| |
StruggleI struggle with this one. On one hand, Verizon and AT&T have made tons of money because of superior coverage and networks, so they deserve to be successful. They can afford to bid. On the other hand, I like the idea of letting a "little guy" get a bit of an advantage. I am against government interfering, but they have control of the spectrum that really belongs to us in the first place! What a mess.
Sprint wants part of the 600mhz set aside also, so they have a chance to win some of it. However, if they weren't a piss-poorly managed mess for so many years with the world's worst network, and had great success and tons of money, they would be against such a thing. |
|
2 recommendations |
They deserve to be successful, and they are.
But is it ok to use one's size and money to prevent other smaller companies from being successful also? |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2015-Jun-11 5:38 pm
No. But when those smaller players are backed by wealthy oversea companies? Verizon and At&t have a point. T-Mobile can compete in the auction. Their parent company just doesn't want to. Should At&t and Verizon be punished for that? |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
7 recommendations |
to scott2020
They have superior networks and coverage because back in the 1980's they were ILEC's and received the "B" side 850MHz spectrum at no charge. They could then use the money they saved to build their networks and subsidize it with wireline revenue. The "A" side was also given away and through mergers and acquisitions became owned by either AT&T (New York area - Verizon has "B") or Verizon. All new companies that entered the market since then have had to buy spectrum before they could even deploy one transmitter. AT&T and Verizon received preferential government treatment for decades and they leveraged that against competitors. They still get many breaks and even write the laws in some states. Anything to try and bring more competition to the marketplace I am for. |
|
1 recommendation |
to silbaco
Agreed but what about cost of entry for other smaller american carriers (that don't have a wealthy backing company)? Here's a list of all US cellular carriers (it's a pretty big list): » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li ··· roviders |
|
3 recommendations |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:They have superior networks and coverage because back in the 1980's they were ILEC's and received the "B" side 850MHz spectrum at no charge. They could then use the money they saved to build their networks and subsidize it with wireline revenue. The "A" side was also given away and through mergers and acquisitions became owned by either AT&T (New York area - Verizon has "B") or Verizon. All new companies that entered the market since then have had to buy spectrum before they could even deploy one transmitter. AT&T and Verizon received preferential government treatment for decades and they leveraged that against competitors. They still get many breaks and even write the laws in some states. Anything to try and bring more competition to the marketplace I am for. Please stop with facts. You are going to derail the astroturfing about how poor little Verizon and ATT should be able to compete. Tmobile is just now getting enough spectrum to compete and look at what they can do. |
|
|
smk11
2 recommendations |
to scott2020
said by scott2020:I struggle with this one. On one hand, Verizon and AT&T have made tons of money because of superior coverage and networks, so they deserve to be successful... The cellular A and B blocks were given to them. They are about as "successful" as a trust fund baby. |
|
 OpTiC
Premium Member
join:2014-03-08
West Covina, CA
1 recommendation |
to smk11
Look at VZ spectrums. VZ claim that T-Mobile have too much spectrum. |
|
2 recommendations |
Anon Coward to scott2020
Anon
2015-Jun-11 8:29 pm
to scott2020
But you're ignoring the fact that the Bells (now known as AT&T and Verizon after decades of consolidation) were in fact gifted premium low-band spectrum back in the 80s.
IF the FCC tips the scales in favor of T-Mobile and Sprint, it would also to a certain extent be balancing out a historical advantage that AT&T and Verizon were foolishly handed. |
|
 cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL
2 recommendations |
to smk11
it's not just the spectrum and the tax subsidies in distant past. Do you know who used to be the company with the largest geographic coverage in the US ? Not Verizon. Not Cingular/SBC, now "ATT" . It was Alltel, which these two destroyed and devoured. Without THAT coverage, they could barely call themselves national carriers.And they devoured many other smaller companies ; under the watchful eyes of FCC and FTC which are now so surprised that we have a near duopoly.
BTW TMO is not a direct subsidiary of DT. DT is a majority share holder and they want to get rid off it. |
|
 j1349705
Premium Member
join:2006-04-15
Holly Springs, NC
1 recommendation |
to n2jtx
850 MHz also had, if I recall correctly, build out requirements based on land, not population. They had to build out networks that covered basically everyone or other carriers could step in and fill in the gaps.
