Home  ›  News  ›

Verizon Wireless Challenges FCC Auction Rules

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 46 replies

Anyone care to explain for Verizon?

xjittianx

Sep 13, 2007, 3:15 PM
It might just be me, but it sounds like verizon is mad because the FCC is giving EVERYONE, even the little guys, a chance to get some spectum. I really don't see the harm in that, besides for Verizon.

Yes Verizon, Let's kill small businesses, the heart of american society, and let the top dogs rules sepreme forever!
...
pennyless10

Sep 13, 2007, 4:12 PM
its simple whats the point of bidding for a spectrum that EVERYONE can use... Verizon's idea is that if everyone can use it why even bid for it? so whoever wins the bid technically has to pay for upkeep on a network that everyone else uses for free.


let me know if im wrong
...
xjittianx

Sep 13, 2007, 4:21 PM
but if that's true, how is that unlawful?
...
arsimckhoi

Sep 13, 2007, 4:28 PM
probably because they bid the most money and won! haha
...
SCTelephoneMan

Sep 13, 2007, 4:17 PM
How would you feel if you paid billions for something and the government required you to share it?

and the bs line that "the public owns the airwaves" is just that, bs. companies that buy the spectrum own it, and should be able to do with it what they want. if Google wants to have an open access network, then they can pay for the spectrum and let everybody access it.
...
Globhead

Sep 13, 2007, 4:46 PM
The rules in question are not about sharing the system. The rule is to prohibit the carrier from interfering with how customers use the data they paid for.

The FCC is doing it for 2 reasons:
1. It isn't any of Verizon's business how customers use the data allotment they pay for.
2. The FCC has no sense of jurisdiction and wants to control everything.

Verizon is opposed to it for 2 reasons:
1. It isn't the FCC's business how a landline server handles data or what features are blocked on end-user hardware.
2. Verizon is greedy as heck and doesn't want to stop doing exactly what the FCC is trying to prevent.
...
SPCSVZWJeff

Sep 13, 2007, 5:21 PM
What Verizon really wants is control. They don't allow data roaming even though their two biggest CDMA competitors and the largest Canadian CDMA carrier have data roaming agreements. This tactic has served them well and they have actually convinced America that they have the best network. Telephia and Mind Wireless have shown the truth. They are very good, but not the best.
They play well with others when it is to their advantage, otherwise they pick up their toys and go home.
...
babydoc

Sep 13, 2007, 5:47 PM
The amount of condjecture and blatant disinformation I see on these pages amazes me. Dude...what are you talking about VZW does not allow data roaming! 🙄 VZW allows 1X data roaming with at least 30-40 different carriers accross the US, Canada and in fact around the world.
Yes, believe it or not CDMA does exist in many other parts of the world and in some of the largest markets. They also offer devices that are capable of CDMA to GSM roaming so if you are in need of that service they can offer that too. I beleive that encompasses hundreds of carriers. Now I'm actually hoping I misunderstood your post because people making statments such as yours really dilute the value of this forum. I think the general public makes the best statemen...
(continues)
...
xjittianx

Sep 13, 2007, 6:59 PM
I'm interested in what Rich Brome's opinion is on this... so Rich, shall we hear it?
...
supremecellgod

Sep 13, 2007, 8:32 PM
When he was speaking of data roaming I believe he was speaking of EVDO and not 1X. Who really gives a crap about 1X anymore anyways??? Wait a min you're prob still using your trusty LG 6100, right???
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 8:50 PM
1x? That still exists? Verizon cannot even provide roaming data deal in the EV-DO camp. Not that they care.
...
supremecellgod

Sep 13, 2007, 9:19 PM
Ha Ha Ha thats exactly what I was thinking. Weren't you the one that provided info on VZW not having the spectrum to provide adaquate DO roaming to the other carriers?
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 9:28 PM
Yes, indeed I was.
...
supremecellgod

Sep 13, 2007, 9:30 PM
My memory is amazing 😉
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 9:49 PM
I know. Or you could have just searched it. 🤣
...
supremecellgod

Sep 13, 2007, 9:59 PM
That is a possibility but then again I really don't have time for that.
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 10:02 PM
I know I was kidding.
...
supremecellgod

