Someone posted on Ars about this a couple of days ago. Saying that one priority of the FCC is to make sure the limited wireless spectrum is used efficiently. That AT&T does have a good argument in that T-Mobile is holding valuable spectrum that is being underutilized because of its dwindling user base.
With AT&T and Verizon's phenomenal wireless web growth, the FCC wants to have that wireless spectrum being used.
You want the government to force a healthy growing company to keep a dying company alive. Where is the free market system in that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
I have a very simple suggestion for the regulators:
Allow the merger of the networks on a technical level but force T-Mobile to keep operating as a mobile virtual network operator and giving it (and other mobile virtual network operators) all the access they need to the network.
I would like him to define what he means by "virtual". Considering T-Mobile and AT&T operate 3G at different frequencies, it would be difficult to somehow merge them "on the day [they] close the deal."
If you read their merger plan they do explain what they will do with T-Mobile's spectrum.
Quote:
More over, I would like AT&T to define what sort of plans we can expect around the time day close the deal. For instance, T-Mobile offers more minutes than AT&T on most plans and unlimited messaging plans are $10 cheaper.
AT&T will have to honor current T-Mobile contracts and customer plans. Its likely AT&T will offer deals to T-Mobile users to convince them to leave their T-Mobile plan and switch to AT&T.
If you read their merger plan they do explain what they will do with T-Mobile's spectrum.
AT&T will have to honor current T-Mobile contracts and customer plans. Its likely AT&T will offer deals to T-Mobile users to convince them to leave their T-Mobile plan and switch to AT&T.
They will honor it until the contract expires and then you have a choice: Stay with ONLY GSM provider for higher price or switch to competition (Verizon) for the same higher price. DUOPOL in practice.
Translation: Our network is shit, as anyone who's every used it well knows. We haven't done jack in the last 3.5 years to do stave the onslaught of iPhone users. When Verizon has LTE rolled out in a couple years, we are going to get our asses handed to us. So please let us buy out a network with half the subscribers but better coverage and service.
AT&T will not be able to force anyone to give up their T-Mobile service. They will want those customers to voluntarily become AT&T customers and will offer them incentives to do so.
If T-Mobiles prices were such a great deal then T-Mobile would not be loosing hundreds of thousands of customers per quarter running them out of business. AT&T and Verizon can only charge what people believe is the value of their service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabberattack
They will honor it until the contract expires and then you have a choice: Stay with ONLY GSM provider for higher price or switch to competition (Verizon) for the same higher price. DUOPOL in practice.
How does AT&T keeps adding millions of subscribers to their shitty network? You really believe AT&T has done nothing to upgrade its network in three and half years?
Verizon has to roll out LTE fast because its 3G network has no where else to go.
AT&T is not forced to roll out LTE as fast because its 3G network has the potential to be as fast as Verizon's current LTE rollout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
Translation: Our network is shit, as anyone who's every used it well knows. We haven't done jack in the last 3.5 years to do stave the onslaught of iPhone users. When Verizon has LTE rolled out in a couple years, we are going to get our asses handed to us. So please let us buy out a network with half the subscribers but better coverage and service.
Thank God I work for the government and live in Europe (Finland) where the operators are not as crappy as AT&T and where they actually encourage subscribers to use data services.
If AT&T only had to cover an area roughly the size of Nevada, I'm sure it would be easier to encourage subscribers to use as much data as they'd like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Thank God I work for the government and live in Europe (Finland) where the operators are not as crappy as AT&T and where they actually encourage subscribers to use data services.
If AT&T only had to cover an area roughly the size of Nevada, I'm sure it would be easier to encourage subscribers to use as much data as they'd like.
You have heard of the concept: Economies of scale. Size is not the issue as the network size is proportional to the subscriber base. The operators here actually invest in the networks and know how to manage them. If you want, we can use Sweden, or Germany, or head south to the Mid East. The results are still the same.
Economies of scale work when you can take the same methodology and increase it in a linear fashion. AT&T cannot simply take way is done in Finland and use that to cover the entire United States.
