Let us see, a government agency telling a private company how to run their ops...
Don't lose sight of the fact that the government (as a proxy for the people) ostensibly "owns" those airwaves, which are then leased to the wireless companies. The only questions will be whether or not the prior agreements covered this requirement (it did for voice calls) or if there was specific language that would allow AT&T and Verizon to try to block it.
Don't lose sight of the fact that the government (as a proxy for the people) ostensibly "owns" those airwaves, which are then leased to the wireless companies. The only questions will be whether or not the prior agreements covered this requirement (it did for voice calls) or if there was specific language that would allow AT&T and Verizon to try to block it.
The might "own" the airwaves, but they don't own the towers or fiber the carriers invest billions in every year to maintain.
A rural carrier shouldn't be able to increase their coverage by a factor of 5 for a small fraction of the cost of building out their own networks.
I see a lot of people against this (and some for). One thing missing from the against party is an alternative. Free market is good in many places, but in some cases it harms the consumer by creating de-facto monopolies and oligopolies How would you increase competition in the US wireless infrastructure market?
I'm not trying to be a smart__s, but seriously: do you have better ways of increasing competition or are you just against this proposal just for the sake of being against?
Think again bucko -- what do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are? That's right, the taxpayers are paying for their mortgage failures, and they are government entities!
Fannie and Freddi only buy up mortgages already issued by banks. The initial issuing is completely on Bank's own.
The might "own" the airwaves, but they don't own the towers or fiber the carriers invest billions in every year to maintain.
A rural carrier shouldn't be able to increase their coverage by a factor of 5 for a small fraction of the cost of building out their own networks.
Moot point. That rural carrier can already piggyback off of the big wireless companies for voice calls. This ruling only extends that existing policy to include wireless data networks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality.
The towers are merely "leasehold improvements" (N.B. the accounting definition) built on properties (airwaves) that the wireless companies hold leases to, but do not own. Policy changes that affect those leases are one of the risk factors of being in that business.
Think again bucko -- what do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are? That's right, the taxpayers are paying for their mortgage failures, and they are government entities!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately run and publicly traded companies while they were involved in the subprime mortgage and mortgage backed securities schemes. They were not directly controlled by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
they sure did ... and with alacrity.
The government did not tell the banks to make loans to anyone with a heart beat and a signature. Then bundle those loans into securities chop them up sell those securities on the open market.
Can you point to any information where the government forced banks to do any of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees!
Actually, you're wrong. The government did tell banks to do that through the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). It started with Carter and Clinton gave it a shot of adrenaline in the 90's. Do some research.
"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business."
Exactly where in there does the government force banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back? Exactly where does the government force banks to make so many loans to people who cannot pay them back that the bank drives itself out of business?
As other's have said, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The government basically told banks to take on high risk housing loans, backed by these two establishments because they were "Too big to fail." and if the homeowners defaulted, the government would bail those banks out.
That is not what happened. The government wanted banks to be more fair in its lending practices to low income people and small business. The government did not tell banks to go crazy giving loans to anyone with a heart beat and a signature.
Actually there were some stories of banks giving loans to dead people and never bothered to verify if the person was alive.
Quote:
So basically they told the banks: You know those high risk/high reward loans? We're removing the risk. At worse, you get your money back, but you stand to gain a ton of money!
If the government made this promise why did hundreds of banks including three of the largest investment firms in the world go out of business?
Quote:
What do you think banks would do? It's like telling a guy he can do whatever he wants for 24 hours and bear no responsibility for his actions.
There is a reason all of this happened. You guys want to dumb it down for sensationalism and never get to the heart of why did these banks do this to themselves. It had nothing to do with the government.
There is a reason all of this happened. You guys want to dumb it down for sensationalism and never get to the heart of why did these banks do this to themselves. It had nothing to do with the government.
I agree... and would like to add. One of those reason was was A.C.O.R.N. They picketed and coerced banks into making sub-prime loans to people who could never repay them. It was a progressive goal by the far left, championed by the socialism of Jimmy Carter from the 70s (Carter is still playing nice with North Korea, China, and Cuba today) and taken up with renewed vigor by OBama.
I agree... and would like to add. One of those reason was was A.C.O.R.N. They picketed and coerced banks into making sub-prime loans to people who could never repay them. It was a progressive goal by the far left, championed by the socialism of Jimmy Carter from the 70s (Carter is still playing nice with North Korea, China, and Cuba today) and taken up with renewed vigor by OBama.
Moot point. That rural carrier can already piggyback off of the big wireless companies for voice calls. This ruling only extends that existing policy to include wireless data networks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality.
The towers are merely "leasehold improvements" (N.B. the accounting definition) built on properties (airwaves) that the wireless companies hold leases to, but do not own. Policy changes that affect those leases are one of the risk factors of being in that business.
