Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Officially Launching Inquiry Into Wireless Competition

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 73 replies

IMHO the US wireless industry..

Radbard

Aug 27, 2009, 11:31 AM
.. is very anti-consumer. Yes you have choices but look at the industry in europe. They all have totally open networks, they use inexpensive prepay plans for the most part, and since they're still in business they must be making profit. I understand that the US has several total cell technologies (cdma, gsm, wimax to name a few), but I don't like how it works. In europe the cell phone providers dont have all this propertiery crap like they do here. You have plenty of choice, if a company is crap you can simply get a new sim card and bam you're with them. This makes the companies fiercley competivive and imho the consumer wins. Here you are hosed, try moving your expensive equipment that you bought with no contract from carrier to carr...
(continues)
...
ccareatatt

Aug 27, 2009, 11:34 AM
They also sell handsets at full price. Do you believe America could handle that? I dont.
...
Radbard

Aug 27, 2009, 11:40 AM
Yes I do, have you seen how much the phones are over there? I forgot to mention that because of the open market the producers are also highly competitive, thus driving innovation and lowering prices. Once again they make a profit so it works for them too. You can get a sweet smartphone for as little as $250 NEW.
...
JeffdaBeat

Aug 27, 2009, 12:12 PM
I get what you're saying. I think we will see a lot of good coming from LTE. For once, the majority of our carriers are going to have one universal technology when it comes to the cell phones. I think only then you will see something close to the open door policy that you see in Europe. But I do agree, I don't think people are going to take unsubsidized phones lightly. True, the phones themselves are worth $500 or more for the things they do. People complain about the regular price for an iPhone, but forget that the iPod Touch is $230 alone.

I've never really had a problem with exclusive rights. I do think that people should have the freedom to start up service with a company without a contract by either bringing their own phone or buying...
(continues)
...
knoxvegas75

Aug 27, 2009, 1:17 PM
LTE Will definitely standardize devices and make the handset market thrive due to innovation and competition.

This though will not be the end to subsidized pricing. Carriers will obviously offer the ability to find a handset from another source and activate it on their network, as well as offer subsidized equipment for a discounted price. It will offer both competition for the carriers to update their lineup and open up the standard at the same time provide a vast amount of contract and price options for the consumer.

Promotions and other discounts will still require a contract like current industry standards. This Will bring more options.

What about exclusivities.


http://ryanori.com/?p=58 »

MY Blog Article on this t...
(continues)
...
Gorillanorth

Aug 29, 2009, 3:40 PM
Actually I know for a fact that Verizon offers just that! You can buy a phone at full retail or provide your own and get started with service and have no contract. Just to clairify I am not talking about prepaid you can have what ever plan you want.
...
phonesales83

Aug 27, 2009, 12:36 PM
A nice cell phone? Look again. Your on coke. Personally as a sales person I wouldnt mind it if we didnt have to subsidize phones. If you want a "sweet smartphone" your paying 400-700 bucks.
...
JeffroPuff

Aug 27, 2009, 12:56 PM
What? Listen to the man, "sales person". He's not talking about our stupid high priced "retail" phones that you and I sell stateside. Overseas, the phones are sold without subsidy, and "retail" they are WAY cheaper than we sell them. Your carrier AT&T, VZW, whoever, it doesn't matter, HOSE their customers on full retail phones. Your manager might be able to tell you handset cost. Compare that to retail, and it is sick.
Things are way different here than over there.
...
Overmann

Aug 27, 2009, 1:19 PM
Us "evil overpriced retailers" have to pay much more for the phones than what you buy them at on a 2-year contract. The reason retail price is so high is because we can't sell them below wholesale when you don't sign up for a contract. That's not how retail stores work. When you buy the phone at the listed retail price it covers our cost of operation.
...
JeffroPuff

Aug 27, 2009, 1:36 PM
Who said anything about "evil" overpriced retailers??? 🙄
I have worked in this industry long enough to see the markup on retail. I'm not some jaded retard customer that had to pay $129 for an entry level phone because I broke mine and can't upgrade for three more months. I also know what costs are built into running a store. I run an authorized dealer where EVERY decision I make directly impacts my "cost of operation".
I also have worked for corporate and been spoon fed that line of garbage. Every bit of revenue you bring in "covers operating expenses".
That being said, I think there is something inherently not right about, say in this example, making a $65 profit off your customer who you have tied in for a few more months and ...
(continues)
...
ExploderBlade

