Why does Verizon want this AWS spectrum?

[GSMinCT]

rdekema is correct about it being nice for Verizon having 700 band nationwide.

But no, mpossoff, the "mish-mash" won't affect AT&T much at all. They'll need radios that support lower-A if they get it, so current AT&T LTE devices may have reduced/no coverage in any area they get lower-A. Areas where they still won't have 700 will be tricky, but not totally impossible. For example, here in Montana, AT&T has 5x5 of AWS. That's *it*. But even that's totally possible and workable. Just pricey to deploy.

Although they can't in any suburban/urban areas, they will have to go quad-band on the LTE, partly in order to deploy in places like Montana, where they will have to go 5/10/10 GSM/UMTS/LTE in the CLR band. That will probably come with supporting the lower A block when they get those chunks from Verizon. There's going to be a whole generation of phones on both carriers that only have partial LTE support. It's going to be a mess, but if they get the freedom to deploy that way, they can make it work. They also have much more PCS nationwide than Verizon.

Is it against FCC to have all the 700 band nationwide? I mean AT&T wanted to merge with TMo and it was shot down.

Why would it be? The [politically motivated] explanation of the shoot-down of the T-Mo merger was because of the number of subs and spectrum depth in certain markets, not the land area covered by the spectrum.

[AlexKidd1977]

Why would it be? The [politically motivated] explanation of the shoot-down of the T-Mo merger was because of the number of subs and spectrum depth in certain markets, not the land area covered by the spectrum.

I disagree. The merger of T-Mobile into AT&T would simply eliminate a major competitor amongst the "big four" to become "big three". As the number of competitors in such a large market segment goes down, so does the incentive to remain competitive. Do you honestly believe that either AT&T or Verizon are scared of Sprint? Oh yeah, the three would quickly become "the two".

Verizon acquiring a large slice of spectrum nationwide that's currently unused, or becoming available for re-use does not eliminate any competitors. It's as simple as that. I can buy the possibility that it does eliminate a possible place for T-Mobile to potentially expand it's own offerings if they don't win the auction, but you might be surprised how much a board of directors is willing to spend to avoid certain doom if they're unable to win something of such monumental importance. There may even be handicaps set by the FCC that could allow a lower bid by T-Mobile to win given adequate evidence that Verizon did not have an imminent need for it compared to T-Mobile. (Using T-Mobile for example here, you could easily substitute Sprint) Additionally, T-Mobile could react by acquiring spectrum available elsewhere to continue their expansion.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm definitely a free market guy and I like to see as little government interference as possible, period. That being said, this really needed to be done. I could make parallels to the healthcare legislation, which I feel was over-reaching, but at the risk of turning this into a political thread, I will not.

--Kidd

[GSMinCT]

T-Mobile and AT&T weren't competitors. AT&T and Verizon are, and T-Mobile and Sprint are. Sprint is sort of is a competitor to Verizon and AT&T because of their lucrative government-mandated roaming on Verizon. T-Mobile didn't have roaming until just recently, so they weren't at all.

I think the whole spectrum needs to be re-aligned, as it's a mess right now, and hurting competition in general. A market without T-Mobile means a stronger Sprint. I also want to see AT&T gobble up USCC, but that unfortunately may not happen because they are scared of acquisitions now.

[rdekema]

Although I prefer not to bring up politics on this forum, I fully and heartily agree with AlexKidd1977.

While it's true that AT&T is one of the two Tier-1 cellular operators in the United States and T-Mobile is only a Tier-2 operator, all four of the combined Tier-1 and -2 operators (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile) are in strenuous competition with each other.

I think the point that GSMinCT makes is *partially* true; T-Mobile and Sprint, and Verizon and AT&T (respectively) are in closer competition with their same-tier peer than they are with the other two operators, but they nevertheless compete. A merger of AT&T and T-Mobile would do the following:

1) Reduce the number of USA Tier-1 + Tier-2 operators from 4 to 3; a 25% reduction in the number of major operators.

2) Change the competitive field from its current state of "two large operators and two smaller operators," to "two large operators and ONE smaller operator".

I think it is clear that these changes would be detrimental to consumers across the nation.

On the other hand, if MetroPCS and Leap Wireless (two Tier-3 carriers) wanted to merge, I would be all for that from a governmental regulatory point of view. That would change the situation from the current:

2 Tier-1 carriers, 2 Tier-2 carriers, 2 penny-ante operators (i.e. Tier-3 carriers)

to

2 Tier-1 carriers, and 3 Tier-2 carriers

That, imo, is the type of change that would benefit consumers and increase competition; very much unlike the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger.

[GSMinCT]

I really don't think T-Mo serves any competitive purpose for AT&T and Verizon, although it could be argued that they serve a segment of the population that Verizon and AT&T don't. T-Mobile, even as a tier 2 actually competes somewhat with the tier 3's for the real bottom scraper customers.

[rdekema]

Sure, T-Mobile and Sprint compete with each other and with the tier 3 carriers for customers, but they also compete with the tier 1 carriers - particularly for those customers who live in and mostly travel between urban or semi-urban areas.