Sep 13, 2007, 10:07 PM
I know you were. I have an amazing ability to sense sarcasm even in print. I recently read your post about the leap/metro merger. I'm in leaps best performing market (Phoenix) and I think its going to be great for me and my customers.
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 10:14 PM
Yea, that potential merger between those two companies will be better to compete against the bigger companies. Maybe another reason why Verizon is complaining. Some issues going on with Leap and its management that many of them keep on resigning, which is never a good sign. Could be insider trading. Look for the SEC to get involved. I just wanted to mention to you that the merger hasn’t been accepted by Leap yet. They are still evaluating the offer by MetroPCS. We should know more later.
...
babydoc

Sep 15, 2007, 8:52 PM
Guys (supremecellgod & nextel1😎, what background do either of you have in cellular communications? That anyone would actually admit that they made a statement regarding VZW not having enough spectrum to implement DO roaming says a lot. First of all, it's because some carriers do not own spectrum in a particular geographical location that they need to enter roaming agreements in the first place. It has nothing to do with their ability to enter roaming agreements, 1X, EVDO or otherwise. However it is unlikely a carrier would sign a roaming agreement if they owned spectrum in that location.
Also, I've been testing devices that neither of you have seen or heard of yet so before you go accusing me of being outdated again, I also have some expe...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Sep 16, 2007, 12:39 PM
I have information and can get access to documents that not many people can get and that is one of the reasons why I can say for sure that Verizon lacks in spectrum. One of the reasons why they do not do EV-DO roaming deals.

“Also, I've been testing devices that neither of you have seen or heard of yet so before you go accusing me of being outdated again”

I highly doubt that.
...
TradeMark_310

Sep 14, 2007, 3:43 PM
Globhead said:
The rules in question are not about sharing the system. The rule is to prohibit the carrier from interfering with how customers use the data they paid for.

The FCC is doing it for 2 reasons:
1. It isn't any of Verizon's business how customers use the data allotment they pay for.
2. The FCC has no sense of jurisdiction and wants to control everything.

Verizon is opposed to it for 2 reasons:
1. It isn't the FCC's business how a landline server handles data or what features are blocked on end-user hardware.
2. Verizon is greedy as heck and doesn't want to stop doing exactly what the FCC is trying to prevent.


These are some great points as I see them. The FCC is power hungry, and from...
(continues)
...
BelTelMel

Sep 14, 2007, 7:41 AM
SCTelephoneMan said:
How would you feel if you paid billions for something and the government required you to share it?

Lately Verizon has been having this holier than thou attitude. If VZ doesn't want to play by the rules of the auction then it's very simple: DON'T BID. 🙂
...
BigShowJB

Sep 14, 2007, 9:27 AM
DING DING DING DING !!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!


BELTELMEL FTW!!!!!!!

you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

it's the heart of the free market
...
jskrenes

Sep 13, 2007, 4:58 PM
Because if Verizon wins the bid, they shouldn't have to let the "little guys" or their more major competitors like ATT, use the spectrum.
...
SPCSVZWJeff

Sep 13, 2007, 5:24 PM
Major competitors like AT&T can't because the technologies are incompatible unless I missed something and the FCC is mandating compatibility. But that leaves Sprint, Alltel and U.S.Cellular.
...
xjittianx

Sep 13, 2007, 6:52 PM
well that was the point of the 700mhz spectrum from the beginning. It's not like they just changed there minds about it.
To be honest I don't think any of the top 4 carriers even need to really bother with it, but the little guys like Google and Apple do.
...
Celling_it

Sep 13, 2007, 7:04 PM
Since when are google and apple the little guys. They are huge conglomerates and are in business to do the same thing that VZW is in business for, to amke as much money as humanly possible. Lets not kid ourselves every successful business is out there to do the exact same thing.
...
lang

Sep 13, 2007, 7:12 PM
The two companies in question might not be "little" but they are in the wireless world. They have 0 towers, 0 infrastructure, and Apple has 1 phone. They are going to have to build out - from scratch - or somehow lease existing equipment to get a cell service going (if that is indeed the plan for either).

The big 4 all have established networks that are (at least in theory) expanding and being upgraded - a HUGE advantage over soemone who is trying to start up.