Aug 28, 2009, 7:39 PM
You guys might wanna go to VodaPhones site and check on how mucha Blackberry Storm or a BlackBerry Bold is when you sign a nice contract with vodaphone. It's free. So yeah, they have subsidy.
...
Versed

Aug 28, 2009, 9:11 PM
ExploderBlade said:
You guys might wanna go to VodaPhones site and check on how mucha Blackberry Storm or a BlackBerry Bold is when you sign a nice contract with vodaphone. It's free. So yeah, they have subsidy.


True and their termination fee's lower significantly with time.
...
thepresence

Aug 29, 2009, 9:11 AM
Interestingly, so do many US carrier fees. Sprint, I know, drops on a monthly basis.
...
Azeron

Aug 29, 2009, 7:48 PM
So does Verizon.
...
xcr

Aug 27, 2009, 11:40 AM
I haven't bought a subsidized phone in years. I got so sick of AT&T messing with the firmware and adding all their "crapware" to it.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 11:59 AM
Me neither, the last subsidized handset I bought was the SE T637 over 4yrs ago. At the time it was a fine handset. But now "fine" means Nokia N95. Right now I'm concentrating on becoming debt-free, and am just observing the market, and we'll see what things look like by the end of next year. But the N900 seems to be a very, very intrigueing smartphone to say the least, the battery is kinda disspointing though (1340mah).
...
JeffroPuff

Aug 27, 2009, 12:58 PM
Verizon is the bad one! AT&T might throw some branded icons on it, but typically, they're not overhauling the whole experience.
...
Overmann

Aug 27, 2009, 1:26 PM
Verizon's overhauling the whole sxperience comes from people going "I don't want a new phone because I don't want to learn all the menus again!" Therefore, Verizon phones all have the same 5 tabs menu that is ugly. Even though that is no longer the default menu on a lot of phones, it's still available as an option.
...
JeffroPuff

Aug 28, 2009, 9:26 AM
Yep, that and every menu leads you into some option where you can access premium conent from Verizon! lol
I hated that when I had VZW years ago. The UI's were the same on all the phones! I'll take a MEdiaNet icon anyday! 🙂
And since I have a BB, I can just hide what i don't want to look at! 😁
...
Gorillanorth

Aug 29, 2009, 3:49 PM
JeffroPuff said:
Verizon is the bad one! AT&T might throw some branded icons on it, but typically, they're not overhauling the whole experience.



Verizon does that so that there customers can go from one phone to another with out a huge learning curve. The majority of customers don't want to have to learn everything all over again.
...
morganm00

Aug 27, 2009, 11:55 AM
Sure they can handle that. The subsidizing made sense when the wireless industry was in its infancy. Got people out there to try it and get hooked on having a cell phone. Now anyone who would want a cell phone has one. The subsidizing really isn't necessary anymore. Just stick to the business of selling service.
...
acdc1a

Aug 27, 2009, 11:59 AM
Look at Metro and Cricket. They continue to grow and there are no subsidies. Without contracts to hold over people's heads we'd finally get to see real competition.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 12:02 PM
Metro & Cricket are good examples. But unfortunatly they aren't GSM. So you can only buy handsets from them. I prefer to be able to buy ANY handset, usually on ebay or amazon. and put my sim in. I swear if I could do that with cricket or Metro I'd leave ATT.
...
acdc1a

Aug 27, 2009, 12:41 PM
You can have them flash a number of CDMA phones. The voice quality is so much better in my opinion on CDMA.
...
Overmann

Aug 27, 2009, 1:24 PM
When metroPCS flashes a phone, the only functionalities you get are calls and text (not picture) messages. So no data at all. Better to get a real metro phone instead.
...
phonesales83

