dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
2432
share rss forum feed
« Nope
page: 1 · 2 · next

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Extremely unfortunate

It is extremely unfortunate that the government has decided to give Verizon a de-facto monopoly on being the only top-tier carrier, and not allowing good, strong competition against them.

This is over-regulation at it's worst, since the US can not and will not support more than two or three world-class 4G networks. Now there are only plans for one.

Verizon should be happy with this, however, as they have now cemented themselves as the only top-tier carrier, effectively making a new tier above the current ones.


renegade 1

@sbcglobal.net
said by BiggA:

It is extremely unfortunate that the government has decided to give Verizon a de-facto monopoly on being the only top-tier carrier, and not allowing good, strong competition against them.

This is over-regulation at it's worst, since the US can not and will not support more than two or three world-class 4G networks. Now there are only plans for one.

Verizon should be happy with this, however, as they have now cemented themselves as the only top-tier carrier, effectively making a new tier above the current ones.

You are so full of shit. Even Techdirt has better trolls. At least most of them try.

jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to BiggA
lol

i'll take my bill not going up $500 over two years with AT&T


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to renegade 1
yeah, BiggA is pretty much working on the 'most obvious troll ever' award. There's so much wrong with his posts, it's to the point of just being downright laughable.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
reply to renegade 1
said by renegade 1 :

said by BiggA:

It is extremely unfortunate that the government has decided to give Verizon a de-facto monopoly on being the only top-tier carrier, and not allowing good, strong competition against them.

This is over-regulation at it's worst, since the US can not and will not support more than two or three world-class 4G networks. Now there are only plans for one.

Verizon should be happy with this, however, as they have now cemented themselves as the only top-tier carrier, effectively making a new tier above the current ones.

You are so full of shit. Even Techdirt has better trolls. At least most of them try.

+1
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to tiger72
I'm not a troll, I'm a real AT&T customer, and real AT&T customers were irreparably harmed by the government's interference with the AT&T- T-Mobile merger.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

How are you harmed? According to you, you already get broadband speeds even in lead-lined rooms in the middle of the desert and its so cheap you pay the bill with change from the sofa! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
As long as AT&T doesn't cannibalize spectrum for LTE, that will still be true. However, we would have benefited hugely from T-Mobile sites and spectrum to run extra HSPA+ channels. Those two things combined would have massively increased the capacity and efficiency of the combined network.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims, nor those that AT&T has made. Stop trolling, please.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to BiggA
ATT's customers were irreparably harmed by ATT's refusal to deploy spectrally efficient HSPA+ until after T-Mobile had deployed it successfully - even in the light of slow data and dropped calls for YEARS on ATT's 3g network.

ATT's customers will be irreprably harmed by ATT's refusal to deploy even more spectrally efficient 42mbps HSPA+ as T-Mobile has, or 84mbps HSPA+ as T-Mobile will next year.

ATT's insistence on not using the most spectrally efficient updates for its deployed technologies has, does, and will continue to harm their customers.

And as an ATT customer, you should demand that they use their (supposedly limited, ha!) spectrum in the most efficient way possible, rather than trying to buy out the competition. Why? Because those upgrades directly correlate to the quality and speed of your voice and data service.

Do you know how many cellular towers $39 billion can build? About 200,000. Yet ATT refuses to upgrade its own network for its customers because investment expenditures are just too much. Right.

Have fun paying more for slower speeds and dropped calls!
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
That's an ignorant and oversimplified load of crap. You can't just build your way out of a spectrum shortage, and you need more customers to help maintain more towers. AT&T has been upgrading to more efficient forms of HSPA+, and now they are running on HSPA+ 21, although many phones are still running on 7.2 or 14.4.

I have a piece that I wrote before the merger when someone asked why it was a good idea, and I may post it tomorrow, it's a good read, and spells out very clearly for those who can't seem to understand basic economic, business, and scientific principles, why the merger was a good idea until the government over-regulated it out.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
blah blah blah blah blah. Your propaganda campaign died, NOBODY but you believed that crap. Suck it up.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
I didn't believe anything, being an intelligent person, unlike you, I analyzed it for myself, and came to the logical conclusion that the merger was an excellent idea.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

That's an ignorant and oversimplified load of crap.

