FCC Says Data Roaming Rules On the Table
I Knew This Would Happen.
This really is not fair. It encourages companies to just sit on spectrum and not develop it. Here comes Cellular South's "Nationwide" Data Network.
...
although i agree with you, it kinda helps both att and verizon because they can leech off their networks when they both go full on lte and customers could never complain about coverage again...unless it have that totally wrong and misread that.
...
Azeron said:
This really is not fair. It encourages companies to just sit on spectrum and not develop it. Here comes Cellular South's "Nationwide" Data Network.
If the AT&T-T-Mobile merger were to be consummated, would you still assert that data roaming regulations would be unfair?
Consider these two examples, one urban, one rural. Cincinnati Bell Wireless is a GSM 1900 carrier in, of course, Cincinnati. And WestLink Communications is a GSM 1900 carrier in western Kansas. Both have national voice & data roaming agreements w/ AT&T, as they have no networks nor spectrum outside of their respective markets. AT&T, on the other hand, competes directly w/ both in those markets. AT&T has spectrum & netw...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength said:
AT&T has spectrum & network in Cincinnati via SBC's acquisition of Ameritech and in western KS from its purchase of RCC Unicel.
Clarification: VZW acquired RCC Unicel, and AT&T purchased some divested markets.
AJ
...
"If the AT&T-T-Mobile merger were to be consummated, would you still assert that data roaming regulations would be unfair?"
Yes. I am certainly against the T-Mobile transaction for many reasons. I understand voice roaming as a neccessity...but not data roaming. Particularly in Verizon's case where a carrier like Cellular South has rebuffed the idea of building out an LTE network as some of the other smaller carriers have. One should have to pay to play, but Cellular South will be able to sit on their hands and do nothing and still have roaming mandated by the FCC. How does that encourage innovation? I don't believe it does. Voice roaming? Absolutely. Data roaming? No.
Yes. I am certainly against the T-Mobile transaction for many reasons. I understand voice roaming as a neccessity...but not data roaming. Particularly in Verizon's case where a carrier like Cellular South has rebuffed the idea of building out an LTE network as some of the other smaller carriers have. One should have to pay to play, but Cellular South will be able to sit on their hands and do nothing and still have roaming mandated by the FCC. How does that encourage innovation? I don't believe it does. Voice roaming? Absolutely. Data roaming? No.
...
Take a look at the history, Az.
Did mandatory voice roaming stop the littel guys from building out their networks? No- it just allowed them to do it on a more reasonable, less risky timeframe.
Did mandatory land-line wholesaling from the Telecom Act of 1996 cause VOIP solutions to stop innovating because they could "lease" telco services from the incumbent telco outfits?
No, on both counts!
What a data roaming mandate would effectively do is make sure that all the deployment resources get spent where their needed because of aggregate capacity limits, and not "because we can't provide service any other way."
Let's look at a rural area, because that's where this matters. Verizon already has 3G deployed in Willikazoo, Ne...
(continues)
Did mandatory voice roaming stop the littel guys from building out their networks? No- it just allowed them to do it on a more reasonable, less risky timeframe.
Did mandatory land-line wholesaling from the Telecom Act of 1996 cause VOIP solutions to stop innovating because they could "lease" telco services from the incumbent telco outfits?
No, on both counts!
What a data roaming mandate would effectively do is make sure that all the deployment resources get spent where their needed because of aggregate capacity limits, and not "because we can't provide service any other way."
Let's look at a rural area, because that's where this matters. Verizon already has 3G deployed in Willikazoo, Ne...
(continues)
...
"Why should Mom & Pop Cellular be forced to over-build the network further just to remain competitive when it is far, far less expensive to lease airwaves from Verizon?"
Because that's how it is supposed to work. If roaming is so cheap that a carrier never has to build it's own network then it won't. It will maintain its tiny home footprint and pay the same cost or more likely less to glut up someone else's network forever. It just is not right. When I first heard about LTE, I stated it would be a mistake to build VoLTE or VoLGA due to the Sprint example. AJ says that Sprint could build out much more area than it has but instead choices to make use of Verizon's roaming in areas it deems it not to be cost effective to build out its ow...
(continues)
Because that's how it is supposed to work. If roaming is so cheap that a carrier never has to build it's own network then it won't. It will maintain its tiny home footprint and pay the same cost or more likely less to glut up someone else's network forever. It just is not right. When I first heard about LTE, I stated it would be a mistake to build VoLTE or VoLGA due to the Sprint example. AJ says that Sprint could build out much more area than it has but instead choices to make use of Verizon's roaming in areas it deems it not to be cost effective to build out its ow...
(continues)
...
Summary:
This defies every economic thought I can come up with.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right and this let's AT&T or another one of the big boys leech of VZW's LTE network build-out.
IF (and only IF) AT&T get's a LTE roaming agreement with VZW and unleashes their customers on the VZW network, what happens?
Scenario One is that people don't really want LTE and don't really use it. In that case, AT&T just saved a bunch of money not wasting resources on LTE and they can spend those funds on some other aspect of t...
(continues)
CellStudent said:
Why build three towers when the area only needs one?
Azeron said:
Because that's how it is supposed to work.
This defies every economic thought I can come up with.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right and this let's AT&T or another one of the big boys leech of VZW's LTE network build-out.
IF (and only IF) AT&T get's a LTE roaming agreement with VZW and unleashes their customers on the VZW network, what happens?
Scenario One is that people don't really want LTE and don't really use it. In that case, AT&T just saved a bunch of money not wasting resources on LTE and they can spend those funds on some other aspect of t...
(continues)
...
"My recollection is that you're as unhappy with the consolidation in this industry as I am, if not more."
I like the little guy more than the big guy...usually. But in this case the little guy is a bum. He snags a piece of territory and behaves like an *Bleep* and THEN demands that he be given everything on a silver platter. No. Hell no. Veriizon was foolish to go this route. Too bad it is to late to change their strategy. They should have stayed the CDMA course. Pretty soon some of these carriers will come to realize that with the Feds fixing prices that they don't have to do anything because their customer's data and voice roaming rates will still allow for healthy profits and it is actually a detriment to their bottom line to b...
(continues)
I like the little guy more than the big guy...usually. But in this case the little guy is a bum. He snags a piece of territory and behaves like an *Bleep* and THEN demands that he be given everything on a silver platter. No. Hell no. Veriizon was foolish to go this route. Too bad it is to late to change their strategy. They should have stayed the CDMA course. Pretty soon some of these carriers will come to realize that with the Feds fixing prices that they don't have to do anything because their customer's data and voice roaming rates will still allow for healthy profits and it is actually a detriment to their bottom line to b...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
