1 of 3
SUPPLEMENTAL AT&T INFORMATION AND DISCOVERY REQUESTS
MB Docket No. 14-90
1. Verify that AT&T’s (the “Company’s”) population and density calculations for each of 
the one-square mile areas submitted to the Commission on October 7 (the “October 7 
Response”) in response to Information Request 58.b.iii are accurate.  In certain instances,
the Company’s population and density results do not correlate appropriately when the 
geographic unit of the grid is fixed at one-square mile.  If any of the submitted population 
or density results is inaccurate, correct and submit accurate data and explain, in detail, 
any assumptions or calculations used in creating that data.
2. The data supplied in Exhibits 58.b.1 and Exhibit 81.j of the October 7 Response identify 
FWLL coverage in areas where no cell site is identified and cell sites where no FWLL 
coverage is identified.  If the reported data is inaccurate, provide accurate data. If the 
data is accurate, describe the method of providing FWLL coverage without a cell site.
3. Explain in detail the Company’s plans to share existing mobile spectrum 
(PCS/AWS/Cellular/Lower 700 MHz) with any spectrum proposed for the FWLL 
deployment, and identify the possible spectrum bands for the FWLL devices that the 
Company intends to use for the proposed FWLL deployment.  
4. For “FWLL_UMTS_BEST_SERVER_20140610” in Exhibit 58.b of the October 7 
Response, 
a. Explain in detail how the Company calculated and concluded that 12,000 cell 
locations is sufficient to provide 10 Mbps at the cell edge more than 90 percent of 
the time;
b. Provide the average data rate (Mbps) that the Company expects to achieve for all 
of the depicted FWLL coverage geographical areas.  In addition, provide (i) all 
assumptions and calculations that the Company relied on to calculate the average 
data rate; and (ii) all data generated by lab results or field tests since 
FWLL_UMTS_BEST_SERVER_20140610 was created that might affect the 
Company’s expectations or conclusions about the average data rate, with a 
detailed explanation of how the lab results affect the Company’s expectations or 
conclusions about the average data rate. This is an ongoing request that the 
Company should update as lab results or field tests are generated.
c. Provide the data rate that the Company relied on to define the edges of the 
depicted coverage.  In addition, supply (i) all assumptions and calculations that 
the Company relied on to calculate that cell-edge data rate; and (ii) all data 
generated by lab results or field tests that might affect the Company’s 
expectations or conclusions about the cell-edge data rate, with a detailed 
explanation of how those data might affect the Company’s expectations or 
2 of 3
conclusions about the cell-edge data rate. This is an ongoing request that the 
Company should update as lab results or field tests are generated.
5. Complete Information Request 58.1 in the October 7 Response by providing a definition 
of “cell edge” that includes the signal strength, signal to noise ratio, and link budget.
6. Complete the tables included in Attachment A by providing:
a. In addition to the 6-Mbps speed tier results reported at Exhibit 58.i.1 at 3 in the 
October 7 Response, all performance- and capacity-simulation for the FWLL.   
b. In addition to the 3-sectors case results reported at Exhibit 58.i.1 at 13 in the 
October 7 Response, all performance and capacity simulation results, and any 
related documents for the FWLL.  
c. In addition to the 3.6 Km site radius results reported at Exhibit 58.g.2 at 3 and 
58.i.1 at 5 and 11 (i.e., coverage radii from 4 Km to 10 Km), any performance and 
capacity simulation results available to the Company, and any related documents
for the FWLL.  
Attachment A should be updated as new lab results or field tests are generated.
7. Describe, and provide all documents relating to, pricing of the FWLL service.  If such 
documents are included in the October 7 Response, identify those documents by Bates 
number.
8. State when the Company expects to complete the field trials described in 58.f and 58.g of 
the October 7 Response and describe any preliminary results of those field trials.
9. With respect to the Company’s responses to Information Request 59.l in the October 7 
Response, explain in detail (a) how the Company calculated the Lifetime Value (“LTV”) 
for FWLL customers subscribing to in-house DIRECTV video post-transaction; (b) how 
the monthly churn rate implied by this LTV is consistent, if at all, with the Company 
smallest predicted value for monthly churn (which is the pre-merger prediction for the 
Company’s DSL service in rural markets); and (c) what the monthly churn rate would be 
for FWLL customers subscribing to a synthetic DIRECTV video bundle absent the 
Transaction, how that monthly churn rate compares to the expected monthly churn rate of 
FWLL customers subscribing to DIRECTV video post-Transaction, and provide all 
documents, data and calculations related to the pre- and post-Transaction churn rates.
3 of 3
Attachment A
3-Sectors/4x2 MIMO Case:  # of 
Subs/Sector
6-Sectors/4x2 MIMO Case:  # of 
Subs/Sector
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
6 Mbps Tier 6 Mbps Tier
12 Mbps Tier 12 Mbps Tier
18 Mbps Tier 18 Mbps Tier
Table 2
3-Sectors/4x2 MIMO Case:  Cell edge data 
rate (Mbps)
6-Sectors/4x2 MIMO Case:  Cell edge data 
rate (Mbps)
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
6 Mbps Tier 6 Mbps Tier
12 Mbps Tier 12 Mbps Tier
18 Mbps Tier 18 Mbps Tier
Table 3
3-Sectors/4x4 MIMO Case:  # of 
Subs/Sector
6-Sectors/4x4 MIMO Case:  # of 
Subs/Sector
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
6 Mbps Tier 6 Mbps Tier
12 Mbps Tier 12 Mbps Tier
18 Mbps Tier 18 Mbps Tier
Table 4
3-Sectors/4x4 MIMO Case:  Cell edge data 
rate (Mbps)
6-Sectors/4x4 MIMO Case:  Cell edge data 
rate (Mbps)
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
4 
Km
6 
Km
8 
Km
10 
Km
6 Mbps Tier 6 Mbps Tier
12 Mbps Tier 12 Mbps Tier
18 Mbps Tier 18 Mbps Tier