Aug 27, 2009, 12:46 PM
Have you seen the coverage for those carriers?
...
acdc1a

Aug 27, 2009, 1:30 PM
Metro and Cricket offer a reasonable amount of coverage in a lot of major cities. You can also roam at $0.19 per minute should you leave the calling areas provided. Considering you get everything for 1/2 price it's worth it for a lot of people. I use Metro for my business cell phones.
...
phonesales83

Aug 27, 2009, 12:43 PM
AND their phones suck!! Its the stuff that the major carriers sold YEARS ago!! Once again I am all for not subsidizing phones. I would love not to have to deal with people throwing a fit because they treat their phone like crap and it stopped working. Would you bring your 4000 tv in the bathroom while you shower so you can hear it ring? How bout leave it in the car on a 100 degree summer day then toss it in the air conditioned house? Or take it to the pool with you and then get mad it got wet? If you take the phones away from the carriers then it is strickly dealing with service and that would be awesome. When it comes to Europe, it is a completely different system. I have customers that travel back and forth and prefer US carriers because t...
(continues)
...
SPCSVZWJeff

Aug 28, 2009, 8:40 PM
Cricket lowers their cost by reflashing CDMA phones that came from Sprint, Verizon, USCC and Alltel. How is that good for competition. They also sell the same phones that Virgin Mobile sells for double the price.

Most flashed phones can use voice and text but not data features. This is not good for the customer and is only taking advantage of consumer ignorance.
...
CellStudent

Aug 27, 2009, 3:11 PM
ccareatatt said:
They also sell handsets at full price. Do you believe America could handle that? I dont.


The issue of subsidy is completely resolved with the elimination of exclusivity. It doesn't matter what you or I think.

Open market principles work almost every time they're tried. They only exception I can think of is industries with huge environmental impact. It's way cheaper to use harmful, poisonous methods to refine steel then to do it in a "greener" fashion under EPA guidelines, but larger society places value on clean air, so it's better to restrict that industry forthe greater good.

The wireless cartels need to die. One branch of an industry must not have significant influenc...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Aug 27, 2009, 3:29 PM
CellStudent said:


The issue of subsidy is completely resolved with the elimination of exclusivity. It doesn't matter what you or I think.


Exactly. Eliminate handset exclusivity, and market forces themselves resolve the problem.

Any CMRS wireless handset that passes FCC certification should be available to any bulk buyer at wholesale price. Watch what would happen to unsubsidized handset "retail" prices when wireless carriers have to compete w/ Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Radio Shack, et al., for handset sales.

AJ
...
Slammer

Aug 27, 2009, 5:41 PM
Since it is the consumer's drive that decides what fails or succeeds, The open market will force the carriers to address the real complaints that subscribers have had over the years in the wireless industry. Not the complaints that the carriers falsly claim.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 5:54 PM
What do you mean when you say "CMRS wireless handset"?
...
Menno

Aug 27, 2009, 6:25 PM
Walmart bulk buys their phones already. You can buy them without a contract.

Their retail costs are frequently 100-150 more than what you would pay in a Direct store or premium retailer.
...
CellStudent

Aug 28, 2009, 12:06 AM
It does not matter if prices go up or down.
The only concern should be whether or not Market Forces are being allowed to operate.
...
knoxvegas75

Aug 27, 2009, 11:55 AM
good points. I agree an Open standard is the way to go and offer more choices for the consumer. The reason this is not the case here in the US is the diversity of technology and its incompatibility with each different technology. Once LTE rolls out and we can get one standard of wireless in the US an Open Industry is not that far off for equipment. This will not get rid of a discounted subsidy on equipment but provide other alternatives to the contract that is required with subsidy and allow a consumer to purchase devices from other sources.

