dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1502

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

batterup

Premium Member

Net netural too I assume.

So Verizon builds the best high speed mobile broadband and now must let a low cost own nothing carrier leech off the network.

Brilliant just brilliant. The companies that are doers have smart people working there and they will not get taken for a ride. Brake up "The Bell System" and it comes back with less oversight than before. Brilliant just brilliant.

hamburglar
join:2002-04-29
united state

hamburglar

Member

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

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to batterup

Member

to batterup
The large carriers are charging the smaller carriers rates that are much higher than their own retail rates. This is supposed to help with that.

hamburglar
join:2002-04-29
united state

hamburglar

Member

Not sure where you are getting that information from? I had a Net10 CDMA phone on the Verizon Network last year. I had 150 Minutes for ~$13/month and they rolled over. There were over 1000 minutes left when I ported the number out last July.

I haven't seen a similar plan on Verizon for $13 a month, or even a 300 minute plan for $26. Hell, Net10 even has a 750min plan for $25/month and Straight Talk is $45 for unlimited. Not sure how they are charging more than retail and these companies are offering these plans?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

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.

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

batterup to hamburglar

Premium Member

to hamburglar
said by hamburglar:

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

airtouch25
join:2007-05-22
united state

airtouch25

Member

@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.

buddahbless
join:2005-03-21
Premium

buddahbless

Member

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 Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to airtouch25

Premium Member

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.

airtouch25
join:2007-05-22
united state

airtouch25

Member

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.

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

batterup

Premium Member

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/do ··· 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

batterup to battleop

Premium Member

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

TheGhost to batterup

Premium Member

to batterup
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 Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost

Premium Member

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.

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

batterup

Premium Member

said by TheGhost:

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.

Oh really? The cable companies had no problem building a network at the height of the Bell Monopoly. Some of them are doing quite well I heard. You are just having sport with me right?
TheGhost
Premium Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost

Premium Member

No, but you proved my point. Initially, the Cable companies had MONOPOLIES as well, and engaged in various monopoly behaviors. They were able to use their TV monopolies to fund the build out of and subsidize their Phone and Internet ventures, just as the cable companies were able to leverage their phone monopolies to build out Internet and TV businesses.

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

batterup

Premium Member

said by TheGhost:

No, but you proved my point. Initially, the Cable companies had MONOPOLIES as well, and engaged in various monopoly behaviors. They were able to use their TV monopolies to fund the build out of and subsidize their Phone and Internet ventures, just as the cable companies were able to leverage their phone monopolies to build out Internet and TV businesses.

Oh so anybody can be a monopoly? I'm confused.

I know what it is; your upset that your free MIC long distance isn't working like they lead you to believe.
TheGhost
Premium Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost

Premium Member

You are definitely confused, or maybe you work for VZ/phone/cable co? Not ANYONE can be a monopoly. They were granted EXCLUSIVE rights to an area for a given service (Cable TV / Telephone). Over the years, anyone who wanted that service HAD to purchase from the MONOPOLY provider. Since you seem to need it, here are some references:
»dictionary.reference.com ··· monopoly (see #6 to start)

Initially, the government sold the breakup of at&t as a way to foster competition, but you will note that with the rare exception of a few markets, you don't see VZ competing with T for telephone / TV / Internet or Comcast competing with Charter.

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

batterup

Premium Member

said by TheGhost:

Initially, the government sold the breakup of at&t as a way to foster competition, but you will note that with the rare exception of a few markets, you don't see VZ competing with T for telephone / TV / Internet or Comcast competing with Charter.

Exxxxcccuuussss me; Verizon wireless competes with at&t all over the country. This is about wireless lest we forget. Remember the great cell network the Quest monopoly built.
TheGhost
Premium Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost

Premium Member

You are right - in the wireless area, we have an OLIGOPOLY, whose members built there networks using their respective MONOPOLY profits.

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

batterup

Premium Member

said by TheGhost:

You are right - in the wireless area, we have an OLIGOPOLY, whose members built there networks using their respective MONOPOLY profits.

Quest too? Listen there is no free lunch; if you want Verizon coverage get Verizon.

Actually the FCC will lose in court as they cannot mandate this.

BTW, so T-Mobil will be exempt because they were never a "monopoly"?