Comcast, Verizon Defend Deal Before Congress

Yes I know the 36dBm is the maximum power limit but I am disagreeing about what you said that you need 7-9 basestation to cover one mile is NOT TRUE!!!! You can do it with one basestation doing 3+ miles. It all depends on your Fresnal Clearance Zone if you dont got good Fresnal Clearance Zone of course it will take 1-2 basestations to cover the mile but what you said earlier is a LIE and NOT TRUE!!!

here is going from the best to the worse:

900Mhz ----> 2.4Ghz ---> 3.65Ghz unlicensed and Licensed WiMax --> 5Ghz -- Worse

For now. Do you really think that Verizon will never put down any more FiOS fiber?

Think about in a few years when:
* The economy begins to grow again
* Unemployment drops
* Housing market picks up
* Fiber gear continues to drop in price
* The US population and housing density continues to grow
* 100Mb connections are a must-have by everyone wanting to use latest internet capabilities

Let's look a this another way. Do you seriously think no one ever thought of a WISP? There is a reason that a majority of city based WISP have gone bankrupt.

Well I am talking about rural WISP's I guess we dont have understanding what we even talking about. In the city of course it wont fly very will but Rural WISP's are the key here because there isnt anything would be able to take that down and I am sure verizon or any other cell carrier wont be able to do that.

Only way it can be taken down is the WTS aka whitespace wifi because the whitespace have very long base range like 10+ miles from one basestation.

Verizon operates in some of the most affluent counties in the US, yet they still stopped rolling out FiOS to those areas. I'm not sure why they did that but I don't think that your bullet points are going to get them to startup again. They have some other agenda in motion.

IMO, VZ, especially now with a CEO from the wireless side, loves the profit margin of wireless and are putting nearly all money into LTE. Their unwillingness to negotiate a new contract with the union seems to indicate they aren't interested very much with the wire line side with its union employees.

the real reason is verizon is selling off it's dsl areas to smaller companies like fairpoint and frontier, who have no intention or ability to keep the infrastructure up to date.

Sure, put the service in the already crowded unlicensed band.

No thanks.

Well there is always WTS aka whitespace.

Exactly. And it's better that it's in the hands of a company who will deploy it than let it sit idle for years and years, just being wasted.

I think it is only a matter of time until over-the-top TV comes. Maybe Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, who knows which one will be first. Over-the-top home HD TV and 4G will not mix well.

I dont see the big deal as comcast is not a wireless company.
It would not be right to say no to comcast and say if they want wireless they have to build it themselves as they are not a wireless company.

This does not crush competition. It really does nothing but give consumers an option to get a couple dollar discount per month by bundling a 3rd parties LTE with their comcast landline services. I am sure the discount wont be much.

ATT and verizon already does this with their wireless, TV, and land line internet. Comcast wants to be like them but by using Verizon's wireless.

As for the 122 Advance Wireless Spectrum licenses Verizon is buying, it does not matter when the sellers were not going to use it quick enough.
The FCC just needs to enforce that verizon must develop on the spectrum or lose it.
Even if verizon develops it, the government can still force them to sell it later. So in the end who cares.

Yawn....

Force verizon to build out fios for buying wireless spectrum??? really??

They just need to force verizon to actually develop the wireless spectrum they are buying instead of sitting on it.
Also it would not hurt to ban all caps on wireless.

I see the big deal as comcast is a wireline company. Verizon should be selling, endorsing, and improving their OWN wired network, not abandoning it in favor of cable. These companies compete on the wired side of the business. Its not just about FiOS either, Verizon still has millions of landlines/ DSL, they should be selling their own products, competitively against the cable co's.

The entire deal is hypocritical, and circumvents the entire goal of the '96 telecom act.

The cable co's should have pooled all their spectrum together and created their OWN wireless co, OR partnered with a Wireless co that does not have their own Wired products , Tmobile , Sprint ( I believe they spun off wireline to Embarq)

If none of that was good enough, the cable co's should have auctioned the spectrum off ! And VZ could have, and probably would have won the bid, without a conflict of interest.

There is so much wrong here, its sickening.

They halted it because they have hundreds of town/city franchises to fulfill !! Once that is done, they *would* have had money to further expand FiOS !

The future is fiber when it comes to internet/video ; not wireless, not DSL, not copper. Youre just as ignorant as they are.

Anyone who thinks its right for a customer to walk into a VZ wireless store and buy Comcast services is an ignoramus. Verizon has their OWN wired services !

That would be a great stipulation.

"Sure, you can partner with the cable co's, as long as FiOS reaches every inch of your wireline footprint. OH, and that includes TV franchises as well."

Youll see how quick Comcast & Time Warner withdraws from the deal !

They arent simply BUYING SPECTRUM, why dont you wake up. If it was just a spectrum purchase , it wouldnt be as big a deal.

and the Sherman Anti-trust act too.

Unused for wireless, it should have reverted back to the taxpayer.

