dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-04-08 11:19:11: In addition to starting to refine signal booster rules, the FCC yesterday also announced (pdf) modified pole attachment rules, a move the FCC says will reduce costs for attaching broadband lines and wireless antennas to utility poles across the count.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to hamburglar_

Re: Net netural too I assume.

said by hamburglar_:

It's been happening for quite a while. They are called MVNOs.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_MVNO

Carlos Slim, owner of Tracfone/Net10, negotiated with at&t, T-Moble, Verizon and even Cellular One for wholesale use of their network. He did not need the FCC to hold his hand. Perhaps that is why he is the richest man in the world. I use Tracfone for voice; I get the same quality voice as a post paid Verizon customer at a fraction of the cost. Verizon must be happy doing business with Slim; I had a problem with my voice mail and got Verizon customer service when I dialed 611. Verizon could not help me but looked up Carlos' number for me.

The government has to stop keeping dumb leeches in business.


grydlok

join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA
reply to Crookshanks

Re: What roaming?

I-81 doesn't go through West Virginia.

Now when I traveled up I-81 I noticed that the mountains would screw up the signal but my Verizon work phone, and Sprint phone would perform fine.


airtouch25

join:2007-05-22
united state
reply to batterup

Re: Net netural too I assume.

@batterup: At a huge condition though. Tracfone is not allowed to compete with Verizon or AT&T using the most high end devices. That way the big Bells keep Tracfone from ever being a high end competitor.

What the large incumbent carriers are doing is considered extortion by some. They are marking up roaming rates in excess of 600% margins to smaller regional carriers over what consumers would otherwise pay. The FCC is just stating that they can't gouge their competition by charging excessive roaming rates.

Even Sprint who likes to paint itself as a carrier for the customer used to charge Helio such high resale rates that Helio would get charged $3000 plus in usage charges for an user who actually thought his $79.99 aircard service was unlimited. Tactics like that are what eventually led to Helio's demise.

US carriers have learned to compete by killing their competition instead of trying to innovate.

mike656

join:2002-04-21
Orlando, FL
reply to grydlok

Re: What roaming?

Yes it does, for about 25 miles. The OP was referring to being on US Cellular in that part of WV, they have EVDO in that area but with no roaming agreement for it, all Verizon customers will only have access to 1x. All of I-81 thru WV and MD is USCC until getting to PA or VA when native VZ coverage starts again and EVDO.

mike656

join:2002-04-21
Orlando, FL
reply to Crookshanks
The handoff issue is weird because my phone works going from Verizon SID 18 (Balt-DC Net) to USCC on I-70 and back to Verizon, its worked for years. Maybe VZ systems 1912 (northern VA on 81) and 96 (Southern PA) don't have that connectivity yet.


buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to airtouch25

Agreed...

airtouch "What the large incumbent carriers are doing is considered extortion " & " US carriers have learned to compete by killing their competition instead of trying to innovate."
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now my question is before the ATT/ TMO merger goes through ( if it goes through) will TMO be allowed to roam on all ATT towers before then? regardless of the fact you wont be able to get 3g/4g data. Voice/txt and EDGE data in a place TMO customers couldnt get any service is a positive no matter how you look at it.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to airtouch25

Re: Net netural too I assume.

said by airtouch25:


US carriers have learned to compete by killing their competition instead of trying to innovate.

Really? You don't call Verizon FiOS or their 4G LTE broadband innovation? It cost billions, that is with a "B", of stock holders money, not government money. If you want to kill innovation make it a money losing endeavor. If someone wants the bells and whistles Verizon has use Verizon. Price controls WILL cause a shortage in the product that is controlled; that is a fact.

BTW Carlos has no problem making a cake out of the crumbs he buys.
quote:
It was a good quarter to be America Movil, the company that owns Tracfone, Net10, and Straight Talk. The company added 1.1 million subscribers in the fourth quarter, bringing it to 3.3 million for the year and 17.7 million overall. Even though it doesnt operate its own network, the company ranks as the No. 5 carrier in the country.
I call your attention the to the brilliant plan to deregulate "The Bell System". The US of A went from first for one hundred years to not first. I grow weary; oh well my Tracfone works.

BullyRED

join:2004-04-08
Grayslake, IL

Utility anyone?

Isn't this just the FCC's way of saying that wireless data and coverage should be considered a required utility for the people? This implies that any one company that provided access in a given area is prevented from monopolizing on that coverage in that specific area. For the small carriers this is a great thing and the big carriers should benefit as well as they should now be able to let you roam on the small carrier network (that probably already existed) for a reasonable price.

This means to me that a multi-radio phone that handles GSM, CMDA, EVDO, etc should now give me coverage nearly anywhere I go. As a consumer I feel this benefits me because now I don't have to worry about not being able to roam in any given area because there's uniform rules to handle the terms.