For instance, in the past ten years, I have used Sprint, T-Mobile and VZW as my primary carrier for 2+ year stretches. But I'm a phone nerd so maybe that doesn't really "count". My father, a businessman, has, in the same period of time, used Sprint, AT&T, and VZW as his primary carrier. My cousin, an attorney for a national law firm has used a T-Mobile phone provided by his employer for the entire time.

As for myself? Sure, these days, I travel into a lot of places where the Tier-2/3 carriers don't provide service, plus there is an in-building VZW system at my office. So, sure, I subscribe to VZW! But there are quite a few people who do not need the additional coverage (and expense) of a Tier-1 carrier, and I think it is wise to encourage competition in the market beyond just the two top-tier networks.

[GSMinCT]

The majority of people want, and will only sign up for, a tier 1 carrier, so it's a duopoly at that point. They have the low-band in the major markets, they have the bigger networks, more stores, coverage for traveling, etc etc. There's a reason that T-Mo's customers are much lower quality than those on Verizon.

[Trocks797]

I also agree with AlexKidd1977. The point was T-Mobile is a nationwide carrier offering service in 95%ish of the areas served by AT&T. Whether or not people actually do compare AT&T and T-Mobile is irrelevant; the point is the **choice** is there, and removing that choice was too much for the FCC, rightfully so. It was all about securing spectrum for AT&T, and that was a p***-poor way to do it. Now they find themselves with less spectrum than before.

[GSMinCT]

I also agree with AlexKidd1977. The point was T-Mobile is a nationwide carrier offering service in 95%ish of the areas served by AT&T. Whether or not people actually do compare AT&T and T-Mobile is irrelevant; the point is the **choice** is there, and removing that choice was too much for the FCC, rightfully so. It was all about securing spectrum for AT&T, and that was a p***-poor way to do it. Now they find themselves with less spectrum than before.

Look at T-Mobile's 3G coverage. It's a JOKE. There are cities that are still on EDGE.

Although it will require a faster migration to 4G LTE, since it doesn't help them in the PCS band, the voluntary Verizon divestiture of lower 700 will help AT&T out a lot. I still think they should finish their deployment on CLR and PCS though, and run HSPA+ with MIMO for 42mbps on a 5x5, and max out the spectrum they have in those bands with HSPA+.

[BuffaloTF]

I also agree with AlexKidd1977. The point was T-Mobile is a nationwide carrier offering service in 95%ish of the areas served by AT&T. Whether or not people actually do compare AT&T and T-Mobile is irrelevant; the point is the **choice** is there, and removing that choice was too much for the FCC, rightfully so. It was all about securing spectrum for AT&T, and that was a p***-poor way to do it. Now they find themselves with less spectrum than before.

AWS is their entire worth though. And they most certainly don't have true nationwide coverage (currently built, their AWS holdings make it a possibility). Their "nationwide" coverage is made up largely of former Western Wireless/Alltel roaming areas and an extensively built-out roaming portfolio with others - their true native coverage is..... urban, to say the least. Alltel covered the most square miles of territory for any carrier in the US. They built out in all the US digital techs, TDMA, CDMA and GSM... but pretty much exclusively sold CDMA. If it's ok for Verizon to gobble up such a huge native network... why wasn't it ok for AT&T to gobble up such a small native network? Because of POPs covered? That's an awfully poor reason, I'm sorry. They didn't even ask at any point if AT&T would be willing to divest customers to other carriers as they did to Verizon with Alltel. If removing a choice is so objectionable, Alltel would still exist.

[mpossoff]

AWS is their entire worth though. And they most certainly don't have true nationwide coverage (currently built, their AWS holdings make it a possibility). Their "nationwide" coverage is made up largely of former Western Wireless/Alltel roaming areas and an extensively built-out roaming portfolio with others - their true native coverage is..... urban, to say the least. Alltel covered the most square miles of territory for any carrier in the US. They built out in all the US digital techs, TDMA, CDMA and GSM... but pretty much exclusively sold CDMA. If it's ok for Verizon to gobble up such a huge native network... why wasn't it ok for AT&T to gobble up such a small native network? Because of POPs covered? That's an awfully poor reason, I'm sorry. They didn't even ask at any point if AT&T would be willing to divest customers to other carriers as they did to Verizon with Alltel. If removing a choice is so objectionable, Alltel would still exist.

Honestly I think the reason was it was because it was AT&T.

[BuffaloTF]

Honestly I think the reason was it was because it was AT&T.

Verizon is arguably more AT&T than AT&T is... they just didn't buy the brand name to match.

[AlexKidd1977]

Look at T-Mobile's 3G coverage. It's a JOKE. There are cities that are still on EDGE.

AWS is their entire worth though. And they most certainly don't have true nationwide coverage (currently built, their AWS holdings make it a possibility). Their "nationwide" coverage is made up largely of former Western Wireless/Alltel roaming areas and an extensively built-out roaming portfolio with others - their true native coverage is..... urban, to say the least.

Statements like these cast the typical cell phone owner as all being HoFo cell phone aficionados. This simply is not the case. There are certainly plenty of people that listen to and get caught up in the fastest, biggest 4G network ads, or whatever marketing blitz each of the cell providers are running at the time. And as has been pointed out, Verizon and AT&T have more store frontage, so they have more opportunities to snag someone up before a cheaper provider can find a prospective customer.

