rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Interesting Government We HaveWith one breath we draw a line in the sand with the Title II sword. In the next breath, we auction guns to the highest bidder. | |
|
| |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveWhat does that even mean?
Correct me if I am wrong, but wireless has always been under Title II. | |
|
| | SunnyD join:2009-03-20 Madison, AL |
SunnyD
Member
2015-Jan-26 9:00 am
Re: Interesting Government We HavePretty sure wireless has always been exempt from most Title II rules. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveResearched it a little and from what I found it looks like voice is under Title II and data is under Title I through previous commission rulings.
Commission ruled in 2007 that "mobile wireless broadband Internet access service" is an information service regulated under Title I, not Title II. The Commission explicitly found that "it is most consistent with Congressional intent to maintain a regime in which information service providers are not subject to Title II regulations as common carriers." | |
|
| | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL
1 recommendation |
to Skippy25
It means that AT&T is going to sit on a bunch of spectrum so that nobody else can deploy in a bunch of cities. This prevents things such as LTE coverage for Tmobile in chicago because an ATT subsidiary controls 100% of the spectrum in the area. As a result of what they have purchased said problem will remain exactly the same. | |
|
| | | amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: Interesting Government We Havesaid by dfxmatt:LTE coverage for Tmobile in chicago because an ATT subsidiary controls 100% of the spectrum Are you talking about the Leap 700mhz spectrum? I don't think AT&T was allowed to buy that. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveThat doesn't contradict what I said. Basically, Leap shareholders have not received compensation for the Chicago area spectrum, but will when it is sold. I don't think AT&T owns that spectrum, otherwise the shareholders wouldn't be due any more money. | |
|
| | | | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveI'm not sure if you understand. Nobody else can use the spectrum, because it's controlled by Leap, who is controlled by ATT.
So, tmobile or any other carrier effectively cannot use it. It doesn't matter whether ATT owns it or not. | |
|
| | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: Interesting Government We Havesaid by dfxmatt:I'm not sure if you understand. Nobody else can use the spectrum, because it's controlled by Leap, who is controlled by ATT.
So, tmobile or any other carrier effectively cannot use it. It doesn't matter whether ATT owns it or not. I don't think AT&T controls it. (Edit - I guess they do, but I don't think they can use it). It's for sale, and I don't think AT&T can buy it as per terms of the deal. The best candidates to buy it are T-Mobile and US Cellular IMO. | |
|
| | | | | | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveLeap's spectrum isn't (and has not been) for sale. You're also missing that Leap has been mid-acquisition from ATT for almost 2+ years (2013), so that entire time (AKA during the periods of significant adoption for LTE) people have been unable to have LTE coverage. This current sale is a separate spectrum band.
Now we're talking about ANOTHER band of spectrum that won't be usable until probably next year or later (depending on how the chips are built).
You have 3+ years where tmobile has been blocked out because they literally don't have anyone they can give money to in order to provide spectrum/obtain it because leap is in limbo. That's by design, not accidental. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveAT&T's subsidiary, Leap Licenseco, will now divest Leap's 700 MHz A block license in Chicago in a sale that will entitle each Leap stockholder to a pro rata share of the net proceeds via a non-transferable contingent value right. » www.bna.com/fcc-approves ··· 79885878 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
Re: Interesting Government We HaveAh, I misread. I thought this was for the 2016 spectrum auction not the 2015. My mistake 100%. Thanks! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
Re: Interesting Government We Havesaid by dfxmatt:Ah, I misread. I thought this was for the 2016 spectrum auction not the 2015. My mistake 100%. Thanks! Right, I wasn't talking about the upcoming 600mhz auction. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | amarryat |
to dfxmatt
said by dfxmatt:Now we're talking about ANOTHER band of spectrum that won't be usable until probably next year or later (depending on how the chips are built). T-Mobile now owns that spectrum in 11 of the top 12 markets. Chicago is the missing one of those 12. Several of T-Mobile's phones support that right now. 2 things have to happen. 1). T-Mobile has to make an offer on that spectrum. 2). The television station in Chicago that is broadcasting on that frequency has to move. | |
|
| | | |
to dfxmatt
Exactly which is why all auctions should have a use it or lose it clause with no refunds. | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to Skippy25
Who cares about voice. We need a competitive data market. Realizing wired access is a monopoly/duopoly, President Obama promotes title II. At the same time most of the new spectrum goes to huge incumbents that have the biggest checkbook and who are already accused of having to much market power. | |
|
| |
AnonDude to rradina
Anon
2015-Jan-26 12:16 pm
to rradina
we've had auctions for decades. | |
|
Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL |
Zoder
Member
2015-Jan-26 8:55 am
How many homesHow many homes could AT&T have wired up with FTTH with a $20 billion investment? | |
|
| |
Re: How many homesWhy does that really matter? | |
|
| | |
Re: How many homesSimply because it shows there lack of interest to expand to customers who rather have wired internet services VS overpriced wireless on a spectrum ATT really does not have any current plans to expand there network on.
