dslreports logo
 story category
Coalition Forms to Block Verizon/Cable deal
As Consumer Groups Argue Deal is Cartel in the Making

A coalition of consumer groups and companies -- most of which were instrumental in blocking the AT&T T-Mobile deal, have now joined forces to block Verizon's recent deal with the cable industry.

As we noted last December, Verizon has struck a deal with Comcast, Bright House, Time Warner Cable and Cox to acquire $3.6 billion in 700 MHz spectrum and to bundle and joint market Verizon LTE wireless services. As it stands, the arrangement currently simply involves giving users who bundle Verizon services up to $200 prepaid Visa gift cards, as well as providing unified billing.

However, consumer groups fear the arrangement involves anti-competitive provisions the companies aren't making public. One major concern is that Verizon will lose all incentive to compete with cable users in DSL markets -- though the company has made it very clear they're not interested in upgrading or even keeping those users anyway. This new group, dubbed the "Alliance for Broadband Competition," consists of T-Mobile, Public Knowledge, and RCA-The Competitive Carriers Association. From the release:
quote:
Monday marks the formal launch of the Alliance for Broadband Competition, a collection of like-minded businesses, trade associations, and public interest groups who are concerned about the ability for the current marketplace to sustain a competitive broadband landscape. Representatives from T-Mobile, RCA-The Competitive Carriers Association, and Public Knowledge, will host a kick-off event via teleconference, on Monday, May 14....
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

What is anti-competitive? Spectrum purchase or mkting deals?

What part of the deal doesn't this coalition like? The sale of wireless spectrum to Verizon or the shared marketing deals? That is key, because the cable companies don't want that spectrum and will want the money. But I suspect they would be willing to dump the marketing agreements if that is an impediment to the spectrum sale. And I don't see the FCC stopping the spectrum sale under any circumstances, given their long professed desire to make more spectrum available to combat the shortage they constantly say is coming.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

N3OGH

Premium Member

Re: What is anti-competitive? Spectrum purchase or mkting deals?

I really don't see it as anti-competitive. Considering it will open up new spectrum for use as opposed to some corporate giant essentially squatting on it.

I live in an area where there is competition in the cable marked (Verizon & Comcast) and given my present situation, I chose neither. Both are overpriced. Fortunately, I am single and I don't have to listen to my old lady or the crumb munchers bitch.

Considering I can rent a Blu-Ray DVD for $1.50 from Red Box, meaning I can watch what I want, when I want, and at a $1.50 a clip (meaning I only lay out when I can afford it) I think I can live without cable for now.
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

25139889 (banned)

Member

Re: What is anti-competitive? Spectrum purchase or mkting deals?

Do we know if Cellco is actually going to use it? and when?

verizonlteda
@myvzw.com

verizonlteda

Anon

Re: What is anti-competitive? Spectrum purchase or mkting deals?

You mean verizon. fixed.
tennisman94
join:2010-02-18
Palm Harbor, FL

3 edits

tennisman94 to N3OGH

Member

to N3OGH
said by N3OGH:

I really don't see it as anti-competitive. Considering it will open up new spectrum for use as opposed to some corporate giant essentially squatting on it.

I live in an area where there is competition in the cable marked (Verizon & Comcast) and given my present situation, I chose neither. Both are overpriced. Fortunately, I am single and I don't have to listen to my old lady or the crumb munchers bitch.

On the spectrum front, Verizon has sat on AWS licensees for about half the country for the past 6 years, but it's probable that they will be deploying LTE on these frequencies within 5 years and that's what this purchase is about; Verizon wants spectrum in all major markets to make the investment of deploying on a new frequency band.

Competition isn't just about TV, it's about internet too. If Verizon isn't expanding FiOS and the choice in 10 years well be DSL (same speeds we have today and sold by Verizon to something like Fairpoint) vs Cable with DOCIS 4 vs mobile broadband with a super low cap. Municipal fiber is being cut out as an option by the Cable Co's lobbying at the state level. This leaves with a situation where the cable companies will have a virtual monopoly on residential internet. DSL 10 years from now will be like having dial-up today, it "works" but it's not really useful for doing anything that has been developed within the past 5 years, and can you imagine how fast streaming 4k+ video would blow through a mobile data cap, even if it's 50gb? It's a long term issue that needs to be addressed now.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

N3OGH

Premium Member

Re: What is anti-competitive? Spectrum purchase or mkting deals?