Sweden, Germany, or the Middle East still don't have the challenges that AT&T face.
Give me an example of one company that has built its infrastructure over 3 million square miles with flawless coverage and unlimited data usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
You have heard of the concept: Economies of scale. Size is not the issue as the network size is proportional to the subscriber base. The operators here actually invest in the networks and know how to manage them. If you want, we can use Sweden, or Germany, or head south to the Mid East. The results are still the same.
Okay then. Here is what I want to see mandated to AT&T to allow this merger forward.
All usage of the wireless spectrum will be treated as simple data and shall be charged out at the lowest per MB cost of such data.
For instance, AT&T charges $0.01 per MB for their 2GB plan with internet data.
Making the ridiculously high assumption that each text message consumes 1 KB then AT&T is charging around $10 per MB for texting.
Using Cisco's "Voice Over IP - Per Call Bandwidth Consumption" page at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk65...80094ae2.shtml I will assume their worst case scenario rounded up and say that a voice call over AT&T's network consumes 90 kbps. This works out to .675 MB per minute. Using their 900 minute plan then this works out to 607.5 MB for $60 or $10.13 per MB.
So, here is the new price structure that should be mandated to AT&T using their own profitable $0.01 per MB pricing structure.
900 minutes of phone calls should cost $6.08
1000 text messages should cost $0.01
And data should be priced at:
$2 for 200 MB
$20 for 2 GB
$40 for 4 GB
and a penny for each MB that you go over on any plan.
Oh, and they will no longer be able to charge for tethering as it doesn't matter what device is used to consume the data as their network doesn't know the difference.
If AT&T will not meet these reasonable demands then the merger should not be allowed.
The government has not authority to make AT&T's price plans. Its not the government's job to proactively enforce the details of how competition happens. Its only the governments job to prevent companies from colluding and conspiring to stifle competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
Okay then. Here is what I want to see mandated to AT&T to allow this merger forward.
All usage of the wireless spectrum will be treated as simple data and shall be charged out at the lowest per MB cost of such data.
For instance, AT&T charges $0.01 per MB for their 2GB plan with internet data.
Making the ridiculously high assumption that each text message consumes 1 KB then AT&T is charging around $10 per MB for texting.
You really believe AT&T has done nothing to upgrade its network in three and half years?
As I said, not enough to keep up with the demand the iPhone placed on their network. Charging customers $100 a month for service they couldn't deliver is garbage in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Verizon has to roll out LTE fast because its 3G network has no where else to go.
AT&T is not forced to roll out LTE as fast because its 3G network has the potential to be as fast as Verizon's current LTE rollout.
Comments
With AT&T and Verizon's phenomenal wireless web growth, the FCC wants to have that wireless spectrum being used.
I have a very simple suggestion for the regulators:
Allow the merger of the networks on a technical level but force T-Mobile to keep operating as a mobile virtual network operator and giving it (and other mobile virtual network operators) all the access they need to the network.
Requiring the new T-Mobile to grandfather all their customers in their existing plans.
I would like him to define what he means by "virtual". Considering T-Mobile and AT&T operate 3G at different frequencies, it would be difficult to somehow merge them "on the day [they] close the deal."
If you read their merger plan they do explain what they will do with T-Mobile's spectrum.
More over, I would like AT&T to define what sort of plans we can expect around the time day close the deal. For instance, T-Mobile offers more minutes than AT&T on most plans and unlimited messaging plans are $10 cheaper.
AT&T will have to honor current T-Mobile contracts and customer plans. Its likely AT&T will offer deals to T-Mobile users to convince them to leave their T-Mobile plan and switch to AT&T.
If you read their merger plan they do explain what they will do with T-Mobile's spectrum.
AT&T will have to honor current T-Mobile contracts and customer plans. Its likely AT&T will offer deals to T-Mobile users to convince them to leave their T-Mobile plan and switch to AT&T.