I could get far more detailed. But I'm not going to waste my time explaining what you clearly don't have the mental capacity to comprehend.

You can't just build your way out of a spectrum shortage

That statement is interesting, because it assumes that there is a spectrum shortage. ATT is sitting on about half of its spectrum. This is well documented. Moreover, it's very common for operators to use smaller cells to reuse frequencies and to increase capacity in a given area.

and you need more customers to help maintain more towers.

See: ATT's profit statements. *yawn*.

AT&T has been upgrading to more efficient forms of HSPA+, and now they are running on HSPA+ 21, although many phones are still running on 7.2 or 14.4.

The fact that phones are running at 7.2 or 3.6 or 14.4 or 21mbps is irrelevant. That has no bearing on ATT's tower improvements and why they refuse to maximize the spectrum they're already using. EVERYONE on a tower benefits from the tower being upgraded to faster revisions of HSPA because the tower's total capacity is increased. It's like widening a highway.

I have a piece that I wrote before the merger when someone asked why it was a good idea, and I may post it tomorrow, it's a good read, and spells out very clearly for those who can't seem to understand basic economic, business, and scientific principles, why the merger was a good idea until the government over-regulated it out.

I don't doubt that the merger was a GREAT idea for ATT.

I. Don't. Care. About. ATT.

I care about my wireless bill, and better performance. And all of my experiences with ATT have proven that they have no interest in giving me a value for my monthly dime.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

I didn't believe anything, being an intelligent person, unlike you, I analyzed it for myself, and came to the logical conclusion that the merger was an excellent idea.

Nothing you have ever written supports your claim of being intelligent or possessing any understanding of logic. In fact, your postings have demonstrated the exact opposite. And I am, obviously, not the only person here with the same belief.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to tiger72
If you are interested in better service than AT&T in your area, or with 4G LTE, you'd be using Verizon, in which case you wouldn't care about the merger.

Now AT&T doesn't have the spectrum to build out 4G LTE. Verizon, on the other hand, now has a ton, and as a result, Verizon will effectively have no competition in the future with their nationwide 4G LTE network. If the AT&T- T-Mobile merger had been approved, then there were have been much better competition at Verizon's level.

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to BiggA
Here is why I support the merger, as I explained to someone on Hofo who messaged me asking why my signature said that I supported it:

As for AT&T&T, Well, first of all, I have a little bit of bias. I am an AT&T customer, and I live in an area that, while technically served by 6 networks owned by 5 carriers (Cellco/Verizon, AT&T Mobility, Sprint PCS, Sprint iDen, T-Mobile USA, and MetroPCS), the only viable options are Verizon and AT&T, as the others lack decent coverage.

There are several reasons that I support the merger:

1. Currently there is an ironclad duopoly in the US market if you want wireless coverage that actually works. The two companies, as of a few years ago, were virtually perfect mirrors of one another. Monkey see, monkey do. There were a few exceptions, like Rollover, but they were few and far between. There was some market differentiation as data became more prevalent, both on the device side, with Verizon marketing the DROID against AT&T's iPhone, and Verizon's 3G EVDO network with wider coverage going against AT&T's faster UMTS/HSPA network. However, as much as these have created small points of differentiation, they are still largely monkey-see, monkey-do.

The AT&T&T merger will throw this duopoly off-balance, by making AT&T much larger, with more spectrum holdings, requiring Verizon to differentiate themselves, and hopefully creating a back-and-forth between the two companies, even if it is still somewhat limited and slow.

2. T-Mobile can't survive on it's own. It is either going to be bought by AT&T, or bought by another company (I think Wal-Mart is the next company that would buy T-Mobile), but either way it is going to get bought. Having it get bought by Wal-Mart would be neat and all, but ultimately, it wouldn't help network capacity and spectrum positions very much. If T-Mobile is bought now by AT&T, it's resources will be put to good use, but if it continues to bleed subscribers before being bought up by someone else, then it will be worth a lot less, and it's spectrum will be even more under-utilized than it is now.

