Verizon forced to allow data roaming

[Trocks797]

The problem is they dont always enforce it and they lose money on those customers lol. I know ton's of people with Evo's and SGSII's on Sprint in my area and are always in a roaming area using 1000+ minutes monthly and like 2-3GB's of data.

You are right they have policies in place and do terminate some of those sub's, like they did my previous account Lol.

They got a few of my friends too. All but one came over to Verizon and are happier, mainly because they don't have to watch their usage.

[Guest 214]

They got a few of my friends too. All but one came over to Verizon and are happier, mainly because they don't have to watch their usage.

Yea, I just never understand my friends finding ways to stay with Sprint just to save literally $10 or so. Sprint is great for people living in a good Sprint area, mainly in a metro area but if you are already roaming on low quality 1X speed's why not get the carrier you are roaming on!

The only reason I have Sprint is because of Direct Connect and Direct Connecting other Nextel user's across the country.

[ggore]

Mandated roaming is a very delicate matter when it comes to the small regional/rural carriers. Why would someone subscribe to Ajax Cellular in Boondock, NV when they can be a Verizon customer and roam freely on Ajax's system? Verizon didn't spend any money covering Ajax's territory, Ajax's owners did. Ajax can't offer the latest/greatest cool phones because they are all exclusive to Verizon. The fee Ajax would have to charge Verizon for Ajax to allow Verizon to roam would be so high that Verizon would probably balk at paying for the privilege of their customers to roam on Ajax, so that turns into a giant blank spot in Verizon's coverage map, and there you are, where we are now in some areas of the country, actually many areas of the country. I'm sure the response from some is that Verizon should just buy up Ajax and be done with it, and that is one solution. Verizon gets a ready-made addition to its system and didn't have to spend a penny on construction, pretty good work if you can get it.

Some small systems' attitude on roaming towards the big boys is that "you didn't build anything here, so don't try to piggyback on us". But the attitude of the big carriers can be just as bad to the little guys and each other, there is plenty of blame to go around. It can't be solved until everyone is playing on an equal field, with the same amount of system built, over the same territories.

[jseah]

Mandated roaming is a very delicate matter when it comes to the small regional/rural carriers. Why would someone subscribe to Ajax Cellular in Boondock, NV when they can be a Verizon customer and roam freely on Ajax's system? Verizon didn't spend any money covering Ajax's territory, Ajax's owners did. Ajax can't offer the latest/greatest cool phones because they are all exclusive to Verizon. The fee Ajax would have to charge Verizon for Ajax to allow Verizon to roam would be so high that Verizon would probably balk at paying for the privilege of their customers to roam on Ajax, so that turns into a giant blank spot in Verizon's coverage map, and there you are, where we are now in some areas of the country, actually many areas of the country. I'm sure the response from some is that Verizon should just buy up Ajax and be done with it, and that is one solution. Verizon gets a ready-made addition to its system and didn't have to spend a penny on construction, pretty good work if you can get it.

Some small systems' attitude on roaming towards the big boys is that "you didn't build anything here, so don't try to piggyback on us". But the attitude of the big carriers can be just as bad to the little guys and each other, there is plenty of blame to go around. It can't be solved until everyone is playing on an equal field, with the same amount of system built, over the same territories.

Mandated roaming is to benefit the little guys much more than the big guys. Why would someone want to sign up for service with Ajax if their phones were useless outside of their small service area?

If Verizon had no towers in that area, then obviously it isn't a Verizon service area, so people living there wouldn't even be able to sign up for Verizon service instead of the other carrier even if they wanted to.

It's like when I moved into my area 10 years ago. I had AT&T service, but the area I live now was covered by Cellular One. AT&T roamed on Cell One's towers, but AT&T could not provide service in the area. When I tried to change my billing address, I was told by AT&T since my new home address was not in their native service area, I would have to cancel my AT&T service, pay ETF's, and sign up with Cellular One. So I ended up changing my billing address to my work address, which was still in an AT&T service area, so I could keep AT&T. Five years ago, AT&T acquired Cellular One's assets in my area, so now service is provided by AT&T.

[Endeavor]

The infrastructure was built and is operated in accordance with a license, i.e. permission, from the FCC, and is subject to the regulations imposed by the FCC.

The spectrum is limited, i.e. with only two 850 Mhz slots and 6 1900 Mhz slots, everyone can't build infrastructure wherever they want. An obligation imposesd by the license is an obligation to share, as long as those who share pay.

The FCC isn't requiring them to share for free. They get paid for the usage.

Suppose the government gave someone a license to build and operate a bridge over a river. The person builds the bridge pursuant to that license. Should the bridge owner be permitted to sell subscriptions, and refuse access to anyone from out of town who didn't buy the subscription? No! There isn't room for an unlimited number of bridges. It would be a waste of $$ to require everyone who wants to cross the river to build their own. The license to build and operate would require the owner to allow all who wish to use the bridge to pass, as long as they pay a fee.