The thing is though that Voice calls are very low strain on the network. There's a hard cap on how much voice calls can be used (only so many minutes in an hour) but the ONLY limit on data usage is download speed..
What this legislation is trying to do is fix the prices at some artificially low point to allow these cheaper carriers to offer nationwide, highspeed data coverage without spending anything in fiber or towers. Around me there is a rural carrier that offers unlimited everything (including smartphone data) for $50 a month. Now, they suck outside of the county they're based in, because they don't have decent coverage. Why should they be allowed to offer Nationwide data to their customers when they didn't spend a dime in developing said network and only have to pay a fraction of the cost for transmitted data because someone up in the FCC deemed the roaming rate to be "fair" compared to the others.
What it means is that larger companies like ATT and Verizon (and sprint if rural carriers pick up wimax) will have less incentive to roll out their networks, leading to a poorer experience for all customers. The only people to benefit from this legislation are the owners of rural carriers.
The thing is though that Voice calls are very low strain on the network. There's a hard cap on how much voice calls can be used (only so many minutes in an hour) but the ONLY limit on data usage is download speed..
What this legislation is trying to do is fix the prices at some artificially low point to allow these cheaper carriers to offer nationwide, highspeed data coverage without spending anything in fiber or towers. Around me there is a rural carrier that offers unlimited everything (including smartphone data) for $50 a month. Now, they suck outside of the county they're based in, because they don't have decent coverage. Why should they be allowed to offer Nationwide data to their customers when they didn't spend a dime in developing said network and only have to pay a fraction of the cost for transmitted data because someone up in the FCC deemed the roaming rate to be "fair" compared to the others.
What it means is that larger companies like ATT and Verizon (and sprint if rural carriers pick up wimax) will have less incentive to roll out their networks, leading to a poorer experience for all customers. The only people to benefit from this legislation are the owners of rural carriers.
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying.
But what happened in this case is that Verizon and AT&T refused to play ball at all, at any price. The rurals asked the FCC to step in, because ensuring infrastructure gets built out throughout the country is part of the FCC's mission (at least they think so). Verizon and AT&T could've dictated their own terms; they took a calculated risk that the FCC wouldn't extend the voice ruling to include data, and they lost.
Back to the accounting discussion for a moment, the cost of the electronics in the tower is amortized (IIRC) over five years. So the fees charged would necessarily include the costs of building the tower, and the lease for the land and building if the wireless carrier didn't own it or depreciation on the building if they do. That's the case in any regulated environment, and there are tariffs for calculating those "allowable" costs to be passed on to other companies as well as to the consumer. Obviously, what that doesn't includes is the cash flow side of the equation, but the way I see it AT&T and Verizon have no choice to continue to build out their networks. That is, if they want to continue to expand by buying smaller carriers.
FWIW, Sprint leases it's 3G data network out to smaller outfits like Virgin and Boost, and they now have data caps. I don't see why this ruling couldn't include some similar provision, or at least why this couldn't have been included if the Big Two had conducted direct negotiations in good faith with the rural networks.
Comments
Let us see, a government agency telling a private company how to run their ops...
Don't lose sight of the fact that the government (as a proxy for the people) ostensibly "owns" those airwaves, which are then leased to the wireless companies. The only questions will be whether or not the prior agreements covered this requirement (it did for voice calls) or if there was specific language that would allow AT&T and Verizon to try to block it.
Don't lose sight of the fact that the government (as a proxy for the people) ostensibly "owns" those airwaves, which are then leased to the wireless companies. The only questions will be whether or not the prior agreements covered this requirement (it did for voice calls) or if there was specific language that would allow AT&T and Verizon to try to block it.
The might "own" the airwaves, but they don't own the towers or fiber the carriers invest billions in every year to maintain.
A rural carrier shouldn't be able to increase their coverage by a factor of 5 for a small fraction of the cost of building out their own networks.
I'm not trying to be a smart__s, but seriously: do you have better ways of increasing competition or are you just against this proposal just for the sake of being against?
Think again bucko -- what do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are? That's right, the taxpayers are paying for their mortgage failures, and they are government entities!
Fannie and Freddi only buy up mortgages already issued by banks. The initial issuing is completely on Bank's own.
The might "own" the airwaves, but they don't own the towers or fiber the carriers invest billions in every year to maintain.
A rural carrier shouldn't be able to increase their coverage by a factor of 5 for a small fraction of the cost of building out their own networks.
Moot point. That rural carrier can already piggyback off of the big wireless companies for voice calls. This ruling only extends that existing policy to include wireless data networks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality.
The towers are merely "leasehold improvements" (N.B. the accounting definition) built on properties (airwaves) that the wireless companies hold leases to, but do not own. Policy changes that affect those leases are one of the risk factors of being in that business.