Should be Interesting to see how much control Julius Genachowski and Dems take on and how they will change the industry. How do you all think this will effect US Cellular, other smaller carrier...
(continues)
...
Cellinovation

Aug 27, 2009, 2:18 PM
The only problem with waiting for LTE is that the open standard on LTE gives Verizon a clear advantage, and leaves Sprint out in the cold.
Verizon has more wireless spectrum in the 700mhz band than any other company in the US. With all things being equal, why wouldn't people run to Verizon?
...
knoxvegas75

Aug 27, 2009, 2:46 PM
you would need a data roam agreement requirment to provent flow of consumers to the better network. Same argument is comming from companies like US Cellular. Metro PCS, Leap WIreless. Withput Data Roaming it would become monoploistic. BTW LTE is not the same as 700 spectrum you can depoly it in 1900 or 850 as well. I agree sprint is behind due to investment in wimax if LTE becomes the standard but they will just convert or work a way to use both.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 3:07 PM
I'm curious what Tmo's plans will be for LTE, because really all they have is the 1700 band. Is that the band they will launch LTE on?
...
Cellinovation

Aug 27, 2009, 3:17 PM
Right LTE can be done in other frequencies. But a device tuned to 700 mhz will not recieve 1900mhz. Lets not forget the 700 mhz has way better penetration than 850 mhz. So the coverage is better. This brings us back to the point that the Verizon network would be supperior to anyone launching in the 1900 or 850 spectrum. To use a roaming agreement all the devices would need to be tri-mode, and suck battery life clean!
...
CellStudent

Aug 27, 2009, 3:24 PM
700 MHz is only SLIGHTLY better then 850 MHz for building penetration. Unless you're in the basement of a large building, you won't notice the difference.

Also, LTE femtocells are already well under development since they will be almost mandatory for deployments in Europe where LTE will be in the 2.0G Hz+ bands.

The biggest problem Sprint would have moving to LTE is that their embedded base will already be dependant on WiMax equipment, so if they shut down WiMax and go to LTE, all the users will need to buy new hardware before they can make the conversion. That will be a pain!
...
VDubb

Aug 27, 2009, 4:44 PM
All this stuff about Sprint having to convert WiMAX over and such, I hope you guys realize that Sprint doesn't do anything with WiMAX. They handed off the spectrum for WiMAX and the responsibilities of WiMAX development/maintenance over to Clearwire in exchange for majority holdings. Sprint does have a decisive role on how Clearwire handles it, but ultimately, it's all under Clearwire and separate from Sprint. Sprint still has yet to announce a 4G plan for their CDMA/iDEN networks, though they did say they were looking at LTE and currently testing it in labs.
...
Cellinovation

Aug 27, 2009, 5:18 PM
Sprint certainly does not have to convert WiMax. With sprint owning 51% of Clearwire that makes the success or failure of Clearwire rather important to the furture so Sprint.

It will be interesting to see if Sprint supports their own business practice by launching with WiMax so they can team with Clearwire and offer a bundled type packaging, or if they fold to the status quo and pick up LTE. Although, what spectrum could they possibly use it for? hmmm. This could actually be a good use for the 800mhz spectrum they are currently using for the iDen network!
But to get those customers off iDen what will they do!?
...
VDubb

Aug 27, 2009, 5:25 PM
Fold, please. Sprint can setup to migrate to LTE and let Clearwire continue to pursue WiMAX or convert to LTE, whichever would be more beneficial. Through Clear, all WiMAX is a giant WiFi network. Nothing more, and for that purpose, it works extremely well. Sprint will most likely upgrade their network to LTE; however, they can still have Clearwire utilize WiMAX for their primary purpose, mobile data across a large area (e.g. cities, college campus, etc.).
...
Cellinovation

Aug 28, 2009, 12:13 PM
That is very possible. I would just be concerned about all the money they put into researching the Mobile WiMax standard 102.11e as apposed the to fixed standard they are using with Clearwire 802.16. There has to be a reason to dump that much money into a mobile version. If not for cellular handsets what could it be?
...
CellStudent

Aug 28, 2009, 12:17 AM
By that logic, Sprint has no network at all. They are just part Clearwire and part Ericsson.
Of course, my last statement is just as flawed as yours.
Sprint is heavily invested in WiMAX. They can't just walk away and do LTE on their own.
...
VDubb

Aug 28, 2009, 12:47 AM
Invested heavily? All they did was donate spectrum in exchange for majority holding and off-loaded the build-out of a network onto a another company. They're not going to walk away from Clearwire (since they own 51%); however, Clearwire's WiMAX rollout will not completely effect Sprint's 4G solution and if Clearwire decides to remain WiMAX, that will not prevent Sprint from going LTE and visa versa.
...
CellStudent