Of course, covering a ton of land with 850MHz is a lot more practical than with 1900MHz or other higher frequencies.
AT&T and Verizon definitely got a good deal on spectrum, and have been able to use this to restrict competition due to their better financial position. Granted this was through acquisitions for the most part. They also got a head start vs T-Mobile and Sprint since 850 MHz was in place before 1900, which means they were able to snatch up the best places for cell sites. |
|
2 recommendations |
ashc2 to silbaco
Anon
2015-Jun-11 11:29 pm
to silbaco
said by silbaco:No. But when those smaller players are backed by wealthy oversea companies? Verizon and At&t have a point. T-Mobile can compete in the auction. Their parent company just doesn't want to. Should At&t and Verizon be punished for that? Would you invest in a small company against 2 duopoly's that run everything? It's a big investment you are asking Deutch Telecom to make when they are not assured the success the 2 big telecoms are enjoying. Besides spectrum, TMO would need more money to build there network out as did the cash pony duopoly. TMO-US was interested in leaving the US because of the money wasn't there and they couldn't compete with a system that feeds the beast. Now, would you spend all your hard working money on a gamble or on 2 companies that run the show? |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2015-Jun-11 11:47 pm
said by ashc2 :Would you invest in a small company against 2 duopoly's that run everything? It's a big investment you are asking Deutch Telecom to make when they are not assured the success the 2 big telecoms are enjoying. Huh? That's the risk part of investing that makes or breaks. The days of guaranteed profits are gone. Either DT wants to support its loud mouthed, obnoxious CEO, or it doesn't. Time to shit or get off of the pot. |
|
openbox9
1 recommendation |
to Anon Coward
Ma Bell was guaranteed regulated rates and handed a controlled monopoly to build the world's best telecommunications system. So? Actions that occurred decades ago doesn't matter that much today. Look forward, not backward, IMO. |
|
 SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
1 recommendation |
to smk11
T-mobile has lots of spectrum. Problem is, all but a tiny slice of it is high band. Great for capacity, bad for single cell range and building/hill/any obstacle penetration. They were creative in bringing UMA early in the game (like Wifi calling but built into the firmware in the old BlackBerry phones) but some more low band will help all the more a company that has done quite well with what they have so far. |
|
1 recommendation |
to silbaco
Because AT&T and Verizon are struggling mom and pop companies compared to big, bad Deutsche Telekom.
Alrighty then. |
|
| |
to bluefox8
Are those small carriers even complaining?
It's the biggest most deep pocketed carriers like T-Mobile, Sprint and Dish who want to rig the auction in their favor. They shouldn't even be counted as small carriers and no spectrum should be set aside for them specifically.
If T-mobile merges with Dish, they'll have even more ridiculous scale to buy up whatever spectrum they want.
Dish spent the last auction creating shell companies to pretend as if they are a small carrier to gain discounts they didn't deserve. IMO, that deprives carriers that truly are small. |
|
2 recommendations |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Huh? That's the risk part of investing that makes or breaks. The days of guaranteed profits are gone. Either DT wants to support its loud mouthed, obnoxious CEO, or it doesn't. Time to shit or get off of the pot. That's some great paid shilling. The scarcity of (low band) spectrum guarantees profit. There's so much profit that wireline is getting dumped by telcos. Distribute the spectrum evenly, increase the amount by over 500Mhz, and then profit will be gone. Without that the days of guaranteed profits are going to continue. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2015-Jun-13 12:54 am
said by smk11:That's some great paid shilling. Name calling is built on the back of a weak argument. said by smk11:Without that the days of guaranteed profits are going to continue. BS |
|
1 recommendation |
smk11
Member
2015-Jun-13 1:16 pm
said by openbox9:said by smk11:That's some great paid shilling. Name calling is built on the back of a weak argument. said by smk11:Without that the days of guaranteed profits are going to continue. BS No, that was the profanity you used. "Title II!" "Socialism!" "Net neutrality is going to kill off all profit!" "Boo!" |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2015-Jun-13 2:03 pm
Two threads now and I don't understand what you're attempting to communicate. |
|