They will honor it until the contract expires and then you have a choice: Stay with ONLY GSM provider for higher price or switch to competition (Verizon) for the same higher price. DUOPOL in practice.
If T-Mobiles prices were such a great deal then T-Mobile would not be loosing hundreds of thousands of customers per quarter running them out of business. AT&T and Verizon can only charge what people believe is the value of their service.
They will honor it until the contract expires and then you have a choice: Stay with ONLY GSM provider for higher price or switch to competition (Verizon) for the same higher price. DUOPOL in practice.
Verizon has to roll out LTE fast because its 3G network has no where else to go.
AT&T is not forced to roll out LTE as fast because its 3G network has the potential to be as fast as Verizon's current LTE rollout.
Translation: Our network is shit, as anyone who's every used it well knows. We haven't done jack in the last 3.5 years to do stave the onslaught of iPhone users. When Verizon has LTE rolled out in a couple years, we are going to get our asses handed to us. So please let us buy out a network with half the subscribers but better coverage and service.
Thank God I work for the government and live in Europe (Finland) where the operators are not as crappy as AT&T and where they actually encourage subscribers to use data services.
If AT&T only had to cover an area roughly the size of Nevada, I'm sure it would be easier to encourage subscribers to use as much data as they'd like.
You have heard of the concept: Economies of scale. Size is not the issue as the network size is proportional to the subscriber base. The operators here actually invest in the networks and know how to manage them. If you want, we can use Sweden, or Germany, or head south to the Mid East. The results are still the same.
Sweden, Germany, or the Middle East still don't have the challenges that AT&T face.
Give me an example of one company that has built its infrastructure over 3 million square miles with flawless coverage and unlimited data usage.
You have heard of the concept: Economies of scale. Size is not the issue as the network size is proportional to the subscriber base. The operators here actually invest in the networks and know how to manage them. If you want, we can use Sweden, or Germany, or head south to the Mid East. The results are still the same.
All usage of the wireless spectrum will be treated as simple data and shall be charged out at the lowest per MB cost of such data.
For instance, AT&T charges $0.01 per MB for their 2GB plan with internet data.
Making the ridiculously high assumption that each text message consumes 1 KB then AT&T is charging around $10 per MB for texting.
Using Cisco's "Voice Over IP - Per Call Bandwidth Consumption" page at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk65...80094ae2.shtml I will assume their worst case scenario rounded up and say that a voice call over AT&T's network consumes 90 kbps. This works out to .675 MB per minute. Using their 900 minute plan then this works out to 607.5 MB for $60 or $10.13 per MB.
So, here is the new price structure that should be mandated to AT&T using their own profitable $0.01 per MB pricing structure.
900 minutes of phone calls should cost $6.08
1000 text messages should cost $0.01
And data should be priced at:
$2 for 200 MB
$20 for 2 GB
$40 for 4 GB
and a penny for each MB that you go over on any plan.
Oh, and they will no longer be able to charge for tethering as it doesn't matter what device is used to consume the data as their network doesn't know the difference.
If AT&T will not meet these reasonable demands then the merger should not be allowed.
Now this would spur competition.
Okay then. Here is what I want to see mandated to AT&T to allow this merger forward.
All usage of the wireless spectrum will be treated as simple data and shall be charged out at the lowest per MB cost of such data.
For instance, AT&T charges $0.01 per MB for their 2GB plan with internet data.
Making the ridiculously high assumption that each text message consumes 1 KB then AT&T is charging around $10 per MB for texting.
Now this would spur competition.
You really believe AT&T has done nothing to upgrade its network in three and half years?
As I said, not enough to keep up with the demand the iPhone placed on their network. Charging customers $100 a month for service they couldn't deliver is garbage in my book.
Verizon has to roll out LTE fast because its 3G network has no where else to go.
AT&T is not forced to roll out LTE as fast because its 3G network has the potential to be as fast as Verizon's current LTE rollout.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/4g-network-test/
Enjoy your HSPA+ on AT&T. If AT&T dicks around with 4G as much as they did with 3G, I wouldn't hold my breath for LTE.