AT&T Doesn't Want Dish, They Just Don't Want Competition

Thing is this isn't the ATT of old.

like everything Karl posts

The fact of the matter is that only AT&T and Verizon have the infrastructure and network to build out in a meaningful way. We may as well get AT&T more spectrum so that they can compete with Verizon's 4G LTE rollout, otherwise we will go from two top-tier providers to one. And that's not good for competition, as Verizon can just jack the prices up as much as they want.

well ... if wireless is ever going to be a reasonable alternative to home internet there needs to be much competition not less.

QUOTE.....LTE Advanced can do 1 gbps over 67 MHz. The next generation, 5G, should get 5x that capacity.
There are millions of households whose best internet connection is DSL or worse. Wireless will do more than compete with that.

Reply...Well yes and no... Agreed LTE advanced will be able to do over 100mbps up to 1Gbps , even HSPA+ gen 2 is said to be able to hit 168mbps. The problem is if the price per GB over wireless does not come down to a reasonable cost it does not matter how fast of a connection it is, home residential user will rather pay (I hate to say it) ATT 19.95 per mth for 6.0 mbps DSL and a 150GB cap than Verizon or ATT (LTE hotspot) $50 for 5GB with overages at whatever speed.. This is one of the cases where you prefer quantity over quality!

The fact of the matter is that only AT&T and Verizon have the infrastructure and network to build out in a meaningful way. We may as well get AT&T more spectrum so that they can compete with Verizon's 4G LTE rollout, otherwise we will go from two top-tier providers to one. And that's not good for competition, as Verizon can just jack the prices up as much as they want.

AT&T needed better spectrum depth

It had nothing to do with your cute little conspiracy theory about getting rid of a competitor.

Not only were they not competitors in the first place, but T-Mo is and was on a nose dive anyways.

Well, it is a fact. There are only two carriers that have nationwide coverage. Sprint if you count roaming, but then you're just counting Verizon again.

AT&T needed better spectrum depth, as well as nationwide spectrum with which to deploy 4G LTE, which T-Mobile had. It had nothing to do with your cute little conspiracy theory about getting rid of a competitor. Not only were they not competitors in the first place, but T-Mo is and was on a nose dive anyways.

Currently, AT&T does not own the spectrum, and has no clear path of obtaining the spectrum to have licenses across 100% of the lower 48 for 4G LTE. Verizon has the C-Block. The only hope AT&T has right now is of somehow using the Qualcomm spectrum alone in some areas, but the current implementations of LTE do not allow for this. Given those facts, Verizon will have a big competitive advantage, so for consumers who value nationwide 4G LTE conectivity, Verizon will be the only company who can offer them that service. Maybe some customers don't care whether they have 3G or 4G. Obviously many don't since they are buying VeriPhones like crazy. However, the fact is that for 4G, AT&T will not be directly competitive with Verizon.

BROKEN UP?? WHAT? Make a bunch of regional carriers that are all worse than AT&T and Verizon, and make them all cross-roam on each other? That makes absolutely no sense.

I think that all the spectrum in the US should be re-allocated from the ground up, with AT&T and Verizon evenly splitting the CLR and SMH bands where USCC does not operate, and a three-way share favoring USCC in the areas that they do operate, as well as some logical fringe areas on the outsides of their current operational areas.

Then PCS would be split up with all four carriers getting some, and MetroPCS, Cricket and the like getting some in each area they service, and MetroPCS losing all AWS and getting PCS for it in the areas they currently use AWS.

AWS would be split between AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile in nationwide chunks.

SMR would stay like is, between Sprint and Southern Linc, and BRS would be open to whomever wants it now that CLEAR is on it's way out.

Saying that AT&T's lack of 3G and lack of spectrum for 4G is the same thing is factually wrong.

Verizon could have, and should have, done a full UMTS rollout. They would be in a bit of a better position now, although the fire that EVDO lit under their ass is helping them on the LTE front.

The licensed spectrum we are talking about here is mobile, not home internet, with the possible exception of extremely rural areas and BRS. Even BRS would be better used for mobile.

WiSPs are a viaable alternative in very rural areas, but they often run on unlicesed 2400 mhz spectrum anyways, and can achieve ranges of over 10 miles with off the shelf Wifi gear.

There are spectral limits to how fast the connections can be per mhz of spectrum, so once LTE-Advanced is out there, from there on out it's all about more base stations, DAS systems, unlicensed offload, etc etc.

Even with LTE advanced, you'd have to have DAS on basically every street pole in most suburban areas in order to have people using it as their home internet. Of course, that sort of investment would make some pretty sick mobile connectivity!

Licensed wireless will work in highly rural areas, especially with Verizon's spectrum reserves, but that is a real specialty. In suburban and urban areas, wired connectivity will always rule. Hopefully it will be mostly FTTH, but for now FTTN and HFC will rule most areas, other than those lucky duckies with FIOS.