AT&T, Verizon Battle Smaller Carriers Over 700MHz Roaming

"I bet you think all farms should be connected by 3 lane interstates too."

Yeah naturally ~rolls eyes~ Wow I guess people living in rural areas that literally provide EVERYONES food should just be forced to stick it because they choose to live in rural areas. Just because we prefer not to breathe in smog doesn't mean we dont ever want the option of affordable internet. Actually we would fight a 3 lane highway to our farms ya putz.

When you choose that particular lifestyle, there are sacrifices one must make. Whether it's internet access, wireless coverage, etc.

Red_Minx said:

Yeah naturally ~rolls eyes~ Wow I guess people living in rural areas that literally provide EVERYONES food should just be forced to stick it because they choose to live in rural areas. Just because we prefer not to breathe in smog doesn't mean we dont ever want the option of affordable internet. Actually we would fight a 3 lane highway to our farms ya putz.

We do make that sacrifice everyday, but when an option comes about that could make things easier I don't see why we should hold back on it. The more advances we can make the smoother things can run for the economy in general.

iDont Care said:
When you choose that particular lifestyle, there are sacrifices one must make. Whether it's internet access, wireless coverage, etc.

Wow, I cant tell you how uneducated that response sounded. Did you finish the third grade? This is the US all areas should be able to have access to broadband, to limit ourselves is not the American way. Besides, when you learn to read, do some research and you might be surprised at how many subscribers are in rural areas.

Then let the rural carriers build out a wireless broadband system. Instead they want to ride off someone else's. I'm not against roaming agreements, and they should encouraged. But not at welfare roam fees like what these guys want.

Exactly! Cellular South SPAT in Verizon's face laughing at the idea of partnering on LTE (and I don't blame them. THAT deal is a trap) but one can't have it both ways. If one is going to be a man then damn it BE A MAN! Don't go crying to the Feds to get them to FORCE Verizon to let you roam at a price you want to pay. What if there WERE no LTE network being built? What would Cellular South do? They would continue to offer EV-DO data and that is what they should continue to do until they can build out their on LTE in their home region and sign a data roaming agreement with Light squared or someone BESIDES Verizon.

Azeron said:
Don't go crying to the Feds to get them to FORCE Verizon to let you roam at a price you want to pay.

Why is there this fore-gone assumption that the roaming deals will be unprofitable for the supplier (Verizon, AT&T, etc.)? Why the declaration that the wholesale rate will be too low, so the subject should never be considered?

Most utility resale rates have been regulated by some government entity in a large handful of industries for years and years and they aren't causing any gas or electric companies to go belly up! Landline telcos are forced to wholesale wire-line access to resellers and have been since the late 1990s. Wholesale agreements have not bankrupted the landline telcos (thoug...
(continues)

"Why is there this fore-gone assumption that the roaming deals will be unprofitable for the supplier (Verizon, AT&T, etc.)?"

That's really not the point. The point IS that if I choose not to trade with your company...I shouldn't have to. The Feds ALREADY force voice roaming and I have NO problem with that. A 911 phone call could be life or death. Getting on the Internet is not. Sorry. Peddle that BS elsewhere.

"Reselling is a win-win any time the wholesale terms are consistent."

No it's not. If it were then VZW and AT&T would not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.

I have to be honest with you.

The argument of carriers having rights because of building their own networks, is not entirely valid.

Spectrum has and always will be publicly owned. If a carrier decides to build out a nationwide network, they own the infrastructure but are still relegated within a criteria to not take advantage of the spectrum holdings which they lease. Building the largest network is an advantage to the carrier for obtaining more bottom line in profits and revenue but not to hoard spectrum and sequester the availability of it. The FCC has an obligation to make sure everyone can maintain a level of communication just as we all need access to gas and electric for our homes.

Since "4G" is the next step for communica...
(continues)

Azeron said:

The point IS that if I choose not to trade with your company...I shouldn't have to.

As I've pointed out time and ti,e again, despite your failure to listen, such dynamics only work in highly competitive industries where alternative, equivalent products and suppliers are readily available in sufficient quantities to drive a supply/demand dynamic.

Telecom is no such marketplace. The only way for the big boys to avoid regulation at this point is to divest and get smaller.

When the largest player in the market controls less than 25% of the revenue, we'll have a fair market that can dodge regulation and remain fair.

shiftmobile said:
I bet you think all farms should be connected by 3 lane interstates too.

I'm an engineer. I don't believe in overbuilding- you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.

Azeron is the one proposing that each company needs to build it's own "lane" on the data highway for rural America and deny network sharing.

I say, "Let's build one lane and share it. If the road is too crowded, we'll add a lane or two."

Your interpretation is totally backwards. The highway reference implies that you agree with me and yet you're undermining our position.

typical response frm him🙂

What does that say about your position?

"Azeron is the one proposing that each company needs to build it's own "lane" on the data highway for rural America and deny network sharing."

Actually, there are other roads. They just have stop signs and red lights and are not as fast. Use those if you do not wish to pay Verizon's toll. I think it is hilarious that I can be attacked by Verizon fanboys on other forums and posts for "hating" Verizon. It really is not about Verizon though. It is about fairness. There is nothing fair about the Feds stepping in and telling Verizon or anyone else they have to allow these guys to use their network and they can only charge some ambiguous price. Verizon is currently the company which has a toll...
(continues)

Azeron said:
What does that say about your position?

"Azeron is the one proposing that each company needs to build it's own "lane" on the data highway for rural America and deny network sharing."

Actually, there are other roads. They just have stop signs and red lights and are not as fast. Use those if you do not wish to pay Verizon's toll. I think it is hilarious that I can be attacked by Verizon fanboys on other forums and posts for "hating" Verizon.

By those arguments, the USF shouldn't exist, either.

Yet it does, and that's a good thing.

Internet accessibility (at least to the level of streaming 240p video) is in the public interest, and is a public benefit.

It really

...
(continues)

Just because it isn't doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make it as fair as possible.

"Why on earth should any combination of American companies build up three or four cell site arrays to service rural Americans in any rural area, when a single tower with a single array can provide 200% or 300% more capacity than is actually needed"

Totally ridiculous. I thought this was about allowing these rural carriers access to towers outside of their footprint. Of course, Verizon is going to build it's own LTE network even in the home area of these pip squeak carriers eventually. They don't want to pay roaming revenues to them. In fact, they would rather not deal with these carriers at all. As far as me being Verizon's best friend. I'm not...
(continues)