Rural Carrier Association: Verizon Offer Not Enough
Sad...
I've always rooted for the underdog, so to hear that the smaller carriers are suffering like this is no surprise and sickens me. Companies like vzw, at&t and even walmart are whats ruining this beautiful country and the economy. These corporate giants could care less about who they step on and will go to any length to get their way like a 3 year old brat. I just wish that american people stand up and say enough is enough, we're tired of corporations screwing over the consumer and the little guys that are business owners. REAL regulations and enforced laws need to be put in place for both prices and business practices.
...
Also I want to add that another part of the problem is that these large companies are very ANTI-COMPETITIVE, So it's not the people that can never get enough...its the companies like some large telecom carriers, large stores chains, major insurance companies etc etc that pad the pockets of anyone who can give them what they want and to slip out of any real serious prosecution. There is no crime to being successful, but these companies got so big that they forgot who made them that big, the consumers and now they dont fear us anymore.
...
well u cant have everything your way or there would only be like 1 phone company. if there was no exclusive phones and everyone had the same phones most would just go to the 3 main companies for service and lil companies wouldnt exsist.
...
He hates compaction, he said it him self, that is why he does not like Wal-Mart. Why does Wal-Mart have a reputation for putting business out of business? Because no one can compete with them, they have the lowest prices.
...
That is why in the past 6 months they are one of the few companies who stock has been on the rise.
...
Wow hello Mr. “I Hate Capitalism†now get out of my country and go back to Russia where you belong! Did you hate Verizon or ATT back in the 90s when they were just lowly regional carriers?
If those regional carriers had a good business model to begin with they would not be small little carriers. And before you say it is impossible to compete with companies like Verizon and ATT, let me give you some examples. Boost mobile, Cricket, T-mobile, and Metro PCS all small were small potatoes just a few years ago but are growing exponentially now.
And as for exclusive agreements, maybe those carriers should switch from Verizon alliances to the Sprint Rural Alliance. Sprint allows its alliance partners exclusive devices within mont...
(continues)
If those regional carriers had a good business model to begin with they would not be small little carriers. And before you say it is impossible to compete with companies like Verizon and ATT, let me give you some examples. Boost mobile, Cricket, T-mobile, and Metro PCS all small were small potatoes just a few years ago but are growing exponentially now.
And as for exclusive agreements, maybe those carriers should switch from Verizon alliances to the Sprint Rural Alliance. Sprint allows its alliance partners exclusive devices within mont...
(continues)
...
I love how they mention "180 million" customers, and yet most of those customers would be covered by GSM, so they would not benefit from any length of carrier exclusivity anyway.
Allowing sprint immediate access to exclusive phones, or sprint allowing verizon, just doesn't make sense because it will be a lot harder for them to make a return on investment.
And if sprint and verizon ever teamed up to bring some CDMA phone to market, you can bet that people would sue them for anti-competative practices as well.
Essentially, the rural carriers will never be happy unless Verizon/Sprint/ATT spend all the money bringing a phone to market, and then they got to launch it on the same day. And even then, they would complain that the carrier...
(continues)
Allowing sprint immediate access to exclusive phones, or sprint allowing verizon, just doesn't make sense because it will be a lot harder for them to make a return on investment.
And if sprint and verizon ever teamed up to bring some CDMA phone to market, you can bet that people would sue them for anti-competative practices as well.
Essentially, the rural carriers will never be happy unless Verizon/Sprint/ATT spend all the money bringing a phone to market, and then they got to launch it on the same day. And even then, they would complain that the carrier...
(continues)
...
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The majority of rural operators run some form of cdma. They usually team up with either Sprint or Verizon. This allows them to have nation wide coverage with reasonable roaming agreements by use of the roaming agreements that either national carrier has already brokered with regional operators.
When a rural carrier partners with Verizon that is pretty much the only advantage they get. Sprint on the other hand is different. When a rural carrier partners with Sprint there are several other benefits that partnership entails. One of those benefits is Sprint can allow them to carry a device while it is still under Sprint’s exclusivity agreement.
Think of the logic, what does it matter if a rural p...
(continues)
When a rural carrier partners with Verizon that is pretty much the only advantage they get. Sprint on the other hand is different. When a rural carrier partners with Sprint there are several other benefits that partnership entails. One of those benefits is Sprint can allow them to carry a device while it is still under Sprint’s exclusivity agreement.
Think of the logic, what does it matter if a rural p...
(continues)
...
I wasn't commenting on that... I was talking about how their quote of 181 million includes big carrier's customers, many of them GSM. I was making no comment on the difference between sprint/verizon's rural carrier deals.
...
Yes, but when a rural carrier partners with Sprint, they don't get expanded rural coverage. They get Sprint's urban and rural spiderweb network. So Sprint has to throw them a bone: exclusive phones.
On the other had, I have to side with Verizon on their stance that if they shell out millions in R&D with a manufacturer and secure hundreds of thousands of handsets (let's not forget the jobs that are secured with all that R&D, manufacturing, shipping, sales, etc.), that the carrier that shells out the money should get something in return, i.e. exclusivity.
On the other had, I have to side with Verizon on their stance that if they shell out millions in R&D with a manufacturer and secure hundreds of thousands of handsets (let's not forget the jobs that are secured with all that R&D, manufacturing, shipping, sales, etc.), that the carrier that shells out the money should get something in return, i.e. exclusivity.
...
I think it's wrong for rural carriers to freeload off of the developments costs of phone makers and larger carriers. This smells of socialism and forced distribution of wealth. If all of the rural carriers want to get together and come up with some of their own agreements with phone makers then they can do that.
...
Those small carriers are growing so much because they're customers don't have to pay $100/mo for unlmtd voice. I just keep wondering how much longer, and how much more they'll have to grow in order for the big 2 to be less greedy. And decide to actually compete with Boost/Metro/Cricket.
...
I don't know. I am very on the fence here.
On 1 side, what verizon is doing is, proper business adequacies. Yet on the other hand, they don't have to do anything like this.
See, they are already doing something, they are letting those smaller franchises use their "spider-web" networks. Which, in turn puts weight on the network as a whole (puts weight into their pockets too). The more people sharing the network the weaker the signal. So, your getting our network which we put millions into, your getting our services which we put millions into. You get the training which you don't get charged for, you get support from the network carrier if you need it and now you want our exclusive phones that we paid extra for to make exclusive and you ...
(continues)
On 1 side, what verizon is doing is, proper business adequacies. Yet on the other hand, they don't have to do anything like this.
See, they are already doing something, they are letting those smaller franchises use their "spider-web" networks. Which, in turn puts weight on the network as a whole (puts weight into their pockets too). The more people sharing the network the weaker the signal. So, your getting our network which we put millions into, your getting our services which we put millions into. You get the training which you don't get charged for, you get support from the network carrier if you need it and now you want our exclusive phones that we paid extra for to make exclusive and you ...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
