows customers to cancel their agreement within a year of signing and get a full refund if wireless companies don't abide by all the rules in the proposed legislation. There is no similar proposal in the CRTC Wireless Code.

b.     The CRTC Wireless Code identifies how the customer complaint process will be handle d  through the  Commissioner for Complaints for telecommunications Services Inc. (CCTS)  while the Ontario proposals to date does not identify how customer complaints will be handled.

Unfortunately, neither proposal identifies what the sanctions for non-compliance are, how they will be applies, who will benefit if financial sanctions are to be applied and what the timeline for complaint resolution will be.

I am not sure the provincial legislation is any longer required except for the PR image it may create. In fact it may hurt customers more than help.

If the vendors have to create and monitor separate contracts and wording for each individual provincial jurisdiction they operate in, there is little doubt the cost of the requirement will be passed on to the customer somewhere along the chain.   

Perhaps all that is required is a one or two line bill that simply states that the CRTC Wireless Code will be the law in Ontario.  

CRTC Wireless Code Published

The CRTC released its long awaited and anticipated Wireless Code today, 03 Jun 2013.  The code will come into effect for agreements signed after 02 Dec 2013. Terms and conditions of the CRTC Wireless Code cannot be applied retroactively to existing contracts.

Like any attempt at regulation of an industry, there are good points and bad points depending on which side of the fence you are on.

I imagine the feature that will attract the greatest attention is the fact that the CRTC Wireless Code in effect does away with the three year contact without really doing away with the three year contract. Confused?  What the CRTC did was make it against the code to charge anything extra to cancel a contract after its 24^th month. Bear in mind these only impacts the revenue the vendor may have received for the remainder of the contract.

The consumer is still on the hook for the cost of any hardware subsidy they may have received.

The CRTC Wireless Code identifies how the cost of the subsidy is to be calculated based on either the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price  - the MSRP tag we are used to for other products but which is seldom charged – or the price the vendor will sell the hardware for without a contact. In either case, the bill opt out of a contract could still be hefty based on the subsidy received. 

I suspect there will still be backlash against the need for users to payback any subsidy.  The problem as I see it that people want a phone that retails for $400.00 to $700.00 to be provide for around $150.00 with the vendor absorbing the difference every time the user wants to change to phones.

The CRTC Wireless Code stipulates that the cancellation date shall be the date is notified of the request to cancel and not 30 days later. This 30 day policy was particularity annoying to users who owned their hardware and wanted to switch vendors.  

You can also get ready to receive a huge pile of paper or a large data file when you sign up for service. The list of compulsory items to be included is extensive. A current cell phone contract can run in the range of 12 to 20 pages. I suspect the new ones will be longer as they move from “legal” to “simplified” and they add all the various provincial code requirements.

One issue addressed but not resolved gives the user the right to refuse any unilateral change in contract by the vendor that does no benefit the user. The CRTC Wireless Code does not state what happens if the user refuses. Previously, a user had the right to refuse but the vendor had the option to cancel the contract and therefore the service without charge to the user. This will likely need clarification.  

Full details of the CRTC Wireless Code can be found at this website. An infographic version of the highlights is available at this website.

Batchawana Bell Cell Site in Google Maps Street View

I was playing around with Google Maps in the North Sault area when I came across this Street View of the Bell cell site called Batchawana near the intersection of Hwy 17 and Hwy 563.

I am sure it was coincidental that the Google plotting cars drove by that day but it shows the new tower under construction in the Aug/Sep 2012 timeframe. 

The pictures show a new tower under construction beside an existing tower, a reference map and detail showing the riggers climbing the tower. 

Cell Phone Legislation Overview

On Monday 29 Apr 2013, the Ontario government re-introduced consumer protection legislation affecting the wireless (cellular) industry. There is no doubt that the industry could do with a little regulatory oversight in the areas of contract clarity, billing practices and service charges, most notably cancellation fees, all areas addressed in the proposed legislation.  

On 01 May 2013, similar legislation came into effect in Nova Scotia. 

In both cases the powers behind the legislation are touting the limit of $50.00 to consumers when they cancel any future contracts with a carrier. (Sorry, the rules are not retroactive and will not apply to existing contracts.)

In some cases, this is may well be an accurate statement; in other cases it will not be. Let me explain.

There are two distinct parts that come into play for the majority of consumers when they enter into a contract. The first part is the subsidy or economic incentive provided by the vendor and applied to the cost of the phone they provide. They provide a phone at a reduced price or free in return for signing a fixed term contract, usually three or occasionally two years. The second part is the revenue expected by the vendors from the consumer over the length of the contract. Historically, carriers based the amount charged to cancel a contact on the amount of time left on the fixed length contract. The cost of the phone was not a major part of the calculation in most cases as it was folded into the monthly service costs.

The new legislation separates the two parts and makes them in effect two separate transactions. The $50.00 limit only applies to the second part; the amount of time left on the contract. The new rules still allow the vendors to recover the amount of the subsidy or economic incentive provided with the phone.

 I have not seen the Ontario formula but the Nova Scotia one appears straight forward. This is from the government's Access Nova Scotia website:

"… Nova Scotians can now cancel their contracts at any time and the government will limit what cancellation fees can be charged. There are three possible scenarios:

1. If you were given a phone for free or at a reduced cost when you signed up for a fixed term contract, the cancellation fee will be based on the value of the phone, divided over the remaining term of the contract. 

For example:

You received a $300 phone at no cost when you signed a three-year (36 month) contract.  You cancel the contract after one year (12 months). The maximum cancellation fee is $200:  300 - (300x12/36) = $200

2. If you were given a phone for no cost or at a reduced rate when you signed a no-term contract (no fixed term), the maximum cancellation fee is divided by a 48 month time period.

For example:

You received a $300 phone at no cost when you signed a no-term contract.  You cancel the contract after 12 months.  The maximum cancellation fee is $225: 
300 – (300 x 12/48) = $225. 

3. If you were not given a phone as an incentive for signing a contract and are using a phone you provided yourself, the maximum cancellation fee is $50 or 10 per cent of the remaining cost of the contract, whichever is less."

It is unclear to me whether or not the  $50.00 service cancellation fee is included in the calculations.  Regardless one could still receive a rather large bill for cancelling a contract early. Yes, it is less than the $400.00 to $600.00 charged before but it is still significant.

And guess who gets to set the initial value of the phone?  Would it surprise you to learn that the vendor sets the basic value number used in the calculation?  I checked the EastLink website and found only two smartphones that retail for less than the $300.00 used in the example. The majority were between $500.00 and $700.00. This would double the prices quoted in the government produced example. 

Even with the new legislation coming into effect across the county, I still feel the best deal is to buy a phone outright, get it unlocked and then sign up for service. Yes, I know it can be pricey, but there are a lot of good deals available in the used phone marketplace. Also, there are a number of advantages of having an unlocked phone, especially if one travels.