It's very simple.. if Comcast doesn't want the spectrum then they should turn it back over to the FCC. I don't think that private sales between business should be allowed.

The fact that comcast wants to turn around and sell it to VZ could easily be theorized that it was intended all along.. similar to when AT&T wanted MediaOne as did Comcast.. AT&T got it, shelled the company of @home, took the ISP and then sold the operation to Comcast anyway. These kinds of deals piss me off and this one is no exception.

While there is certainly no proof that my theory above is true, there is certainly enough past precedence to say I'm probably right.

The issue is though that when the original spectrum was sold, wasn't it sold with a certain level of requirements? Now that the sale has passed and Comcast holds it, they can easily decide to sell it to a party that was never intended to receive it in the first place. If that's true, then that alone should be a red flag to the FCC to deny this sale.

Comcast stated that they never intended to get into wireless... where does that come to play?

Being that the constitution doesn't GRANT any RIGHTS,.. it doesn't. The constitution only limits the powers of the government from restricting certain rights.

Does anyone REALLY think that Comcast has any desire to offer wireless service? Let's not forget the past. Comcast was a wireless carrier. Comcast has tried, and failed, on several occasions to offer a wireless service. Each wireless venture turned out to be such a joke of an offering that the consumer realized they could get a better deal on their own. Comcast has often sold the quad play as "one combined bill".. and surprise!! .. not everyone likes to drop a lot of money in one spot. (ie: all eggs in one basket) Many people have learned that while these resellers offer verizon's service, you usually can't just leave Comcast, in this case, and jump to Verizon with out starting a new contract as a new customer.

Over the years people have learned what a joke reseller agreements really are. Qwest resold Sprint service for a while, that didn't go well for them. They dumped Sprint and moved to Verizon. I really don't think it's the greatest thing either for Qwest, now CL.

I think Comcast is just selling the spectrum off to Verizon for a profit, putting up the front that they're going to sell combined service, and in about a year, at best, those who foolishly subscribed with Comcast's new friend, formerly a foe, will get the familiar letter, something of:I'm seriously trying to figure out why comcast wants to get into wireless. They've talked about it for YEARS! And a comapny the size of comcast, with all the money they have, seriously can't figure out their way into wireless? I see Comcast's desire to be a wireless option about the same as the way AT&T made my iPhone 4S a 4G phone over night with a small update - it's just a "we have to be part of the parade" kinda thing.

But I really believe that this is just a shell operation to transfer spectrum to Verizon with out the pesky FCC getting in the way.

If I were congress, I'd require that if they want this deal that bad, then Verizon Telco and Verizon Wireless need to got the way of AT&T et 1984.. split 'em up! AT&T should have been split up in the same way when they wanted Tmo, and when they merged with Bell South. Either regulate them again, or split up their operations. Split 'em up and see how fast the land line business starts to innovate in order to survive with out the cash cow of the wireless.

Here's another couple super huge conglomerates that need to be obliterated and brought back down too Earth just to show them who they REALLY work for!!

There's all kinds of weird overlaps. AT&T sells U-Verse and DirecTV.

And it's not like AT&T is not rolling out U-Verse just because they have a partnership with DirecTV. A lot of their stores have both side by side (which ironically makes U-Verse look like a POS).

quote:

---

Split 'em up and see how fast the land line business starts to innovate in order to survive with out the cash cow of the wireless.

---

Ding Ding Ding , we have a winner !

The most sensible deal is for VZW to go team up with the cable co's, and for AT&T to * gulp* merge with VZwireline AND adopt FiOS as its new love-child.

Aside from a small amount of wholesale lines inherited when SBC bought AT&T and Verizon bought MCI, these companies do NOT compete. Their wireline areas do not cross anywhere except one lucky town in Texas that can get either FioS OR Uverse.

Any merging of any kind that has a significant % reduction in the number of choices is bad. Time and again through history this plays out, it ends badly always for the consumer.

Why are we not learning from our past mistakes like "BELL"

This next bit is going to sound off topic but isn't because most people do not know about this organizations existence. I had it officially confirmed at my senators office. "ALEC" It has been in place for the past 40 years, I think, and they been introducing bills for state reps That weaken the very rules that the FCC follow that would have normally stopped this kind of merger.

I am not going in to "ALEC" It does not effect just FCC it pretty much every major facet in life. you can google it.

I do not want this kind of merge in that I have hard enough time getting services that are mutually favorable for both the business and myself.

Once merged, their attitude will change, they feel since there is no one else to go to, your stuck with us so your going to take what ever crap we give you.

good example of such merge centurylink/qwest.

In the end it doesn't matter what services are provided by the separate companies. Especially these days when there is no real competition left. bigger is not better. Bigger is also much slower at change when something bad happens. Or where change needs to take place.

it is better to have smaller companies because they can adapt to change better. and because they are smaller they can focus on who matters, their clients.