Apple and google would have to figure out what markets they want to start with, what kind of technology, pricing, design and manufacture of equipment, marketing, technical support, hiring of employees to handle customer support - the list goes on.

And I appologize in advance f...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 7:25 PM
Well, Google and Apple are not little companies because they are huge companies. If you compare market caps between Google, Apple and Verizon, the former companies are much bigger than the latter. So on a market cap value basis, Google and Apple are a lot bigger than Verizon. If the argument is that they are “little companies” based on their wireless experience then that would be true, but other than that, little and Google and Apple shouldn’t be in the same sentence. Apple and Google, if they launch a network, would be more successful than Verizon. They will not have caps on their data network that Verizon does. If Google and Apple do join, the wireless board they will do a lot better than Verizon will do especially content...
(continues)
...
urnamehere

Sep 13, 2007, 8:33 PM
nextel18 said:
Apple and Google, if they launch a network, would be more successful than Verizon. They will not have caps on their data network that Verizon does.


you usually come on here and are pretty informed, if not a little biased; however the above statement is pure fantasy. Yes, both apple and google are large, profitable companies. but to suggest that:

1. would be more successful than verizon, is a little premature. Being that Verizon has been doing this for quite some time, is the most successful wireless company in many different regards, and doesn't really seem to be dropping in anything, it would be a tall order to say that a BRAND NEW WIRELESS COMPANY would come in and dominate. Its just a...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 8:47 PM
Do not attack me at all please because you have no right. I can say those things because Verizon actually does not care about their customers while Google and Apple do. They do not restrict anything the way Verizon does.

They also have bigger market caps put together than Verizon, which makes them on paper, in the stock market, bigger. The Iphone, with the lack of 3g technology, is still very successful and they obviously generate higher margins than Verizon dream of so if Apple continues to expand on its Iphone relationship they will do a very good job. With Google, they have a partnership with Sprint to deal with Wimax, and since Google is very successful with their current business models and their gross margins are through the roof, ...
(continues)
...
TradeMark_310

Sep 14, 2007, 4:31 PM
Yeah, so take that!
😲 😁

I think it's kinda obvious nextel18 was making an educated guess, how could it be anything more? Did you really think he was saying it was 100%? And he makes very valid points, Google and Apple not only have very strong business models that align more with customers then Verizon's, but a large capital to cover any start-up related losses, so they would have a good start, as long as they do with service what they do in their respected fields, it would PROBABLY be just a matter of time before they out-grew Verizon, but again, that's only an EDUCATED GUESS...
...
muchdrama

Sep 14, 2007, 6:21 PM
nextel18 said:
Do not attack me at all please because you have no right. I can say those things because Verizon actually does not care about their customers while Google and Apple do.


Oh...yeah...that's right. You must be referring to Apple's incessant need to manufacture faulty batteries.

That shows a LOT of concern for consumers! Well put!

This is, of course, sarcasm.

I've never received anything from Verizon but clear calls, great customer service, and impeccable billing.

Geeze, you're annoying!
...
urnamehere

Sep 14, 2007, 6:46 PM
nextel18 said:
Do not attack me at all please because you have no right. I can say those things because Verizon actually does not care about their customers while Google and Apple do.


i do not mean to attack you but debate the your statements. I apologize for any ill will I may have conveyed.

I would however like some examples of how verizon "does not care about their customers". That is a very wide brush your painting with and requires a bit more explanation. Verizon has excellent customer service on the whole, and the fact that they have policies you don't particularly like does not mean that don't care about customers. Quite the opposite.

I know you consider the broadband access plan to be a fo...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Sep 17, 2007, 5:04 AM
No problem. I actually explained a lot why Verizon seems to not care about its customers. they cap data, don’t have roaming EV-DO deals, cripple their phones, and other issues that i talked about . If they allowed more users on their network to use data, it won’t cripple their network, but they do not even have the spectrum to actually have more people use data.
...
muchdrama

Sep 14, 2007, 6:19 PM
nextel18 said:
Apple and Google, if they launch a network, would be more successful than Verizon.