I cant say how many homes could have been wired with FTTH but Im sure the majority of ATT's current VRAD could have been converted over to IPDSLAM giving areas up to 24 mbps, areas were ATT currently refuses to upgrade. The current top speed in my area of IL is 6 mpbs on uverse, that's just sad.
But then again DO it right the first time ( run FTTH) and you won't need to upgrade for decades instead of every few years. | |
|
| | | |
Re: How many homesWhere I'm going here is why do people think that a company should have to spend money where they want it spend and not where the company sees fit. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: How many homessaid by battleop:Where I'm going here is why do people think that a company should have to spend money where they want it spend and not where the investment firms see fit because they only care about money in their own pockets, not the company or its customers and employees. Fixed. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: How many homesOh, I get it. Given your current stance then you won't mind that your employer's customers tell you exactly how to spend your money after you get your pay check. | |
|
| | | | | | Kancel join:2006-06-28 Carson City, NV |
Kancel
Member
2015-Jan-26 10:43 am
Re: How many homesWhen the company in question is pretty much the only game in town, you'd likely be upset too if you saw them investing heavily in areas other than the ones that would benefit you, as the customer.
It's not about telling the company how to spend their money. It's about saying "Hey, I'm a customer. You provide me with internet. You're the only ISP even worth mentioning in my area, and that's really not saying much with only an advertised 6mbps. It would be nice if I saw you, AT&T, investing some of those billions of dollars back into this seriously outdated infrastructure, instead of into wireless spectrum that likely will not benefit me, as a customer, for many many years." | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: How many homes"as the customer"
That's just it. You are a CUSTOMER, not an owner, or employee, or investor, etc. You don't get a say in what they do.
There is always a choice but the problem is that people don't like the choice it's just not what they want. They don't want to put an effort into doing what it takes to send the message. They do not understand that when you get to a certain size that things are not run like mom and pop companies. They look at hard data "the numbers" and react to that. If people bitch, moan, and complain while paying their bill each month the mega huge company sees that as a happy customer metric and that never hits upper management's radar. If there is a market where customers disconnect services in mass it will hit someone's radar in upper management and they will talk about what needs to be done. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
ouchie
Anon
2015-Jan-26 12:17 pm
Re: How many homesAn old boss of mine had a saying...You know your pricing is right if they have a tear in their eye, but they still write you the check. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to battleop
Were you twiddling your nipples when you wrote that?
That is the difference between a competitive and a non competitive industry. A competitive industry will respond to a customers desires and provide the product they want at a competitive price. A non competitive industry will adopt the "You are not a shareholder! Shut up and go F yourself, or do without. We don't care what you think." attitude that battleop has. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
cowboyro
Premium Member
2015-Jan-26 12:34 pm
Re: How many homesEconomy 101: The price of [insert name here] is the amount someone is willing to pay for it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
to cowboyro
Re: How many homesDING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!!! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to battleop
LOL and you as typical as an owner/investor once again forget that the customer IS the only person every company has to satisfy. Without the customer, you and your companies are worthless.
Ask the partners of the multi-billion dollar company of Arthur Anderson LLP what happens when they no longer have customers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | •••• |
| | | | | | | | Kancel join:2006-06-28 Carson City, NV |
to battleop
When a business adopts the attitude you describe, there's a problem. The "Customer" and their needs/wants should be one of the primary things driving the business.
Let's elaborate on the choices you mention. Let me know if I missed any.
1.) Vote with your wallet. Move to a different ISP. 2.) In the event there is no other provider, vote with your wallet. Do without internet. 3.) Move to a region with better options.
