Phone Scoop

printed August 31, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=10044&fh=3082831

Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Hoping to Toss Verizon's Data Roaming Challenge

Article Comments  

all discussions

Roaming Agreements is the only solution that works

furyx639

Mar 8, 2012, 4:18 PM
Verizon and AT&T want to license so much spectrum, but it's not infinite. If Verizon and AT&T own the majority of spectrum, it leaves no room for any other company to grow into.

How else are we supposed to compromise? Spectrum has to be regulated in some way, otherwise we would end up with a monopoly (or duopoly).

The way Verizon or AT&T would have it is that they would own all the spectrum, and not have to share any of it so that all the little companies would crumble up and disappear, because they have no way of competing.
...
dlmjr

Mar 8, 2012, 4:43 PM
The other companies were not locked out of spectrum bids.

Some of the smaller companies use this to avoid spectrum purchases and investment in equipment.

The omg Verison and ATT own all the spectrum is a myth.

MVNO's are a creation of the FCC.
Zero investment in infrastrucure.
They leach off of the companies who actually invest.
No maintenance overhead.

Here is the funny part.
As they undercut the actual companies who invest in the system, bleed customers from them, they kill the cow they are suckling from.

Theoretically, as the customer base decreases, the cost per customer rises, and the roaming fees have to increase to maintain the equipment.

When did TracPhone ever repair a tower?
But their customers will bitch for...
(continues)
...
furyx639

Mar 8, 2012, 4:53 PM
That makes sense, but to alleviate that, all they would have to do is make sure the roaming agreements are priced fairly to account for things like maintaining the towers.

I don't know how it works, but aren't the carriers who own the towers paid for use of them? I'd assume this is the case, and if so, overhead costs should already be a factor in pricing.

As long as it is a source of revenue for the company who own the towers, then it's a win-win for everyone.

What do you think would be best for consumers?
...
dlmjr

Mar 8, 2012, 5:17 PM
I'm not arguing against roaming agreements.
They are a plus for both the large companies and the smaller companies.

I am somewhat sceptical about mandated roaming agreements.

Whats to say that the FCC gets a burr up it's butt and forces some company into a roaming agreement just on a whim or because of political pressure, to help out a 'contributor'?
...
furyx639

Mar 8, 2012, 11:34 PM
I agree that roaming agreements shouldn't be mandated, or at least shouldn't be mandated to benefit any specific company, but only given the condition that the bigger companies will, on their own, do what's best for consumers.

The problem I see now is that, one carrier tends to offer the only decent coverage for a given area, and, as a consumer it is my only choice if I want to get good service where I live/work.

There just needs to be a way for consumers to have at least 2 or more choices where they require service.

I know where I live, a lot of time the only viable choices are AT&T or Verizon. Other companies exist, but the city does not allow any more towers to be built in this area, and so no other company could even be consider...
(continues)
...
dlmjr

Mar 9, 2012, 12:19 PM
furyx639 said:
I agree that roaming agreements shouldn't be mandated, or at least shouldn't be mandated to benefit any specific company, but only given the condition that the bigger companies will, on their own, do what's best for consumers.

The problem I see now is that, one carrier tends to offer the only decent coverage for a given area, and, as a consumer it is my only choice if I want to get good service where I live/work.

There just needs to be a way for consumers to have at least 2 or more choices where they require service.

I know where I live, a lot of time the only viable choices are AT&T or Verizon. Other companies exist, but the city does not allow any more towers to be built in this area, and so no o
...
(continues)
...
Tofuchong

Mar 8, 2012, 6:43 PM
What do I think would be best for consumers?

I think that a commitee should figure out the value of roaming on another carriers network.

Once a value is established, that will be the standard amount that would be charged for a roaming agreement, no matter the company, or coverage area. The only thing that would sway the charges would be network speed (2G, 3G, 4G).

Charge the same amount to any carrier anywhere that wants a roaming agreement in any area, regardless of anything except network type. Hard to argue that, methinks.
...
dlmjr

Mar 8, 2012, 11:34 PM
Tofuchong said:
What do I think would be best for consumers?

I think that a commitee should figure out the value of roaming on another carriers network.

Once a value is established, that will be the standard amount that would be charged for a roaming agreement, no matter the company, or coverage area. The only thing that would sway the charges would be network speed (2G, 3G, 4G).

Charge the same amount to any carrier anywhere that wants a roaming agreement in any area, regardless of anything except network type. Hard to argue that, methinks.


That is so arbitrary and easily manipulated that I have to reject it out of hand.
Not putting you down, but I can come up with so many arguments against it...
(continues)
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1