Aug 28, 2009, 8:57 AM
Whose spectrum could they use? They gave all the 4G bands to Clearwire.
They would either have to retract spectrum from WiMAX or come up with a ton of cash to buy unused AWS from AT&T and VZW.
...
VDubb

Aug 28, 2009, 9:40 AM
Probably their unused 1900MHz holdings since Sprint owns tons of it, and the spectrum they'll gain from the rebanding.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 3:05 PM
I guess we'll just have to wait to see how things unfold in the next 18-36 months. Maybe by the end of 2010 Verizon's vastly superior data network will force ATT to actually be competitive, who knows, maybe ATT will be more like Tmo and be somewhat of a bargain. I'm of course referring to like 2011 or so. Not anytime soon.

*Anyway, I hope Tmo gets the Nokia N900, if they do, I'll leave ATT in a frinkin hearbeat!!!*
...
CellStudent

Aug 27, 2009, 3:19 PM
Cellinovation said:
The only problem with waiting for LTE is that the open standard on LTE gives Verizon a clear advantage, and leaves Sprint out in the cold.


Survival of the fittest. All the guys who sunk millions into factories to build vinyl records and 8 track players are an afterthought in today's world.

Some tech wins, some tech dies. AT&T and other regional carriers all hold usable amounts of 700 MHz spectrum, and LTE is NOT restricted to 700 MHz deployment in any way.

LTE is perfectly feasible in the 850 MHz, 1900 MHz and 2.5 GHz bands. Different antenna configurations would be needed for each frequency, but I can't imagine Sprint being wiped off the planet just because VZW holds the lar...
(continues)
...
flip mode

Aug 27, 2009, 2:14 PM
Everything you said was right and I totally agree with it...there is no competition here, just a finely tuned synchronized greed engine maintained by the big 4.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 3:01 PM
Yep, and most of ATT & Verizon's plans are the same anyway!!! I'm referring to the measly choice of 450 or 900 minutes, same exact plans on both carriers. And I think they should combine unlimited txt & internet for $20/mo.
...
Cellinovation

Aug 27, 2009, 3:19 PM
ummm... unlimited text and internet is usually about $20 per month on most carriers anyway.
...
Jayshmay

Aug 27, 2009, 3:23 PM
Oh...I guess I'm just not in touch with individual plans. I have 3 line on my acct. And pay $30 for unlimited txt&pix, and $10 for unlimited internet. But ha, ha, I probably use a whole lot more data on my unlimited $10/mo internet thant ATT would prefer me to. I'm half way through my billing cycle and have used 3gigs already. But I'm a bored security gueard, and I surf the net a whole lot, plus I usse my phone as a wifi hotspot at home.
...
WiWavelength

Aug 27, 2009, 3:14 PM
flip mode said:
Everything you said was right and I totally agree with it...there is no competition here, just a finely tuned synchronized greed engine maintained by the big 4.


Big 4?

Sprint & T-Mobile are just trying not to get crowded out by the massive bloat of VZW & AT&T, which buy up everything (wireless spectrum, smaller carriers' networks, exclusive handsets) but the kitchen sink.

The Big 2 are the problem...

AJ
...
CellStudent

Aug 27, 2009, 3:46 PM
WiWavelength said:
Big 4?

Sprint & T-Mobile are just trying not to get crowded out by the massive bloat of VZW & AT&T, which buy up everything (wireless spectrum, smaller carriers' networks, exclusive handsets) but the kitchen sink.

The Big 2 are the problem...

AJ

I'm with you on this one, too. I'm of the opinion that the critical elements of providing cellular service should be held up to either a 35% screen or a 40% screen.

Example: no carrier should be permitted to own more then 40% of the ACTIVELY USED cellular spectrum in any given area.

With that kind of a provision coupled with the end of handset exclusivity, I doubt the FCC would ever need to interfere with cellular operator behavio...
(continues)
...
Scotty_bing

Aug 27, 2009, 6:07 PM
They shouldn't be interfering in the first place. Competition, capitalism and free enterprise are all being used here.

