Phone Scoop

printed September 4, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7910&fh=2701489

Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Mandates that AT&T and Verizon Allow Data Roaming

Article Comments  

all discussions

Lame FCC

glinc

Apr 7, 2011, 12:19 PM
It's not VZW or AT&T fault that these local carriers don't want to invest in building towers around the country. There's a reason why these big 2 spend the money to expand in order to be #1.

If any agreement is reached then just give them 10kbps speed while on roaming.
...
lostandfound

Apr 7, 2011, 12:45 PM
The thing Verizon and ATT are not taking into account is that together they own more than 70% of all the available spectrum for mobile phone services in America. Rural carriers already have data networks in the markets they serve (and they do invest in their small local networks) but they cannot expand beyond to other regions for spectrum reasons. This will be beneficial to consumers in rural America.

Without trying to sounds like a commie, Verizon/ATT need to realize that spectrum is a national resource. They are the ones that dont invest in the rural areas because they know there is no demand or money. Rural carriers take up that burden of niche markets while ATT and Verizon are just worried on increasing their margins in highly profit...
(continues)
...
jackshepard23

Apr 7, 2011, 12:54 PM
glinc said:
It's not VZW or AT&T fault that these local carriers don't want to invest in building towers around the country. There's a reason why these big 2 spend the money to expand in order to be #1.

If any agreement is reached then just give them 10kbps speed while on roaming.



Well, smaller carriers only have networks established in their own markets. For example, U.S. Cellular just can't start building cell cites and towers in Florida because they feel like it. They'd have to have that spectrum available to do so... To launch a new network in any area is a HUGE investment. And due to Verizon and AT&T's soon to be duopoly, it's almost impossible for smaller carriers to be competitive. I think...
(continues)
...
T Bone

Apr 7, 2011, 1:59 PM
So what you are saying is that the large carriers have some kind of moral responsibility to lose money? Because that is exactly what the end result of mandatory one sided roaming agreements is going to be.
...
Versed

Apr 7, 2011, 6:05 PM
T Bone said:
So what you are saying is that the large carriers have some kind of moral responsibility to lose money? Because that is exactly what the end result of mandatory one sided roaming agreements is going to be.


If its mandatory one sided roam agreement, on that I do agree with you. But remember the rural's aren't going to be able to roam on LTE free of charge. What would be even better is what VZW proposed, you can built out on our spectrum in your service area's, we just get to use it. This is really not a heavy burden on either side. I'm sure some kind of financial deal can be worked out. I'm also sure there aren't going to be an overwhelming amount of VZW or AT&T users using these towers i...
(continues)
...
shiftmobile

Apr 7, 2011, 6:36 PM
Versed said:


If its mandatory one sided roam agreement, on that I do agree with you. But remember the rural's aren't going to be able to roam on LTE free of charge. What would be even better is what VZW proposed, you can built out on our spectrum in your service area's, we just get to use it. This is really not a heavy burden on either side. I'm sure some kind of financial deal can be worked out. I'm also sure there aren't going to be an overwhelming amount of VZW or AT&T users using these towers in Goat Vomit Arkansas.


They already have a program like that in place and I think at least 5 carriers have already participated including Bluegrass Wireless.
...
Hitur Petar

Apr 7, 2011, 6:37 PM
Thats true. In other words, they have no problem with this type of agreement when it benefits them, but they don't wanna play by the rules when it doesn't. Tough luck. The people have spoken.
...
kazahani

Apr 7, 2011, 7:05 PM
Hitur Petar said:
Thats true. In other words, they have no problem with this type of agreement when it benefits them, but they don't wanna play by the rules when it doesn't.


Duh, they're in business to make a profit. Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to wield this kind of power over private enterprise.


What if the FCC regulates your wireless carrier out of business? What will you say then?
...
Azeron

Apr 8, 2011, 12:40 AM
He'll probably say the government can do a better job. Rolling Eyes They are pretty much guaranteeing that Obama is one and done with acts like this and health care. Government is the problem not the solution. If they knew what the hell they were doing we wouldn't be in this Depression THEY are responsible for. I don't mean just one party. They all sat there rubber stamping spending on their pet projects and printing more and more worthless money, deflating it purposefully to pay back loans like it never has to end. These are the jokers you want us to bow down to and worship? No thanks.
...
Slammer

Apr 8, 2011, 8:00 AM
This a catch22 situation. No one wants or trusts government intervention. Yet, the only entity that can impose regulatory measures, is the government.

If our wireless communications are going to be controlled primarily by two super carriers, I prefer to have these carriers highly regulated.

The oil, gas and electric industry is highly regulated and we still have to deal with instabilities with pricing. Imagine if these industries weren't regulated. I don't want our communications operating like our utilities. A hurricane in Florida causes everyone's cell bills to spike the following month. No thank you.

I'm teetering on this FCC move. While I feel it may be a step over the line, Data is the next Voice plan. The smaller carriers w...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Apr 8, 2011, 11:21 PM
"If our wireless communications are going to be controlled primarily by two super carriers, I prefer to have these carriers highly regulated."