3. T-Mobile has not been disruptive. While they have offered some interesting plans with no contract, or discounts for not offering a device subsidy, fundamentally, they haven't been disruptive. They have offered similar plans to AT&T at a 20% discount for far less coverage. They just don't have a compelling set of plans, and now they are at even more of a disadvantage without the iPhone. They do offer several pre-paid plans, but in order to get a decent amount of minutes and data, you have to get up to the $60 level, which is getting close to the cost of the bigger players anyways. Virgin Mobile, on the other hand, has offered several low-cost plans below $50 that have a lot of minutes and data, in addition to low up-front costs on the phones without huge mark-ups.

4. From a spectrum position, it just makes sense. AT&T screwed up in the spectrum auctions, and didn't get a nationwide chunk of anything. As a result, they don't have spectrum for LTE in many places in the eastern half of the country, where they are strongest in 2G and 3G services, including much of Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and patches throughout the south. T-Mobile would get them a full nationwide license of AWS, which, combined with SMH licenses offers a decent lath to LTE, even if it is not as good as Verizon's nationwide 10mhz C block chunk. If you look at the PCS, it makes even more sense, however. T-Mobile is currently using all of their PCS for 2G, which is not a good use for the spectrum. AT&T could take it and almost immediately convert it to HSPA+, with T-Mobile 2G customers going to AT&T's existing CLR or PCS GSM blocks that are becoming under-utilized anyways as very, very few customers are left on the legacy GSM network. The overall result is two networks instead of 3, with increased spectral efficiency and use, with T-Mobile's AWS block being partially reclaimed for LTE. There are also two reasons why the reclamation isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. The first is that the areas that AT&T actually needs the AWS, T-Mobile doesn't have Faux G running on it, so T-Mobile's existing Faux G network could run on for a while in a semi-abandoned state. Secondly, even if it were shut off, the customers would be give upgrades to AT&T devices, and if they chose not to, their phones would continue to work with EDGE in the PCS or CLR bands.

To be continued...

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Continued...

4. From a site position, it just makes sense. We are currently running 5+ redundant networks in every major city, with different site locations (unlike in the suburbs where they are typically co-located on 5-8 deck towers), and slightly different coverage patterns. This type of redundancy requires each carrier to build out their own network, with their own backhaul, their own site surveys, etc, and it just makes no sense to have this many companies all trying to do the same thing. T-Mobile and AT&T's sites actually complement each other well. Because T-Mobile has historically been focused on urban markets and has used PCS spectrum, they have smaller and more closely spaced sites, which AT&T now needs to deal with the data boom. The combination of sites will add multiplicatively to the increase in spectral efficiency, making the overall network much more efficient. In certain areas, like in the bay area, T-Mobile has many, many more sites, making them hugely valuable to AT&T, given that the two big California markets are two of the last places where AT&T seems to have never-ending capacity problems (in my experience, Manhattan has rock-solid AT&T coverage outside of the subway or Macy's). Having a total 130 million customers with a fewer number of total sites will also free up more capital for construction of 4G LTE to compete even with Verizon's. Hopefully, it would also allow AT&T to finish building out their native network in rural areas that they currently roam, like northern New England, which is currently only well served by CDMA carriers.

5. Ultimately, there isn't enough capital in the country to support more than 3, if even that many, world-class 4G networks. There can't be 4, and in my opinion, there can't be 3. Thus, something has to happen to support 4G development. I think Sprint made a mistake going for WiMAX and now LTE, I think that they should focus on cheap prepaid, and reclaiming their SMR spectrum for CDMA and expanding their CDMA network, but we'll see what happens there.

6. It would create the ultimate network. The combination of T-Mobile's urban sites and spectrum, and AT&T's massive network would create effectively the ultimate network, with insane coverage and speed virtually everywhere, both at the Faux G and the 4G levels.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
Again, not one bit of factual information in your entire verbose diatribe. Your misinformation didn't work for AT&T and doesn't work for you, now. Give it a rest and move on, maybe you can spend your energy and time to move out of your mom's basement eventually.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
I don't live in my mom's basement, and I find it weird that you care. What exactly is not factual in there? You can't seem to name anything in particular and why.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
What is weird is you continuing to spew misinformation that has been proven false, and continuing to champion a deal that is officially dead. Over and over and over on this website you have proffered nothing but effluvium that nobody believes or accepts, but you keep shoveling away. I must wonder why.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Like what? What do you think is false?

WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

4. From a spectrum position, it just makes sense. AT&T screwed up in the spectrum auctions, and didn't get a nationwide chunk of anything. As a result, they don't have spectrum for LTE in many places in the eastern half of the country, where they are strongest in 2G and 3G services, including much of Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and patches throughout the south.

Where did you do your spectrum research???

AT&T is generally awash in spectrum; Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia -- which you cite as spectrum deficient areas -- are hardly exceptions. In all but two of the 29 MSAs in those three states, AT&T holds at least 10 MHz of perfectly "green field" Lower 700 MHz and/or AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum with which to deploy its 4G LTE network. In all but four MSAs, AT&T holds at least 20 MHz of the aforementioned spectrum. And, overall, both median and mode spectrum holdings are fully 38 MHz. That is plenty of unused spectrum in which to launch and develop an LTE footprint over the next several years.

See the entire list that I have compiled for you below:

Detroit-Ann Arbor: 30 MHz
Cleveland: 30 MHz
Cincinnati: 38 MHz
Columbus: 30 MHz
Dayton: 40 MHz
Toledo: 50 MHz
Akron: 30 MHz
Grand Rapids: 50 MHz
Youngstown-Warren: 38 MHz
Flint: 30 MHz
Lansing-East Lansing: 50 MHz
Canton: 30 MHz
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland: 38 MHz
Huntington-Ashland: 38 MHz
Kalamazoo: 50 MHz
Lorain-Elyria: 18 MHz
Charleston: 38 MHz
Hamilton-Middletown: 50 MHz
Lima: 6 MHz
Battle Creek: 38 MHz
Wheeling: 38 MHz
Springfield: 28 MHz
Muskegon: 38 MHz
Benton Harbor: 18 MHz
Steubenville-Weirton: 38 MHz
Parkersburg-Marietta: 38 MHz
Jackson: 18 MHz
Mansfield: 6 MHz
Cumberland: 48 MHz

Not to mention, this assessment does not take into account any of the oft copious amounts (50 MHz) of Cellular 850 MHz and/or PCS 1900 MHz that AT&T also controls in these markets. That spectrum may or may not be in current use. But any unused spectrum of at least 10 MHz bandwidth can be put to use for LTE. And under utilized spectrum allotted to 2G GSM or 3G W-CDMA can "refarmed" for LTE as demand shifts to the 4G network.

Honestly, your justifications for the AT&T-T-Mobile merger sound as if they were researched primarily using AT&T's own "astroturfing" campaign as your primary sources. In short, they make good sounding talking points but frequently do not hold up under scrutiny for truth and accuracy.

AJ

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
No, actually I used Phonearena's maps of AWS and SMH licenses that were won by Cingular and AT&T, and they do coincide with the marketing material used by AT&T.

In about half of the area of those states, AT&T does NOT have AWS or SMH spectrum, and as they build out their HSPA+ network, their existing spectrum won't be around to re-farm. Of course you can make the argument that stuff like HSPA+ 84 is good enough to not need LTE, but that's another debate for another day.

In terms of real 4G, Verizon has a MASSIVE advantage, and will have that advantage until AT&T can come up with some more spectrum, especially SMH spectrum.

That's all my own writing, it's not based on AT&T's arguments or the counterarguments from Karl and people on Howardforums.

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to WiWavelength
I also fundamentally believe that there should only be at most three wireless operators in the US, because there can be, at most, only three world-class wireless operators, more likely two. Sprint has some beachfront spectrum, if anyone who knew what the hell they were doing was running that company, they have the resources to be another Verizon or AT&T, and the history in wireless and wireline to do it, which is why I fundamentally agreed with the demise of T-Mobile, since they didn't have the resources from any side to be world-class.

WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

In about half of the area of those states, AT&T does NOT have AWS or SMH spectrum...