Sure! And I'm the Commander of the USS Enterprise!
...
wireless_sales_07

Sep 17, 2007, 1:42 AM
Not to argue on details here...but you are confusing Verizon Communications with Verizon Wireless...which are two completely seperate companies. You cannot talk about VZW like you talk about AT&T, which is owned soley by its parent company of the same name. Verizon Communications owns roughly 60% of Verizon Wireless while Vodafone owns roughly 40%. The combined value of these two companies is over $300 billion, which is greater than both Apple and Google combined. So let's not argue about numbers here. All the players involved are huge. But market cap means absolutely nothing when it comes to ability to bid. That is based on who has the deepest pockets. Right now VZW has more cash to put up than Google or Apple because its money isn'...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Sep 17, 2007, 5:41 AM
Of course I can talk about Verizon Wireless the way I talk about AT&T because both companies own their wireless companies either on a joint venture like the Voda and Verizon 45% and 55% respectively or 100% like AT&T.
let’s talk about Financials for Verizon, Vodafone, Google and Apple. This is on an annual basis by the way. I decided to do that instead of quarterly. (so obviously if you do it quarterly it would be more up to date. So if you want to do quarterly, adjust for recent purchase and other material events.)

Verizon; $3.2B in cash, 14% pre-tax margin, $22B in total current assets, $188B in total assets. Obviously their assets are great due to their backbone, equipment, infrastructure and spectrum. Their short-term liabiliti...
(continues)
...
xjittianx

Sep 13, 2007, 7:43 PM
exactly. "little" companies. the point is that this auction gives "little" or new companies a chance to actually get some spectrum for themselves, and be able to "share" it, which is awesome.
...
nextel18

Sep 13, 2007, 7:21 PM
Well if you imply that Google and Apple are “little guys”, you are flat out wrong. Verizon wants the spectrum basically, if they win, to themselves and not an open network like the other companies are seeking in which the FCC announced they would. If the network were, open that means probably their capital expenditures would go up as they would need to have different devices on its network, while Verizon is very picky with their spectrum purchases and demands. I did see this coming by Verizon but I do not think they will win especially since the backing of Google and Apple.
...
BigShowJB

Sep 14, 2007, 9:38 AM
exactly...If Verizon wasn't going to go all-in for this spectrum before the open requirement, then they wouldn't have been pitching a hissy fit about it and then change their minds a week later. my guess is that VZW is not going to put in a bid to win the spectrum, but drive the auction price up as high as they can and then pull back. That way, they can use the open spectrum without putting all that money into winning the auction. They let someone else take the hit and when that company falters, they'll try to buy some out at huge discount.

You tipped your hand a little too early verizon, try to play it a little closer to the chest next time
...
nextel18

Sep 14, 2007, 11:37 AM
They do not want open auction because that means their capital expenditures would go way up on both the network side and then the device side. They want to control the gross margins and the revenue. I do not blame them actually, but they yell foul excessively much. I think Verizon should actually focus on other things besides for their postpaid and focus on data. Their FIOS is actually taking up many of the data capital expenditures and my premise earlier was that they care more about FIOS, which is an amazing product at a 15% penetration rate already, more than they care about their wireless data.
...
muchdrama

Sep 14, 2007, 6:23 PM
nextel18 said:
They do not want open auction because that means their capital expenditures would go way up on both the network side and then the device side. They want to control the gross margins and the revenue. I do not blame them actually, but they yell foul excessively much. I think Verizon should actually focus on other things besides for their postpaid and focus on data. Their FIOS is actually taking up many of the data capital expenditures and my premise earlier was that they care more about FIOS, which is an amazing product at a 15% penetration rate already, more than they care about their wireless data.


That was quite possibly the most boring post I've ever read on these boards!

Congrats!
...
TradeMark_310

Sep 14, 2007, 7:37 PM
Damn, you got punched in the ovaries. Right in the old baby maker. 🤣
...
muchdrama

Sep 14, 2007, 10:53 PM
TradeMark_310 said:
Damn, you got punched in the ovaries. Right in the old baby maker. 🤣


Well, if I wanted to read regurgitated stats and figures, I'd buy a copy of the Wall Street Journal!
...
TradeMark_310

Sep 14, 2007, 7:36 PM
Yeah, the FIOS might turn to their biggest earner in a year or two if it takes off. Last year, for the SuperBowl, a local bar of mine let Verizon set up TVs, and they looked great.

And as far as caring about their wireless data, when did they?
...

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 Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.