Where the hell does these people come off trying to regulate everything?
...
Slammer

Aug 27, 2009, 8:11 PM
Scotty Bing, I know you disagreed with me before on this issue. Unfortunately, The thing that is irking the public side is the fact that there is almost no regulation whatsoever in the wireless industry. The carriers are calling all the shots. In the eyes of carriers and their reps, this appears to not be a problem. But for us consumers that have saturated the wireless market, We have presented the Government with some legitimate serious questions. Because of the smaller markets being bought up, The larger carriers( the top two specifically), Would eventually monoplize the industry. Without regulations, this would be the same as your gas company running amoke without regulation. Think very hard about that for a second. What are you willing t...
(continues)
...
Menno

Aug 29, 2009, 10:14 PM
No government regulation?

The government charges every cellphone customer 12.6% tax on every bill. What are they doing with this money? Oh, that's right, providing free track fones to people on welfare. That is a higher percentage cut of a typical cellphone bill than the company actually gets as profit. How would you as the consumer like to have your cellphone bill almost 13% cheaper?

The federal government must approve every phone that the carriers offer, as well as any other phone companies want to sell here unlocked. How would you as the consumer like to buy any phone you wanted unlocked, as long as it was using the right radio frequencies, and use it on your network?

The government said that voice over 4g would have to be s...
(continues)
...
Gorillanorth

Aug 30, 2009, 2:10 PM
Menno said:
No government regulation?

The government charges every cellphone customer 12.6% tax on every bill. What are they doing with this money? Oh, that's right, providing free track fones to people on welfare. That is a higher percentage cut of a typical cellphone bill than the company actually gets as profit. How would you as the consumer like to have your cellphone bill almost 13% cheaper?

The federal government must approve every phone that the carriers offer, as well as any other phone companies want to sell here unlocked. How would you as the consumer like to buy any phone you wanted unlocked, as long as it was using the right radio frequencies, and use it on your network?

The government said that
...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Aug 28, 2009, 12:31 AM
A 100% unregulated market will always end in disaster unless the market is small and unskilled, like a farmers market in Tahiti where it is impossible to corner the market on pineapples.
Massive corporations which are beyond the realm of competition with a backyard startup are a totally different story.
99% de-regulation would be healthy for most industries, including wireless.
We don't need ObamaCell for the same reasons we don't need ObamaCare, but the State cannot be completely uninvolved in both cases for similar reasons.
Government has an obligation to ensure Market Forces are at work, and they are also obligated to perform that duty with the fewest number of regulations possible.

The typically fail at the "as few as possible" p...
(continues)
...
crackberry

Aug 28, 2009, 1:21 AM
yes. i agree. there is quite a bit of competition but the two top carriers do not have blanket coverage in this country... why? they both have the deepest pockets and have been around the longest. so why don't they reach every where? i have to play devils advocate because i'm a capitalist and i don't have cell coverage at my house by the top two, but i do from one local cell company. i have been arguing for a few years now that at&t is in the business to strangle innovation in the wireless market. they prove that daily. look at what they take out of phones they launch and look at what they put in the phones. verizon is trying, at&t is going backwards. sprint is more like at&t when it comes to handsets, but they offer better plans that inclu...
(continues)
...
kreitz3

Aug 28, 2009, 8:47 AM
Without doing any research other than looking at the coverage map, Cellular South = Sprint coverage. Why would I want to pay $49.99/mo to get 500 Anytime minutes and 0 N&W minutes? I could go to Sprint and pick up a 450 minute plan with N&W, messaging and data for $69.99.

Just asking. What makes Cellular South "the best" in your opinion?
...
crackberry

Aug 28, 2009, 9:04 AM
Coverage. They have the best coverage down here. Hands down. Look at their native coverage and everyone else.
...
Menno

Aug 29, 2009, 10:47 PM
Verizon is pushing into those deadzones, it just takes a lot of money cause typically the ones left are areas with low profit potential, and/or difficult terrain requiring specialized towers, or more per mile.