The truth, however, is that T-Mobile and Sprint both provide access to phone calls, text messages and some level of Internet access virtually everywhere the vast majority of consumers will travel to - be it via roaming agreement or native coverage. That's all that matters. The FCC and FTC isn't in the game of making sure everyone has the fastest access, just that they do have access. Being entirely honest, I could ditch Verizon and go back to T-Mobile if I had to. My wireless needs are primarily text, e-mail and low bandwidth chores like Twitter and Google Reader -- I simply choose to pay more to get it at the fastest possible speed only because I'm an aficionado and tech geek. I go nowhere that T-Mobile doesn't have coverage.

Alltel covered the most square miles of territory for any carrier in the US. They built out in all the US digital techs, TDMA, CDMA and GSM... but pretty much exclusively sold CDMA. If it's ok for Verizon to gobble up such a huge native network... why wasn't it ok for AT&T to gobble up such a small native network? Because of POPs covered?

Are you saying that Alltel coverage 95% of the nation's land mass natively, or via it's native + roaming agreements? My understanding is that Alltel was a regional provider. A customer outside of their native area could not purchase a plan because the majority of their usage would not be native and therefore be a cash sink-hole. A national carrier, in my eyes, is one where you can be anywhere within their coverage and sign up for a plan. Verizon even sells plans to subs in regions where their activity would be roaming. They can do this because the sink-hole is absolutely tiny in the grand scheme of running "the network". T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint may not sell to subs outside native coverage, but their native coverage is significant enough to still allow most people on-board.

That's an awfully poor reason, I'm sorry. They didn't even ask at any point if AT&T would be willing to divest customers to other carriers as they did to Verizon with Alltel. If removing a choice is so objectionable, Alltel would still exist.

AT&T quit. They didn't want to come to the negotiating table. The government court case to stop the merger was for all intents and purposes a call for AT&T to immediately come to the bargaining table and set out an alternate plan that would satisfy everyone's needs in a more balanced manner. They didn't want to. Apparently they felt there were other means to their goals that didn't involve tying up government resources in such a public manner, otherwise they would have. In a way, their forfeiture was confirmation that they could have done it all along, they just wanted to eliminate the competition at the same time which further confirms my previous deductions.

--Kidd

[mpossoff]

Verizon is arguably more AT&T than AT&T is... they just didn't buy the brand name to match.

MaBell and the illegitimate child?

[GSMinCT]

AWS is their entire worth though. And they most certainly don't have true nationwide coverage (currently built, their AWS holdings make it a possibility). Their "nationwide" coverage is made up largely of former Western Wireless/Alltel roaming areas and an extensively built-out roaming portfolio with others - their true native coverage is..... urban, to say the least. Alltel covered the most square miles of territory for any carrier in the US. They built out in all the US digital techs, TDMA, CDMA and GSM... but pretty much exclusively sold CDMA. If it's ok for Verizon to gobble up such a huge native network... why wasn't it ok for AT&T to gobble up such a small native network? Because of POPs covered? That's an awfully poor reason, I'm sorry. They didn't even ask at any point if AT&T would be willing to divest customers to other carriers as they did to Verizon with Alltel. If removing a choice is so objectionable, Alltel would still exist.

I totally disagree with the government's decision on the merger... but your logic is off here. Alltel didn't operate in the same markets Verizon did, and where they did, Verizon had to divest them to AT&T. T-Mobile does operate in the same markets, although they don't compete for the same customer.

The truth, however, is that T-Mobile and Sprint both provide access to phone calls, text messages and some level of Internet access virtually everywhere the vast majority of consumers will travel to - be it via roaming agreement or native coverage. That's all that matters. The FCC and FTC isn't in the game of making sure everyone has the fastest access, just that they do have access. Being entirely honest, I could ditch Verizon and go back to T-Mobile if I had to. My wireless needs are primarily text, e-mail and low bandwidth chores like Twitter and Google Reader -- I simply choose to pay more to get it at the fastest possible speed only because I'm an aficionado and tech geek. I go nowhere that T-Mobile doesn't have coverage.

No. T-Mobile's coverage sucks. You go anywhere not in an urban area, and you don't have 3G. Most of my state doesn't have 3G on T-Mobile, were 100% Faux G on AT&T, and 3G on Verizon.

AT&T quit. They didn't want to come to the negotiating table. The government court case to stop the merger was for all intents and purposes a call for AT&T to immediately come to the bargaining table and set out an alternate plan that would satisfy everyone's needs in a more balanced manner. They didn't want to. Apparently they felt there were other means to their goals that didn't involve tying up government resources in such a public manner, otherwise they would have. In a way, their forfeiture was confirmation that they could have done it all along, they just wanted to eliminate the competition at the same time which further confirms my previous deductions.

They were not just trying to eliminate competition, because T-Mobile isn't competition to AT&T. They may have been too stubborn, as it would have been a great time for the US government to be able to apply pro-consumer regulation on AT&T that otherwise would not have been the right place for government in the US.