No, from its Qualcomm spectrum acquisition, AT&T has 6 MHz or 12 MHz of Lower 700 MHz unpaired spectrum in every county in the contiguous US. So, your point above is invalid.

Regardless, LTE deployment is not limited to AWS 2100+1700 MHz and Lower 700 MHz spectrum. Both Cellular 850 MHz and PCS 1900 MHz are also established LTE band classes. AT&T may have to learn the value of in band migration.

said by BiggA:

...and as they build out their HSPA+ network, their existing spectrum won't be around to re-farm.

AT&T has had six years to finish building out its W-CDMA overlay, yet about half of its native footprint remains GSM only. If AT&T is not finished by now, then AT&T is not likely to ever finish. Instead, AT&T needs to skip W-CDMA in any markets that are still GSM only and jump straight to LTE. Additionally, as AT&T deploys LTE in existing W-CDMA markets, AT&T most definitely can and should "refarm" some GSM and or W-CDMA spectrum as traffic shifts over to LTE.

In the end, AT&T cannot rationally justify a need for ~100 MHz of spectrum per market to run large, redundant allotments of GSM, W-CDMA, and LTE all in parallel. AT&T has long been a gluttonous, inefficient steward of our public spectrum and needs to shape up.

AJ

WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS
reply to BiggA
said by BiggA:

I also fundamentally believe that there should only be at most three wireless operators in the US, because there can be, at most, only three world-class wireless operators, more likely two.

In essence, what you are saying is that we should sell our souls to VZW and AT&T in the hopes that a true duopoly will motivate them to compete vigorously against one another and to provide LTE coverage of ubiquitous breadth and tremendous capacity.

That is a Faustian bargain of dangerous proportions, one that could just as easily backfire, with two fat and happy carriers, now too big to fail, both marching in slow lockstep.

No, I would rather have four or five pretty good wireless carriers for the competition, innovation, and consumer choice that they provide than have only two supposedly "world-class" carriers and potentially be stuck with a choice between a rock and a hard place.

AJ


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink
reply to tiger72
Yes, yes and YES!

If you think AT&T is bad in St. Louis you should try it in rural MO where Mother Bell owns all the copper and has zero competition. I was four blocks from the sales office/ tower and could not get a signal inside my house but I sure did with T-Mobile. I have not looked back..

I still live rural. Now I have Verizon and Sprint, a wireless router and a tower 2 miles away. I took a 600 mile trip to OK with my cousin. OK is Ma Bell exclusive too. Her AT&T phone did not work for 1200 miles except in cities where we stopped for gas. My phones did. She will not renew with Mother who now claims it has a 4G network 100 times faster than 3G. What the hell does it matter if it doesn't work when you need it and where you need it? Verizon does.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside

BiggA
Premium
join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to BiggA
That spectrum is unpaired, so they would need something else to pair it with and LTE-advanced.

They can't just skip WCDMA, as then you'd need an LTE phone to get the full coverage, and they also don't have VoLTE running yet.

Running a 5mhz chunk of GSM isn't really that inefficient or wasteful. However, since T-Mobile and AT&T couldn't merge, they couldn't take the 15-20mhz of GSM in a given market and crunch it down to 5-10mhz. What's wasteful now?

The fact of the matter is, the capital simply isn't there for 4 or 5 companies to build these massive, nationwide networks with tens of thousands of cell sites, and when one company covers one place, and another company covers another, everyone loses.

The way the licenses were auctioned and sold, there will be only one top-tier carrier in a few years, and that carrier will be free to do basically whatever the heck it wants to. That's better than having two carriers that sort of compete against each other like we do now?

The concept of having 4 or more carriers actually build world-class nationwide networks is utterly ridiculous. If AT&T had gotten the T-Mobile spectrum and further built out LTE, that would have forced Verizon to really be on their toes with it, so ultimately, we will not have this competition. Hopefully Verizon builds out most of what they would have built to compete with a stronger AT&T, but there's no guarantees.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
You are seriously delusional and you keep repeating the same misinformation that even AT&T's own lawyers didn't believe. Nice try, but really, you need a life.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1