I understand the complaints of the big carriers that laid the network down in major areas in the first place but isn't this sort of like the railroads? They're a shared system which was built by others. Maybe in 50 years we won't care about who built the network and we'll care more about who's running the network.


anonanon

@verizon.net

Will stifle buildout

I completely agree with Verizon's position that the rules will stifle build-outs of new networks.

Remember when Verizon & at&t wanted to do FTTP and FTTN builds? They wouldn't do it until they 1st got a guarantee from the FCC that they wouldn't have to share those networks, because what incentive is there to spend the entire capital upfront and then have another company benefit from it?

It would be like you telling me to build an inground swimming pool in my backyard for $50,000 and then you'll pay me $5 every time you use it. Sorry pal, how about instead you help out with the upfront capital. You want to use it, then you pay $25000 and then 1/2 of all maintenance costs after its built. If not, then guess what its my pool, my backyard, and nobody can tell me who I let use it nor whether or not I can charge for it.

Guaranteed Verizon will probably not build out LTE networks in rural areas now and neither are the regional providers, so now these new rules means nobody builds it.

Furthermore, with wireless capacity being limited, what happens if an area is overloaded? Does the guy with Small Provider have the same priority onto the network as the guy with Verizon Wireless? I'd be pissed to be a paying Verizon Wireless subscriber and then because Small Provider is roaming onto the network all of a sudden either a)I can't connect or b)my speeds slow down. There better be a way to manage the network so the actual Verizon Wireless customers' data gets priority over the guy that's roaming onto the network because his provider is too cheap to build out there own.


Rich1982

@tmodns.net
reply to mike656

Re: What roaming?

When I was on verizon I had evdo through that stretch. I travel through that area twice a year when visiting family near nashville.

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to anonanon

Re: Will stifle buildout

Verizon and their ilk have for years been making promises based on receiving government money and then not delivering. The scenario you describe would be hilariously fitting.


SHABAZZ

join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA
reply to pnh102

Re: Let's Kill Deployment

No matter what the media says, REGULATION WILL NOT KILL BUSINESS! These large companies will complain then theyll calculate this cost into doing business. Towers will still go up as long as there is demand.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

roaming?

Roaming is the first thing I turn off when I get a new phone.


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4

same'ol BS threat ...

" today's order discourages network investment in less profitable areas"

... as if they will EVER invest in those areas in the first place
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/

mike656

join:2002-04-21
Orlando, FL
reply to Rich1982

Re: What roaming?

Not on US cellular in that area, they have never had a roaming agreement with verizon for EVDO, nor do they anywhere else in the country.


airtouch25

join:2007-05-22
united state
reply to batterup

Re: Net netural too I assume.

The FiOS buildout was in response to Verizon's willingness to get into the cable TV game to compete with Comcast and to keep Dial-up /DSL users from going to another company. Years later they still have only cherry picked certain neighborhoods.... But this is a different story for a different subject. We're talking about wireless roaming rates here.

I call Verizon Wireless' bluff. Big incumbents always threaten to stop investing and stop offering new services when their usual paid lobbying doesn't work. Verizon has too much to lose by doing just that. The FCC isn't saying they can't charge for roaming. They are telling Verizon you have to stop ripping people off. There is a huge difference.


RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1
reply to aaronwt

Re: roaming?

said by aaronwt:

Roaming is the first thing I turn off when I get a new phone.

Why? It's included in most plans.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Crookshanks

Re: Let's Kill Deployment

and until then these carriers will sue the FCC and they'll get what they want. the FCC also has no ruling power for anything to do with pole access either. That is upto local and state governments NOT them.

the FCC is walking a fine line right now; especially with the budget in such a mess. Congress can easily start pulling money from their budget and put it some where else. And they damn well should if the FCC can't stay within their boundaries. of RULE making not law making (they have no law making power).


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to airtouch25

Re: Net netural too I assume.

said by airtouch25:

Years later they still have only cherry picked certain neighborhoods.... They are telling Verizon you have to stop ripping people off. There is a huge difference.

Just because this supposed forum keeps repeating something does not make it fact.

This is one of those cherry picked areas near beautiful Newark NJ. Notice the shiny new FiOS box on the pole. Funny how FiOS did not increase the property value.
»/r0/download/1···ed-1.jpg

How is Verizon "ripping off people"? The people are not paying Verizon anything. If they want top shelf service they can get it; from Verizon. You people keep singing the same song; it is the same tune MCI played 25 years ago.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

I don't know anything about Net10 so I am going to make an assumption that they are really just a Verizon wholesaler and not a wireless carrier that's going to have a roaming agreement.

The way that things are priced to the Verizon wholesalers is going to be completely different than someone like Cricket.

