FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 10:33 am
Quadruple for Comcast & TWC - Verizon supplies cell serviceSo, now Comcast & TWC can sell a quadruple play service under 1 bill. TV, Internet, Local landline, & cell service under 1 bill. With Verizon managing a very strong cell service for them.
But will it actually be better than dealing with Verizon directly for cell service? | |
|
| |
Re: Quadruple for Comcast & TWC - Verizon supplies cell servicesaid by FFH5:But will it actually be better than dealing with Verizon directly for cell service? I combined my Verizon DSL bill with my Verizon Wireless bill and now I talk to the "Verizon Wireless One Bill Department" whenever I call them. They actually seem to be a bit easier to deal with and better trained than the regular VZW reps, though we'll see how long that lasts. | |
|
| |
to FFH5
I think we're a little closer to seeing pigs fly.
Instead of better integrating their wireless with their wireline services like FiOS, they are looking to make deals with the cable companies. If this isnt conflict of interest, I dont know what is. | |
|
| CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:But will it actually be better than dealing with Verizon directly for cell service? I can tell you that for POTS it usually wasn't. I have seen more than one customer become irate when Verizon didn't fix their phone. Typical scenario: AT&T customer calls in a trouble to AT&T. Verizon truck shows up to greet customer. 'What are you guys doing here? I don't have Verizon anymore... I have AT&T.' 'Sorry, you may not know it but you still have a Verizon line. AT&T just sends you the bill.' Proceed to demarc on side of customer's house and find POTS working just fine. ANI the number so customer can hear their line working. 'Yeah, but the phone in the house doesn't work!' 'Sorry, we are only responsible for the dialtone up to this point. We will turn the trouble back to AT&T and they will have to send someone to fix the problem in the house.' 'Well when will that be?!' 'I have no idea.' 'Wait! You can't leave! I need my phone!! VERIZON SUCKS!!!' 'Bye, have a nice day.' | |
|
| | |
Re: Quadruple for Comcast & TWC - Verizon supplies cell serviceThat's what those "no fault" inside line plans are for. | |
|
| | grays join:2006-02-14 Rochelle Park, NJ |
to CXM_Splicer
Let me see what are you saying?who do you blame for this scenaro? | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Re: Quadruple for Comcast & TWC - Verizon supplies cell serviceBlame? I don't know that I was trying to blame anyone really... only to point out the inefficiency of a middle-man reselling another provider's service and how it's the customer that gets caught in the middle. And, I can assure you, this is not a made up scenario (well except for the Verizon Sucks comment) it has happened to me more than once.
If I were to point fingers, I would say there is enough blame to go around:
1 - The regulators who came up with the silly idea that forcing wholesale would be good for competition.
2 - AT&T for automatically requesting Verizon dispatches on all of their 'no dialtone' troubles. And for not explaining to customers that they still have lines from Verizon.
3 - Verizon for having such crappy service that a customer would even think of going to AT&T.
4- Customer.... hmmm, sorry, I can't think of anything to blame on them. | |
|
| 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
to FFH5
they already did this with Sprint and it was canned shortly after words. | |
|
|
only wireless cable..The only wireless cable will be Satellite Tv.. since the cable industry is too conservative on their investments. Verizon on the other hand has historically made prudent investment and financial moves to solidify and grow it's market share. AT&T just likes making controversy and foolish greedy moves that increase distrust of the company and rebuild the atomosphere hated when Ma-Bell was as arrogant as Standard Oil or Railroad monopolies of the past.
Still, the focus should be on getting minority carriers to acquire and build upon new spectrum licenses. This is the main path to getting competition to flourish. The deal does nothing really to help that cause.. but doesn't necessarily hurt it either. There are still questions about what Sprint hopes to accomplish with their phone book long list of partner companies.. some of which are cable companies. If anything, their non-transparency provides ample cover for what Verizon's buying now.. so if nothing else, it's a savvy move by Verizon. | |
|
| |
Re: only wireless cable..said by tmc8080:Still, the focus should be on getting minority carriers to acquire and build upon new spectrum licenses. This is the main path to getting competition to flourish. And how does that benefit customers? Company XYZ will have to spend Millions to create that network. They will want to make that $$ back and when they see that you will pay $X for service they will initially price their service at a little less than $X. But over time it will go up to near the same as the big boys. Why? Investors -at some point they will need to make a profit or increase their profit level. Competition does nothing but make you feel good. It almost never results in truly lower prices or better service. Look at gas stations or grocery stores as an example. All are roughly the same prices across the board.... | |
|
axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2011-Dec-2 10:52 am
I wonder why AT&T didn't buy it insteadThe stated reason for buying T-mobile was because of problems with limited spectrum. I doubt they needed any of T-mobiles other assets, and as T-mobile is losing customers they would probably get those anyways.