In the last year, they've put up 94 cell sites in PA alone, and converted basically the entire state (even the boonies) to 3g speeds

Verizon is a little tight-fisted when it comes to some of their policies, but they are opening up.

-Java support coming to newer phones
-supporting free apps through their app store
-offering more phones with OBEX bluetooth profiles
-adding wifi to smartphones (going so far as telling companies it must be included in future models they subsidize)
etc.

It takes companies awhile to change,...
(continues)
...
Menno

Aug 29, 2009, 10:54 PM
The problem with cellular networks is that their natural tendency is to grow larger.

This is because
1. Towers are expensive, and if you can absorb company b instead of building towers right next to theirs, you'll save a ton of money in the long run. Yes, you can do roaming agreements, but these are often one-sided, either by coverage exchange, or one of the carriers doesn't keep their towers in the same condition as the other, and for these companies, service is everything.

2. The "fringe benefits" for the customer tend to grow with the company, a big example of this is "Mobile to Mobile" Calling. As more people in a given area join company A, the more likely it is that others will join company A.
This is not anti-competitive, i...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Aug 30, 2009, 11:31 PM
Well, I've never had cable TV and hope to God I never do, but it seems to me like in most areas there's a healthy level of competition between Cable, Satellite and local wired telco operators.

Price is not what the regulators are looking at here. Price-FIXING and innovation-stifling practices are what the FCC is going to act upon.

They have a government mandate to investigate substantial claims of anti-competitive behavior. There is clearly enough evidence to justify mounting an investigation into the industry, but I doubt they will turn up enough evidence to make any kind of a rules change at this point (though I would personally like to see the Spectrum Screen re-instituted, it will not happen).

if nothing else, the lawyers at ...
(continues)
...
Menno

Aug 31, 2009, 8:27 AM
There isn't healthy competition.

I'll give you the the area around here as an example.

Yes, we have Dish, Direct TV, and some areas even have FIOS, but Comcast is the dominate provider here.

Dish, Direct, etc all have plans starting as low as 40 something a month (with their big plans at around 100), Fios is bundled at.. 100 (two year price freeze, 1 year contract)

Comcast? Well, their basic cable package is almost $65 a month, while the other three keep pretty steady rates, Comcast increases theres 2-3 times a year.

But their biggest competative edge? Comcast sports Net. See, they own the Phillies (in part) and so unless you have comcast, or another cable company (since they never compete with one another) you can't get th...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Aug 31, 2009, 3:00 PM
Inside info tells me that the cable/satelite companies are soon going to be reviewed as the telecoms currently are.

But my real question is why what you just posted, different from what I said in my post that you eloquently disagreed with?

Your point is exactly what I was conveying.

Also, Taxes are NOT regulations. They are required for everyone and has nothing to do with how the telecoms conduct their businesses other than pricing.

The FCC approvals are for design specifications for any possible cross transmission interferences as well as safety issues regarding RF radiation. FCC has no involvement in pricing. Another interesting thing to point out is that, after being asked, the government refused involvement with the wireless...
(continues)
...
Versed

Aug 31, 2009, 5:25 PM
Only thing I can say about the Phillies, is they're better then the Mets. But Comcast does provide the YES network with some kind of deal with their handlers. I also heard that Comcast owns "The Golf Channel".
...
ATnT Nokia

Aug 28, 2009, 9:59 PM
and if we get an anti-corporate government, the top two may be asked to divest spectrum and markets to smaller carriers.

The break up of AT&T in 1984 was a government move. I don't think the top 2 would be broken up, but I do think one day if they continue to gobble up everything in their paths, the FCC will ask them to divest spectrum to other carriers.
...
Cellenator

Aug 27, 2009, 3:46 PM
then move to Europe 😈
...
Radbard

Aug 28, 2009, 2:10 PM
That wasn't my point. I was just using Europe's wireless industy as an example. As I stated I'm not a socialist but I think the industry now is geared too much away from the consumer. With an open network standard and open devices that is where you would see the free market in action. I know this is far fetched but it makes sense to me. You would see better prices and innovations from all the companies trying to one up each other to get more cusotmers. And that, my friend, is the free market in action.
...

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.