Verizon Wireless Proposes Roaming Rule Change
real world translation of VZW proposal
VZW: "With our ALLTEL acquisition and myopic regulation under the previous administration, we know we've nearly cornered the market on CDMA roaming. But, what the heck, we'll give those other CDMA carriers fully two years before we shut them off or price them out. Hey, aren't we fair & generous?"
AJ
AJ
...
If the companies are not building their own networks, then yes, they should be shut off.
These local carriers keep pushing how they are "so much cheaper" than the other guys, and how the big companies are just ripping customers off. Let's see them maintain their low costs when they actually have their own network to support.
If they can, then good for them, and their claims are valid. If not, you'll see their prices start to increase but hopefully so will their services.
These local carriers keep pushing how they are "so much cheaper" than the other guys, and how the big companies are just ripping customers off. Let's see them maintain their low costs when they actually have their own network to support.
If they can, then good for them, and their claims are valid. If not, you'll see their prices start to increase but hopefully so will their services.
...
Menno said:
If the companies are not building their own networks, then yes, they should be shut off.
No, your argument fails because it embarrassingly lacks rigor.
It does not consider differences in spectrum construction requirements (area versus population), nor the differences in spectrum licensing granularity (counties versus CMAs versus BTAs versus REAs, etc.), nor the differences in spectrum propagation characteristics (Cellular 850 MHz versus PCS 1900 MHz, etc.).
Setting aside the two former concerns for another time, in the last issue, the vast majority of commercially unconstructed spectrum -- outside of the spectrum holdings of VZW or AT&T -- is PCS 1900 MHz or AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum....
(continues)
...
They should
1) Restrict customers to native coverage area
-or-
2) create a multi-year contract with a major carrier to allow their customers to roam on that carrier within the coverage area. Subsidize some rural towers that one of the carriers don't have up yet.. lord knows carriers could use some help on rural coverage.
Yes, having more choices is a good thing for a consumer. But if the phones roam on verizon (or att/sprint/whatever), use the same handsets (as they are also pushing for) what you really are giving them is a false choice.
Unless those regional carriers actively contribute to the network in some way (payment to the carrier, helping to subsidize rural towers, etc) there is no reason larger carriers should be ...
(continues)
1) Restrict customers to native coverage area
-or-
2) create a multi-year contract with a major carrier to allow their customers to roam on that carrier within the coverage area. Subsidize some rural towers that one of the carriers don't have up yet.. lord knows carriers could use some help on rural coverage.
Yes, having more choices is a good thing for a consumer. But if the phones roam on verizon (or att/sprint/whatever), use the same handsets (as they are also pushing for) what you really are giving them is a false choice.
Unless those regional carriers actively contribute to the network in some way (payment to the carrier, helping to subsidize rural towers, etc) there is no reason larger carriers should be ...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