Can't argue. My personal perspective is provincial to say the least.
ricklerre
join:2009-06-22
Brooklyn, NY

ricklerre to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I really feel like only the marketing agreement is anti-competitive. Verizon's actually doing a really good job making use of it's spectrum, and will likely make use of more of it. There's also certainly no advantage in having these Cable companies hold onto it. The real concern is having potential competitors creating a long-term business deal together.

Ideally this pressure will result in the marketing deal getting scrubbed, but maybe T-mobile will keep up the pressure enough to get some minuscule conditions imposed on the spectrum sale.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
For one thing, there are no restrictions on Verizon selling cable company products within their wireline footprint. To walk into a Verizon store, and they sell Comcast Xfinity / TW RR instead of their own DSL / FiOS / landlines / anything is absurd.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

It will be a nice day when

It will be a nice day when an activist judge breaks up the cable companies chokehold on high speed Internet and video. An ideal setup would be where broadband is split between two companies, one for data transport (cableco) and one for the ISP portion (third party providers such as AOL, MSN, or Yahoo) and the cable company controls everything up to the demarc and everything on the inside (modems, set-tops, EMTAs, and inside wiring) is owned and the responsibility of the customer.

It is my opinion that breaking up Bell System and AT&T made telephone service today dirt cheap and doing the same to broadband would improve service and keep costs low for customers.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

I don't get this?

So these people against this deal rather the cable companies squat on this spectrum? That is better for consumers how? Because if they think the cable companies are going to build out their own wireless network they are deluding themselves.

obas
@wideopenwest.com

obas

Anon

Re: I don't get this?

Question: Didn't Sprint and Comcast offer a quadruple play package not to long ago?

Whose spectrum did they use for this. Is the above spectrum what was used for the quad play or was that purely sprints spectrum used?
tennisman94
join:2010-02-18
Palm Harbor, FL

tennisman94

Member

Re: I don't get this?

said by obas :

Question: Didn't Sprint and Comcast offer a quadruple play package not to long ago?

Whose spectrum did they use for this. Is the above spectrum what was used for the quad play or was that purely sprints spectrum used?

I think the issue people have with this deal is that Verizon Wireless is a wireless carrier, but the majority stakeholder, Verizon, competes with the cable companies in the wire-line market; sprint no longer has any such wire-line counterpart. The fear is that this deal includes an understood agreement that Verizon will not expand FiOS to areas where this quad play package is offered.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: I don't get this?

Verizon has no plans to expand Verizon regardless. they guy behind FiOS left a while ago and the new people and investors have ZERO interest in investing in any more FiOS expansion. Blocking this deal will not get FiOS to those areas that want it. Nor will it make the cable companies start a wireless service of their own. All that happens I that valuable spectrum gets squatted on.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

beyond wireless

the deal with comcast goes beyond wireless. verizon is giving up (for the moment?) much of their competitive leverage against cable companies for this spectrum, or so it seems...

the effect is an across the board price hike for wireless, and wireline services. deployment freezes in it's tracks outside of NYC.

j1349705
Premium Member
join:2006-04-15
Holly Springs, NC

j1349705

Premium Member

What's the big deal?

I could see why people were concerned about AT&T buying T-Mobile and causing massive consolidation... I don't necessarily agree with the Government blocking the merger, but what's done is done. Personally I thought it was AT&T's own fault because they basically raised rates during the approval process (for example, dumping the $10 texting plan).

However, the concerns about the VZW / Cable Industry spectrum deal are just silly. There is no network running on that spectrum, and if the cable companies aren't interested in it, they are going to just sit on it... they sure won't build a network that they don't want to build.

Who else would the spectrum even go to other than VZW or ATT? Sprint has its hands full with Network Vision, and has a massive amount of spectrum due to their partnership with Clearwire. T-Mobile got some extra spectrum from AT&T as part of the failed merger, and they don't need tons anyways since they are a smaller carrier. MetroPCS and Leap (Cricket) target a completely different market and building a nationwide network would be a huge undertaking (besides that, both are acquisition targets). It would be nice to see US Cellular expand, but I don't know if they are interested and once again it would be a huge undertaking to build the network.

VZW actually does a good job with their network. They are clearly spending money on it and are rapidly deploying LTE, so they will be able to utilize this spectrum as load on their current network increases. More spectrum = more speed and capacity. An alternative would be to build more cell sites, but that has become next to impossible in many areas due to NIMBYs and over-regulation.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

No good reason to tie spectrum to marketing deal

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the only reasons to tie the marketing deal to the sale of the spectrum licenses are anti-competitive. If Verizon wants to purchase the spectrum licenses for cash (and no marketing deal) the government should approve it but why should the government be foolish enough to approve a high risk of collusion?