Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T Must Divest More Markets to Acquire Centennial

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 18 replies

Why Verizon?

flip mode

Oct 14, 2009, 2:30 PM
IMHO it would be more competitive and fair to give those markets to a regional carrier like U.S Cellular or Metro PCS or even a national carrier like T-Mobile.
...
Azeron

Oct 14, 2009, 2:50 PM
They are not 'giving' them to Verizon they are selling them to Verizon.
...
crood

Oct 14, 2009, 2:59 PM
Right, it's about who gives them the best price. Also, without actually knowing exactly what areas are covered, you can't say for sure if those other companies want or need the spectrum in those locations.
...
Azeron

Oct 14, 2009, 3:04 PM
Metro and Leap (Cricket) are likely not interested in acquiring rural coverage when there are still so many larger markets which they don't cover yet. Add to that the fact that even in they were interested they would have to outbid Verizon.
...
flip mode

Oct 14, 2009, 8:26 PM
ok, i mean "sell off" . pardon me 😉
...
Azeron

Oct 14, 2009, 8:59 PM
A company can be forced to divest but not dictated to whom to sell.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 14, 2009, 7:19 PM
The answer is reasonably simple. As the incompetent Powell/Martin controlled FCC -- appointed by the blundering previous administration -- enabled monopolistic giants VZW & AT&T to buy up the vast majority of the most desirable wireless properties, VZW & AT&T have been left w/ only themselves as legitimate trading partners.

Since VZW is too big for AT&T to topple, and AT&T is too big for VZW to topple, the two bloated cows effectively collude between themselves in these transactions -- they basically divide & conquer. And that is one of the many reasons why VZW & AT&T are easily the two most disgusting influences on competition in the domestic wireless industry.

AJ
...
flip mode

Oct 14, 2009, 8:24 PM
WOW...WiWavelength, you have the best answer that is not only true but realistic in my opinion. That seriously makes a ton of sense. 😎
...
Butthead007

Oct 14, 2009, 9:14 PM
Yeah, when you're 15, an answer like that makes alot of sense. That's ok, that answer is pretty silly and makes me laugh. I hope WiWavelength is making all his posts on a computer he hand built from components from vendors he selected and is running linux, freebsd, or even open solaris due to his disdain for big business. But we all know he's not. His views, like many, are only convenient for him and directly reflect a desire for wanting everything with the least impact on his wallet while someone else foots the bill for his fun. He's probably only 25 so no worries.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 14, 2009, 9:53 PM
Pull your head out of your butt! You are wrong on every count, Butthead007. Do not ever ascribe to me motivations that are your insipid assumptions, not my own. Additionally, take your "silly" computer analogy and use it to wipe your butt, as it is neither parallel nor germane to the topic at hand.

So, why not admit that you have an agenda to rationalize anti competitive behavior w/in an industry that is founded upon public property? Or substantively refute my assertions about the origins of the current state of competition in the wireless industry? Or just shut up because you have no point and offer no evidence to support it?

AJ
...
kiptonia

Oct 15, 2009, 8:35 AM
WiWavelength said:
Pull your head out of your butt! You are wrong on every count, Butthead007. Do not ever ascribe to me motivations that are your insipid assumptions, not my own. Additionally, take your "silly" computer analogy and use it to wipe your butt, as it is neither parallel nor germane to the topic at hand.

So, why not admit that you have an agenda to rationalize anti competitive behavior w/in an industry that is founded upon public property? Or substantively refute my assertions about the origins of the current state of competition in the wireless industry? Or just shut up because you have no point and offer no evidence to support it?

AJ



Nice thesaurus. ;)
...
Azeron

Oct 14, 2009, 8:56 PM
"monopolistic"

Two companies would be a duopoly, no?

As there are two giants and one cannot prove the collusion claim then there is no anti-trust violation.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 14, 2009, 10:06 PM
Azeron said:
"monopolistic"

Two companies would be a duopoly, no?


No. VZW & AT&T are inseparable from their parent companies, both of which are bastard children of Ma Bell, both of which have local wireline monopolies across vast swaths of the country.

Azeron said:
As there are two giants and one cannot prove the collusion claim then there is no anti-trust violation.


That is why I stated that they "effectively collude" in these transactions. (Note that VZW, as well, divested many properties to AT&T following the ALLTEL merger.) Recent evidence of this is substantial. Thus, it is government sanctioned collusion as a consequence of deficient oversight under the...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Oct 15, 2009, 1:21 AM
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that one cannot separate the wireless companies from their parents. As wireless companies they do not have monopolies, which is why AT&T is being forced to divest properties in these markets and Verizon was forced to do so in the Alltel merger and on and on. As far as the the remaining ILECs, while they do not compete with one another head to head they DO have competitors in those regions including: Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Embarq, Vonage and a host of smaller cable and wireline companies. AT&T when it was Ma Bell was a monopoly and I personally do not think Verizon should have been allowed to join GTE and BAM together or SBC to absorb Pac Bell and Bell South or US West etcetera, etcetera......
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Oct 15, 2009, 9:57 AM
Ten years of recalcitrant competition does not supplant a century of incumbent monopoly.

AJ
...
Slammer

Oct 15, 2009, 5:44 AM
In my opinion, The FCC would be taking a chance of being hypocritical if they allow this diveststaion. All these two companies have been doing for the last few years is shuffling their assests around to each other to eliminate any left open pockets of markets. This would lock them into more of monopolistic temple of power. The very same practice the FCC is trying to investigate.
...
MrPezto

Oct 18, 2009, 8:22 AM
I work for Centennial, and I can tell you that if the FCC does not allow this deal to go through, then Centennial will be closed in 12 months time then AT&T and Verizon will just be able to buy our 850 and 1900 specctrum from the banks and courts.
...
Versed

Oct 18, 2009, 10:00 AM
MrPezto said:
I work for Centennial, and I can tell you that if the FCC does not allow this deal to go through, then Centennial will be closed in 12 months time then AT&T and Verizon will just be able to buy our 850 and 1900 specctrum from the banks and courts.


I think I drove past your offices on Rt. 34.
...
tkrphone

Oct 15, 2009, 11:18 AM
I would like to add this thought - in the interest of providing more spectrum for wireless services, coupled to a desire to mazimize revenue via auctions, the U.S./FCC has allowed the U.S. mobile wireless landscape to get very fractured in term of spectrum allocation. For example, we essentially used to have only 850 cellular and 1900 PCS. All devices more or less were tied to this common spectrum, albeit perhaps on different technologies (TDMA, CDMA, GSM...) by each carrier.

Now we also have the AWS spectrum, the 2500 MHz spectrum, the assorted slots of 700 Mhz spectrum, and of course the rebanded SMR spectrum, plus an additional unique 10 Mhz at 1900 for Sprint. The landscape is so fractured in terms of the technologies deployed, t...
(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 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.