Whatever agreements they have were negotiated freely not mandated. I just looked up Cricket and they won't sell me service. What's up with that? I demand the FCC require Cricket to build a network to serve me as fast as Verizon's 4G does. While the FCC is forcing companies to do things that are bad business they should force Sprint to supply mobile broadband to me also. What's up with these cherry picking clowns?

I'm sorry some people have to ride the bus because they can't afford a car but that doesn't give them the right demand I give them a ride. I may as well sell my car and ride in someone else's. Oh my what if everybody sells there car and wants to ride in someone else's? Oh I know there will soon be no cars.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to biochemistry

Re: Will stifle buildout

said by biochemistry:

Verizon and their ilk have for years been making promises based on receiving government money and then not delivering.

No matter how many times you people repeat those lies it will never make it true.

You want the truth? Google and other leeches are playing the government and you people like a fiddle. You can't handle the truth.
quote:
Before the auction, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt assured reporters the California firm had no intentions to buy the spectrum, "build a network and put all these mobile devices out there."

"Wouldn't it be better if all these other companies do that and we just sit back and reap a benefit?" Schmidt said.

The D-block, which requires the buyer to work with authorities and set aside airwaves for public-safety and emergency uses, went unsold.
»afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMb···xU3Mfvnw

The fools in Kansas City KA are now dancing to Google's fiddle.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

1 edit
reply to openbox9

Re: Crying! Mommy FCC is going to make me share my network!

Don't forget all of these companies were built on monopoly profits. They didn't get to be as big as they are and able to drive competitors out of business on pure competition alone.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
reply to batterup

Re: Will stifle buildout

Not true? Here is but a single article on Verizon scamming the people of PA on tax breaks:
»Picture Perfect Deal

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA

Re: same'ol BS threat ...

Bingo!

This is the key fact. VZ, at&t, etc are dropping remote areas. There are companies that can and will build out and service these areas, but they need access to a national network to compete. This keeps the remote areas alive.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to TheGhost

Re: Will stifle buildout

said by TheGhost:

Not true? Here is but a single article on Verizon scamming the people of PA on tax breaks:
»Picture Perfect Deal

Old dead horse. How many times do I have to expose the faulty figures that came up with
quote:
"It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years clock in somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars"
Figures don't lie but lairs figure. The former grand all knowing "Tel 1/2 Truth" figured yellow pages in that figure. Yellow pages never was a regulated part of the business.

Pennsylvania renegotiated a deal with Verizon the is working and on scheduled. I'm going to have to make templates to answer these old 1/2 truths.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
said by batterup:

said by TheGhost:

Not true? Here is but a single article on Verizon scamming the people of PA on tax breaks:
»Picture Perfect Deal

Old dead horse. How many times do I have to expose the faulty figures that came up with
quote:
"It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years clock in somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars"
Figures don't lie but lairs figure. The former grand all knowing "Tel 1/2 Truth" figured yellow pages in that figure. Yellow pages never was a regulated part of the business.

Pennsylvania renegotiated a deal with Verizon the is working and on scheduled. I'm going to have to make templates to answer these old 1/2 truths.

Ok, according to you Verizon has kept all promises and met all obligations....cannot argue with that.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
reply to batterup

Re: Net netural too I assume.

VZ built its new FIOS network on the fruits of its government granted monopoly. The initial monopoly will forever hinder any true competition. The only competition it really has is from the Cable companies which themselves were built up from monopolies.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to TheGhost

Re: Will stifle buildout

said by TheGhost:


Ok, according to you Verizon has kept all promises and met all obligations....cannot argue with that.

This is why I have to make a template. They have until 2015 to wire everyone but if 50 telephone lines or 25%, which ever is smaller, in an area agree to sign up for DSL Verizon must provide it. Posters on this board have done it.
»www.oca.state.pa.us/Industry/Tel···bfrr.htm

Verizon just installed DSL in the last CO in their Pennsylvania area.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to TheGhost

Re: Net netural too I assume.

said by TheGhost:

VZ built its new FIOS network on the fruits of its government granted monopoly.

Right and what did Quest build? I will say one thing; Quest's cell service is every bit as good as Google's.

You want FiOS move to Newark and you too can suckle government fruit. That is the trouble way too much suckling and not enough doing.

Listen; The Phone Company is smarter than you, I and the government. Doing stupid things at the bidding of MCI types only screws things up for a decade or so until The Phone Company comes back together leaner and meaner than before. I don't know how many decades I have left; I want Verizon 4G in my house. It is only a few miles away as is FiOS.

TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
Hey - I am all for free market competition, but the thing is, there wasn't from the start and there never can be because of it. VZ, as well as the rest of the Bells enjoyed Monopoly status and profits. Those profits were then funneled into these new ventures. They had GUARANTEED profits to build these outside businesses. No other company (ok, maybe Google) has the assets to compete. Especially since the monopolies have shown a tendency to lower prices ONLY in the areas where a competitor may overbuild JUST to drive them out of business.