Good buy for Verizon. It won't decrease competition, because "SpectrumCo" didn't have customers or affect the price of cell phone service.
How much profit did SpectrumCo make? | |
|
| |
lynkx
Anon
2011-Dec-2 11:32 am
Re: I wonder why AT&T didn't buy it insteadLittle over a billion profit. Not too shabby. Paid 2.37 B and sold for 3.6 B. There was a buyout of Cox Communications along the way. | |
|
| |
JLNHS to axus
Anon
2011-Dec-2 4:25 pm
to axus
It won't decrease competition The acquisition of this spectrum by Verizon decreases the available supply of spectrum for new entrants and competitors. In effect, it protects Verizon from having to compete with other companies and decreases potential competition because there is a finite supply of spectrum. Based on this FCC document (unless I've missed something), SpectrumCo paid approx. 1.298 Billion in Sept. 2006: » wireless.fcc.gov/auction ··· 2006&m=9 ( PDF - Quick View) | |
|
| | |
lynkx
Anon
2011-Dec-2 5:16 pm
Re: I wonder why AT&T didn't buy it instead | |
|
| mogamer join:2011-04-20 Royal Oak, MI |
to axus
said by axus:The stated reason for buying T-mobile was because of problems with limited spectrum. I doubt they needed any of T-mobiles other assets, and as T-mobile is losing customers they would probably get those anyways.
ATT didn't want this because it doesn't reduce competition by eliminating a competitor. | |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Long live video protection...So Verizon will wholesale service to big cable since they (cable) also have video skin in the game. In other words, it's safe for Verizon to assume that cable will never offer a reasonably priced, fixed-LTE package without caps because they too need to protect video. Perfect alignment for the opolists. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2011-Dec-2 11:54 am
Re: Long live video protection...Also keeps any competitor like Sprint, US Cellular, etc etc from doing it.
Win for Verizon. Win for consumers? Not so much, however it will make possible cable Co. MVNOs possible. | |
|
|
It all sounds very incestuous...I thought Verizon was going to use fixed LTE to reach the customers they sold off to other DSL providers and compete with cable companies. Now they are going to allow the same cable companies they are competing with access to this network? Very odd, but whatever it takes to make a deal I guess. | |
|
| rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
1 recommendation |
Re: It all sounds very incestuous...Those are my exact thoughts. Consumers should be rooting for competition, not collaboration. Frankly, I'd rather see the spectrum go to a third party that competes with both of them. | |
|
| |
to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:I thought Verizon was going to use fixed LTE to reach the customers they sold off to other DSL providers and compete with cable companies. Now they are going to allow the same cable companies they are competing with access to this network? Very odd, but whatever it takes to make a deal I guess. I could be mistaken, but I think the expectation is that fairpoint and frontier will fail (not too big to...) and some of the geography will be cherry picked by AT&T for mere pennies.. and not do much with it.. just U-Verse (ugh). Why would these events unfold this way.. because Verizon doesn't really like AT&T.. there's been a huge rivalry since the breakup of MaBell. | |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC
1 recommendation |
Meanwhile at AT&T.... Your Cupcake Tricks Will Not Work On Me... |
I bet some corporate drone is saying: "If only we'd have gotten them more cupcakes"... » www.weeklystandard.com/b ··· 064.htmlHopeless.... | |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Dec-2 1:05 pm
Now they can leave OTA aloneNo more whining to the FCC they need more spectrum. | |
|
| Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA
2 recommendations |
Sammer
Member
2011-Dec-3 2:25 am
Re: Now they can leave OTA aloneThe reality is that OTA is currently some of the most utilized and beneficial to the public spectrum there is. What isn't being used for OTA would be more valuable to the public with unlicensed white band device use than being auctioned to corporations that have already shown an unwillingness to invest what's necessary for a real broadband (fiber to the home) future. Unfortunately the other reality is there will be whining, lies, etc. aimed at taking away UHF OTA spectrum as long as it is practical for anyone to use an antenna to watch TV without paying a monthly bill. Greed, not spectrum, is the real reason behind the unfair attacks on OTA. | |
|
|
sparc
Member
2011-Dec-2 7:01 pm
govt should deny this saleif we're against the AT&T T-mobile merger, i think we should be against this too.