In this day and age, for many people internet is all but a necessity and option #2 just doesn't play. Option #3 may not be feasible. This leaves you with option #1, and if there is no other ISP, this leaves you without options, and all you can do is complain while you pay your bill. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: How many homesIn almost all cases there are alternative. It's just not the super duper unlimited 100Gig option you want. Keep paying that monthly bill to your ISP and tell them "Please, I would like some more". | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: How many homessaid by battleop:In almost all cases there are alternative. It's just not the super duper unlimited 100Gig option you want. Keep paying that monthly bill to your ISP and tell them "Please, I would like some more". There are alternatives? Like what? | |
|
| | | | sonicmerlin |
to battleop
said by battleop:Where I'm going here is why do people think that a company should have to spend money where they want it spend and not where the company sees fit. Uh... Because they have monopoly or duopoly control over those areas thanks to government building out the copper and subsidizing them with billi upon billions of USF funds? | |
|
| | mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
to battleop
Why doesn't it matter? It just goes to show that AT&T could have competed with Verizon on FTTH, instead of piddling around with copper still, all this spectrum they now own, but yet magically there's still a need to cap and charge overages on it, but turn around and out of the different side of it's mouth start offering higher amounts of data through deals and etc... | |
|
| | | •••••••• |
| | Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL 1 edit |
to battleop
It's for a thought I was having after reading the article. So, AT&T is spending 20-22 billion and when you include the other companies the auction is going to raise over 40 billion. Yes it goes to the Treasury, but considering that most Americans including children have wireless phone service, we end up paying it all back to the companies in higher monthly fees. You can even say it's regressive since most income tax is paid for by the top while phone bills cross the entire socio-economic spectrum. So you have all of this money being spent for the spectrum before even 1 penny is spent on the network itself. So all this money is spent and it does zero for the AT&T employees. The jobs and work will come from the additional money they will spend on top of this to build out the network on the new bands.
Now what if instead, the spectrum were free?
Imagine for example if AT&T got the spectrum for free but a requirement to spend 15 billion in capex on FTTH attached to the license. AT&T would save $5-7 billion, it would put a ton of people to work building out the network and the customers on the wireless and wireline side would both be better off. So how many homes could be passed with that type of investment?
Keep in mind this is just something that came to me when I read the article this morning. It's not a perfect idea and needs some work, but this was the initial thought I had. | |
|
| | | |
Re: How many homes"Imagine for example if AT&T got the spectrum for free but a requirement to spend 15 billion in capex on FTTH attached to the license. AT&T would save $5-7 billion, it would put a ton of people to work building out the network and the customers on the wireless and wireline side would both be better off. So how many homes could be passed with that type of investment?"
Something that's based on that idea would be the better use of OUR spectrum resources. In the end it ends up being a money grab for the Treasury and a Spectrum grab for those companies that can afford to buy and squat on it.
We as citizens would be better served if the FCC made some of this spectrum available to smaller companies like WISPs, Local and Regional ISPs, CLECs, etc. This is how you create true competition. | |
|
| | | | Zoder join:2002-04-16 Miami, FL |
Zoder
Member
2015-Jan-26 4:34 pm
Re: How many homesDoes the FCC even have the ability to not have the auctions and give out the spectrum in different ways or is their hand currently tied by laws Congress passed?
I know the 1st auction was in 94 so if it is a law I'm assuming something that was passed in the early 90s. | |
|
|
So..When if ever will we see these big massive companies blocked from buying and then squatting on spectrum? I believe a law should be passed that forces them to start putting that spectrum to use within 2 years or forfeit it with no return of their money and the spectrum resold to anyone but them.
Most of these companies are squatting on so much space it's getting stupid. | |
|
| •••• |
|
Uncertanity"...after reports suggest the company gleaned the lion's share of spectrum at the AWS-3 spectrum auction." So there's uncertanity as to just who the bidders were? AT&T and ther others hideing thier bids behind dummy/holding companies? | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2015-Jan-26 11:35 am
SquattingI have strong suspicion that a lot of that spectrum will lay dormant as AT&T sits on it to prevent others from acquiring it. Unless they pull another boneheaded move like they did trying to acquire T-Mobile and wind up losing spectrum, this will simply diminish the supply. At some point they may even sell it for a profit to someone else. | |
|
| silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2015-Jan-26 2:02 pm
Re: SquattingThis have a pretty sizable amount of AWS now. I imagine their plan is to combine it with their WCS and rollout a home internet service. They could bundle it with DirecTV and offer wireless triple-play. | |
|
| | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2015-Jan-28 3:04 am
Re: Squattingsaid by silbaco: They could bundle it with DirecTV and offer wireless triple-play. I think you are spot on with that one, cause all they would really have to do is take the fiber to a remote cabinet and put an antenna on top of a pole. They could hit everyone then with minimum effort and have some decent wireless speeds and services to boot. | |
|
cb14 join:2013-02-04 Miami Beach, FL |
cb14
Member
2015-Jan-26 11:38 am
Spectrum auction are a travesty.The government should REGULATE the spectrum, not SELL it. What a foolishness. The money what they get will come out of our pockets anyway( does not come from ATT and Verizon CEO's salaries), so it is another form of flat taxation hitting disproportionally the lower incomes. The government could distribute( and if necessary re distribute) the spectrum for free in such a way all competitors get a fare share. This is nothing else than another move to a monopoly/duopoly. | |
|
|
Same old government policiesThe rich get richer, and everyone else gets to scramble for scraps. | |
|
|
|