Which is why I AM in favor of them nixing the AT&T takeover T-Mobile. It has to be extreme for me to support government power infringing on how a business is run, but clearly even Stevie Wonder can see the wrong in the AT&T/T-Mobile hook up. But this is just wrong. If ever those *Bleepards* spent a wise dollar on a lawyer it should be to fight this. Price mandated by the Feds? Hell, that is one step from a takeover.
...
Slammer

Apr 8, 2011, 8:18 AM
___"Duh, they're in business to make a profit. Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to wield this kind of power over private enterprise.
What if the FCC regulates your wireless carrier out of business? What will you say then?"__


This would be a short sighted view. Who will regulate pricing if the government does not use this power? Competition is quickly dissolving. I do not want the last remaining megacarriers controlling the pricing.

John B.
...
Azeron

Apr 8, 2011, 11:24 PM
The key should be in stopping the mega carriers from becoming mega carriers. Just because they *Bleeped* up in allowing Verizon to acquire Alltel does not mean they have to allow T-Mobile to die. That's a step I can support. Not this.
...
Vmac39

Apr 7, 2011, 7:04 PM
This could be very beneficial to the larger carriers, if they work out the agreements right. I'm thinking, if a company like ATT for example allows a smaller carrier to use there network wit data roaming, then part of the agreement would be that ATT be able to use theirs in areas that they have few or no towers of their own. However, the down side to this is, with the smaller carriers data roaming, this fl could add more bog down of the larger carriers network. Maybe, a joint network sharing agreement would bw better. In this way, the larger carriers could continue building their networks with with smaller carriers and that way, the can share the same towers but not always the same network for data. Just an off the top of my head thought.
...
Slammer

Apr 8, 2011, 8:36 AM
---"This is really not a heavy burden on either side."---

I have to disagree. The financial burden on these small carriers is enormous. The last I checked, To strap an antenna to an existing structure, is a minimal 150,000 dollars. I believe I'm being conservative on that figure. To erect a tower and network gear, running back haul to the towers could easily approach or surpass half a million dollars. This is just one site.

VZW escapes the building of these networks. Yet who will reap the benefits once these carriers fail to meet the financial expectations? I don't like this initiative. It is an ambush.

John B.
...
Azeron

Apr 8, 2011, 11:26 PM
Agreed. I haven't quite worked it out yet, but there is something which smells there. Verizon has lied before. When the company was created in 2000, Alltel was supposed to be off limits for ten years. What happened there?
...
Hitur Petar

Apr 7, 2011, 6:30 PM
It's not at all about fairness. It's about law. att and vzw knew the rules when they leased the spectrum from the government. They don't want to play by the rules they argreed to. They will be paid, they don't want the profit they will make from these agreements, they want a duopoly with no competition so they can make even more later.
...
Azeron

Apr 7, 2011, 1:31 PM
That's a good idea. It's bad enough that I've had to hear the Sprint employees gloat about how they were able to pay Sprint prices and enjoy Verizon coverage for years now the *Bleeping* Cellular South commercials will gloat about Unlimited Everything Smartphone plans on their "Nationwide Voice and Data" network for $79.99 ($39.99 for a second line)" That *Bleep* is not fair.
...
Azeron

Apr 7, 2011, 1:35 PM
The more I think about this the more I realize that those of us shelling out the ducats to Verizon and AT&T should put together our voices because WE will be negatively impacted by carpetbagging roamers congesting the networks that WE are paying for.
...
flagrantmisuse

Apr 7, 2011, 1:55 PM
Huzzah!!!
...
rawvega

Apr 7, 2011, 2:59 PM
Azeron said:
The more I think about this the more I realize that those of us shelling out the ducats to Verizon and AT&T should put together our voices because WE will be negatively impacted by carpetbagging roamers congesting the networks that WE are paying for.


Not likely. Native users always get priority access over roamers.
...
Versed

Apr 7, 2011, 6:06 PM
And that works both ways. But I'm sure the rural carriers will bitch about that too.
...
Hitur Petar

Apr 7, 2011, 6:36 PM
Verizon already leasess their network to multiple MVNO's so why weren't you complaining before now? Vzw has no problem doing that because it's much more profitable. They don't care if it effects you.
...
Azeron

Apr 8, 2011, 12:32 AM
I was not complaining because Verizon doesn't have any MVNO's with unlimited data plans. This isn't Sprint we are talking about. This is Verizon. Amp'd Mobile? Nope. Dead. Hell they wouldn't have a data roaming agreement with Sprint if Alltel hadn't signed them before being taken over. You don't have to agree with me. That is nothing new. But please don't resort to making stuff up. Thank you.
...
Hitur Petar

Apr 7, 2011, 6:33 PM
Never mind that vzw is too cheap to bid on enough spectrum to accomodate their bloated network and roam on Sprint when their network is full. IT's an agreement they both depend on. Besides, Sprint had an awesome agreement with Altell that suited both of them really well, before consolidation ended that. So vzw can't complain.
...

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 Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1