Giving the smaller competitors more access to these chunks of spectrum would help level the playing field far more.
If all the spectrum just gets gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T, we're going to make the consolidation with the industry inevitable. The smaller players wouldn't be able to compete.
It's funny how Karl and co are so anti AT&T T-mobile merger and they are pretty much silent when this Verizon deal has plenty of problems undermining smaller competitors. | |
|
| 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2011-Dec-3 10:58 am
Re: govt should deny this salewe can't do that because we get pay checks from CellCo's majority stock holder due to we advertise FiOS so much as the world's best thing since slice bread. | |
|
|
i don't like thisjust the thought of one company owning all this spectrum makes me uneasy | |
|
| 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2011-Dec-3 10:59 am
Re: i don't like thislol. and why???? This is crazy to be worked up over using the air waves there is still plenty more that can be opened up. | |
|
| | |
Re: i don't like thissaid by 25139889:lol. and why???? This is crazy to be worked up over using the air waves there is still plenty more that can be opened up. One problem with the idea that "plenty more [spectrum] can be opened up" is that wireless spectrum is already becoming ever more fragmented. A few years ago, wireless carriers operated in essentially three different bands: Cellular 850 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz, and SMR 800/900 MHz. Today, those operating bands have expanded to include, as well, AWS 2100+1700 MHz, BRS/EBS 2500-2600 MHz, Lower 700 MHz (with multiple band classes), and Upper 700 MHz (with multiple band classes). Not to mention, LightSquared and EchoStar (Dish Network) both want to bring Ancillary Terrestrial Component satellite spectrum to the mix, potentially adding ATC 1500 MHz and ATC 2000 MHz, respectively. All of this increasing fragmentation of wireless spectrum concomitantly leads to increasing fragmentation among device compatibility. Since wireless devices cannot readily support all of the emerging operating bands, device manufacturers frequently focus on largely/exclusively carrier specific capabilities (e.g. VZW and Upper 700 MHz band class 13, T-Mobile and AWS 2100+1700 MHz band class IV). And this becomes just another tie that binds in the dysfunctional contract subsidy system -- an impediment to true competition and consumer choice. AJ | |
|
| | | 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2011-Dec-3 4:45 pm
Re: i don't like thisStill don't see the problem.
And DishNetwork is a separate company from EchoStar. Has been for some time. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: i don't like thissaid by 25139889:Still don't see the problem.
And DishNetwork is a separate company from EchoStar. Has been for some time. I "don't see" how your response says much. And both EchoStar and Dish Network hold stakes in Manifest, which is the license holding entity for Lower 700 MHz spectrum. AJ | |
|
|
aannoonn
Anon
2011-Dec-3 8:08 am
Cable comapnies in Canada provide cell serviceDon't know why US cable companies don't. | |
|
| 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2011-Dec-3 4:50 pm
Re: Cable comapnies in Canada provide cell servicethey did. Its called being an MVNO but we've seen that those don't work. You can't piggy back on someone else for ever and the MSO's don't want to build out a new network; especially since in one state you can have 4 or 5 cable providers and they only cover a small area.. Those companies would need to build a network together and share it. And that won't happen. They created this company to make the $$ back that they wanted.
The only real option for the MSO's is to buy someone out and that could be Sprint-Nextel if China Mobile doesn't buy them up. | |
|
ggma1126GGMA1126 Premium Member join:2008-08-30 Claymont, DE |
ggma1126
Premium Member
2011-Dec-3 8:26 am
Just wonderingnow comcast will be selling their services in verizon wireless stores along side fios services - looks like comcast found an easy way to compete with fios in areas that have it should be interesting to watch this play out especially in the areas that have fios available - remember Verizon communications owns 55% of verizon wireless - | |
|
| |
nyc26
Anon
2011-Dec-5 7:22 pm
Re: Just wonderingAll this doesn't make since Verizon wants to destroy the cable companies especially time warner and Cablevision in nyc. This only mean a vote of non confident in those clowns at Clearwire. | |
|
| | ggma1126GGMA1126 Premium Member join:2008-08-30 Claymont, DE |
ggma1126
Premium Member
2011-Dec-6 7:11 pm
Re: Just wonderingin the philly /delaware area they try hard to win over fios customers i come home everyday to mail asking me to come back to ccast so I am assuming Comcast is loving the fact that they will be selling their services in the same retail outlets as fios JMO | |
|
|
|