The spectrum, yes. But the infrastructure that was built to utilize that spectrum belongs to Verizon, not the public. That is what I have a problem with.

[Endeavor]

No, mandated roaming is to benefit THE PEOPLE, whose spectrum has been licensed for the profit of a private company. Because of that license, only Verizon may use certain channels in certain areas. In return for that guarantee of exclusivity, they are obliged to allow roaming for a fee.

Mandated roaming is to benefit the little guys much more than the big guys. Why would someone want to sign up for service with Ajax if their phones were useless outside of their small service area?

If Verizon had no towers in that area, then obviously it isn't a Verizon service area, so people living there wouldn't even be able to sign up for Verizon service instead of the other carrier even if they wanted to.

It's like when I moved into my area 10 years ago. I had AT&T service, but the area I live now was covered by Cellular One. AT&T roamed on Cell One's towers, but AT&T could not provide service in the area. When I tried to change my billing address, I was told by AT&T since my new home address was not in their native service area, I would have to cancel my AT&T service, pay ETF's, and sign up with Cellular One. So I ended up changing my billing address to my work address, which was still in an AT&T service area, so I could keep AT&T. Five years ago, AT&T acquired Cellular One's assets in my area, so now service is provided by AT&T.

[GSMinCT]

I think it would also be nice if Verizon customers had the option to roam off of Sprint. I'll bet there are some areas where Sprint would have signal or better signal than Verizon. I'm sure its much less common than the other way around though. Sprint customers have the option to use both networks, while we can only use ours, however "wonderful" it may be.

Aren't T-Mobile and ATT going to have a reciprocal roaming agreement? Maybe Verizon is too proud and arrogant to allow the same.

Yeah, that's weird that it doesn't go both ways. Sounds like the same reason AT&T and Verizon won't do wifi calling, even though the bottoms of some buildings just will never have service from a licensed wireless carrier.

AT&T and T-Mo aren't being forced by the government, AT&T was dumb and agreed to it as part of the break-up.

Verizon own's their spectrum and infrastructure. They are no way obligated to let some *live* at their home if they dont want to. The *other* carrier's should build their own home's instead of borrowing other peoples.

Agreed. Basically. Verizon would still be free to lease access to Sprint, but the agreement shouldn't be forced by the government or rate-regulated. Verizon has a fiduciary responsibility to it's own shareholders to let Sprint roam on it's network, but the rates may be such that Sprint couldn't offer free roaming to it's customers or had to more severely restrict it, and it's customers would actually be forced to see how pathetic Sprint's own network is.

Mandated roaming is a very delicate matter when it comes to the small regional/rural carriers. Why would someone subscribe to Ajax Cellular in Boondock, NV when they can be a Verizon customer and roam freely on Ajax's system?

I'm basically talking about Sprint here, not the little guys. The flip side of that is that what if Ajax couldn't get a roaming agreement with Verizon? They'd be hosed. That's what should be regulated. And if you regulate one way, you have to regulate the other. I just don't think that Sprint should get regulated rates. Also, why doesn't Verizon build out their own network in that area? Or, if they don't own the spectrum, contract with Sprint to do it with full EVDO roaming? Why doesn't Verizon contract with Sprint to fill that big hole in Texas? Maybe even just lease the spectrum from Sprint, and build it themselves, so that it would actually get build right?

The spectrum is limited, i.e. with only two 850 Mhz slots and 6 1900 Mhz slots, everyone can't build infrastructure wherever they want.
...
The FCC isn't requiring them to share for free. They get paid for the usage.

Maybe the FCC should have been smarter with the spectrum and made it so that AT&T and Verizon would each get a nationwide PCS license so that the license argument would be toast. Also, the FCC is regulating the rates, and Verizon is getting paid peanuts for the Sprint roaming agreement.

In return for that guarantee of exclusivity, they are obliged to allow roaming for a fee.

There is no exclusivity. Sprint owns a nationwide PCS license. If anything, it's the other way around, since there are areas that Verizon is not licensed to operate in. That will change, however, when VoLTE comes around, and Verizon can operate all of their services on the 700mhz upper C-block.

[GSMinCT]

Frequency spectrum is a limited resource that nobody can own. Without an FCC to regulate spectrum, a cellular network couldn't exist, as everyone would be jamming each other with their long-range phones that connect to their houses.

Sprint owns a nationwide PCS license. In fact, they are licensed over nearly 100% of the land area of the US (with the exception of the NRQZ and anywhere else that no wireless provider can build), while Verizon is not. Verizon has the vast majority, but they are missing a few spots, like a chunk in the middle of Texas where there is no CDMA coverage.

[ShortSxit]

The infrastructure was built and is operated in accordance with a license, i.e. permission, from the FCC, and is subject to the regulations imposed by the FCC.

The spectrum is limited, i.e. with only two 850 Mhz slots and 6 1900 Mhz slots, everyone can't build infrastructure wherever they want. An obligation imposesd by the license is an obligation to share, as long as those who share pay.

The FCC isn't requiring them to share for free. They get paid for the usage.

Suppose the government gave someone a license to build and operate a bridge over a river. The person builds the bridge pursuant to that license. Should the bridge owner be permitted to sell subscriptions, and refuse access to anyone from out of town who didn't buy the subscription? No! There isn't room for an unlimited number of bridges. It would be a waste of $$ to require everyone who wants to cross the river to build their own. The license to build and operate would require the owner to allow all who wish to use the bridge to pass, as long as they pay a fee.

No, but as long as there is room for more than one bridge, they should build as many bridges as possible and let them compete. Besides, your analogy isn't even close. You're not even taking into consideration the smaller carriers; you're only using one bridge and the consumers.

If I buy a membership to Average Joe's Gymnasium, 24 Hour Fitness shouldn't be forced to provide service to me at their locations, even if they charge Average Joe's some kind of fee. And then you get into the whole argument about how much they're "allowed" to charge the smaller gym, because they can only charge what the government deems "fair."

[Trocks797]

If I buy a membership to Average Joe's Gymnasium, 24 Hour Fitness shouldn't be forced to provide service to me at their locations, even if they charge Average Joe's some kind of fee. And then you get into the whole argument about how much they're "allowed" to charge the smaller gym, because they can only charge what the government deems "fair."

It is funny you bring up gyms. I belong to a major nationwide gym. My gym has a nationwide "roaming partnership", if you will, with one other major nationwide gym. Should I go to an area that has no branch of my gym, I can use the other gym. This is included because I pay my gym an additional $3 per month. The smaller gyms neither extend this opportunity to their customers, nor allow me access to their clubs. Funny how gyms and cell networks line up so closely!

[Nucleartx]

Sprint owns a nationwide PCS license. In fact, they are licensed over nearly 100% of the land area of the US (with the exception of the NRQZ and anywhere else that no wireless provider can build), while Verizon is not. Verizon has the vast majority, but they are missing a few spots, like a chunk in the middle of Texas where there is no CDMA coverage.

The massive hole in Texas is because the cdma carriers chose not to build a network there. Only att and West central wireless have operating networks there, both gsm on 850. West central wireless has 3g umts on 850 also.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[GSMinCT]

It is funny you bring up gyms. I belong to a major nationwide gym. My gym has a nationwide "roaming partnership", if you will, with one other major nationwide gym. Should I go to an area that has no branch of my gym, I can use the other gym. This is included because I pay my gym an additional $3 per month. The smaller gyms neither extend this opportunity to their customers, nor allow me access to their clubs. Funny how gyms and cell networks line up so closely!

They chose to do that. We're not saying that Verizon shouldn't be allowed to sell roaming access, that's well within their right. However, they shouldn't be forced by the government to sell it at price xyz and under xyz conditions. It should be up to them when and how they sell access, and at what price. If they want to make a deal where Sprint has to cover some areas Verizon isn't licensed in, and Verizon gives them roaming out-of-market blah blah blah with some other trade, then that all should be fine. But Verizon should also have the right, at least legally and without regard to their shareholders, to sit there and refuse Sprint a roaming agreement and only provide federally-mandated 911 service.

[nb2six]

I completely agree. What is pathetic is the fact that cell service is seen as a privilege instead of luxury like it truly is. The government telling the carriers what they can and cant do with the spectrum they purchased is a complete joke. If you don't want to have other carriers users piggybacking off your towers, you should be able to tell them no. Its these small carriers that only cause more issues for the big guys because they believe they deserve all these handouts. It's just as bad as people taking advantage of the welfare system. This isn't just an FCC issue, its the US governments uneeded/unwanted intervention into issues that do not concern them. The only thing that should be mandated and already is, is that folks can make 911 calls. If you chose to go with the "affordable" regional carrier, tough luck. Dont travel outside your region and complain about your service. Pay the premium price to get the premium service. That's how luxuries work.

[Guest 214]

I completely agree. What is pathetic is the fact that cell service is seen as a privilege instead of luxury like it truly is. The government telling the carriers what they can and cant do with the spectrum they purchased is a complete joke. If you don't want to have other carriers users piggybacking off your towers, you should be able to tell them no. Its these small carriers that only cause more issues for the big guys because they believe they deserve all these handouts. It's just as bad as people taking advantage of the welfare system. This isn't just an FCC issue, its the US governments uneeded/unwanted intervention into issues that do not concern them. The only thing that should be mandated and already is, is that folks can make 911 calls. If you chose to go with the "affordable" regional carrier, tough luck. Dont travel outside your region and complain about your service. Pay the premium price to get the premium service. That's how luxuries work.

Agreed, I would even go as far to say as basic voice roaming should be allowed through the American Roamer network like in the old days with Analog where you can pay per minute for emergency calls through your credit card. But data is just a luxury and nothing more.

[WaltA]

Please let me know when I can data roam on Verizon's 4G network with my Sprint WiMAX.