Think again bucko -- what do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are? That's right, the taxpayers are paying for their mortgage failures, and they are government entities!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately run and publicly traded companies while they were involved in the subprime mortgage and mortgage backed securities schemes. They were not directly controlled by the government.
they sure did ... and with alacrity.
The government did not tell the banks to make loans to anyone with a heart beat and a signature. Then bundle those loans into securities chop them up sell those securities on the open market.
Can you point to any information where the government forced banks to do any of this?
Actually, you're wrong. The government did tell banks to do that through the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). It started with Carter and Clinton gave it a shot of adrenaline in the 90's. Do some research.
"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business."
Exactly where in there does the government force banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back? Exactly where does the government force banks to make so many loans to people who cannot pay them back that the bank drives itself out of business?
As other's have said, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The government basically told banks to take on high risk housing loans, backed by these two establishments because they were "Too big to fail." and if the homeowners defaulted, the government would bail those banks out.
That is not what happened. The government wanted banks to be more fair in its lending practices to low income people and small business. The government did not tell banks to go crazy giving loans to anyone with a heart beat and a signature.
Actually there were some stories of banks giving loans to dead people and never bothered to verify if the person was alive.
So basically they told the banks: You know those high risk/high reward loans? We're removing the risk. At worse, you get your money back, but you stand to gain a ton of money!
If the government made this promise why did hundreds of banks including three of the largest investment firms in the world go out of business?
What do you think banks would do? It's like telling a guy he can do whatever he wants for 24 hours and bear no responsibility for his actions.
There is a reason all of this happened. You guys want to dumb it down for sensationalism and never get to the heart of why did these banks do this to themselves. It had nothing to do with the government.
There is a reason all of this happened. You guys want to dumb it down for sensationalism and never get to the heart of why did these banks do this to themselves. It had nothing to do with the government.
I agree... and would like to add. One of those reason was was A.C.O.R.N. They picketed and coerced banks into making sub-prime loans to people who could never repay them. It was a progressive goal by the far left, championed by the socialism of Jimmy Carter from the 70s (Carter is still playing nice with North Korea, China, and Cuba today) and taken up with renewed vigor by OBama.
I agree... and would like to add. One of those reason was was A.C.O.R.N. They picketed and coerced banks into making sub-prime loans to people who could never repay them. It was a progressive goal by the far left, championed by the socialism of Jimmy Carter from the 70s (Carter is still playing nice with North Korea, China, and Cuba today) and taken up with renewed vigor by OBama.
Glenn Beck? Is that you?
Moot point. That rural carrier can already piggyback off of the big wireless companies for voice calls. This ruling only extends that existing policy to include wireless data networks. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality.
The towers are merely "leasehold improvements" (N.B. the accounting definition) built on properties (airwaves) that the wireless companies hold leases to, but do not own. Policy changes that affect those leases are one of the risk factors of being in that business.
The thing is though that Voice calls are very low strain on the network. There's a hard cap on how much voice calls can be used (only so many minutes in an hour) but the ONLY limit on data usage is download speed..
What this legislation is trying to do is fix the prices at some artificially low point to allow these cheaper carriers to offer nationwide, highspeed data coverage without spending anything in fiber or towers. Around me there is a rural carrier that offers unlimited everything (including smartphone data) for $50 a month. Now, they suck outside of the county they're based in, because they don't have decent coverage. Why should they be allowed to offer Nationwide data to their customers when they didn't spend a dime in developing said network and only have to pay a fraction of the cost for transmitted data because someone up in the FCC deemed the roaming rate to be "fair" compared to the others.
What it means is that larger companies like ATT and Verizon (and sprint if rural carriers pick up wimax) will have less incentive to roll out their networks, leading to a poorer experience for all customers. The only people to benefit from this legislation are the owners of rural carriers.
The thing is though that Voice calls are very low strain on the network. There's a hard cap on how much voice calls can be used (only so many minutes in an hour) but the ONLY limit on data usage is download speed..
What this legislation is trying to do is fix the prices at some artificially low point to allow these cheaper carriers to offer nationwide, highspeed data coverage without spending anything in fiber or towers. Around me there is a rural carrier that offers unlimited everything (including smartphone data) for $50 a month. Now, they suck outside of the county they're based in, because they don't have decent coverage. Why should they be allowed to offer Nationwide data to their customers when they didn't spend a dime in developing said network and only have to pay a fraction of the cost for transmitted data because someone up in the FCC deemed the roaming rate to be "fair" compared to the others.
What it means is that larger companies like ATT and Verizon (and sprint if rural carriers pick up wimax) will have less incentive to roll out their networks, leading to a poorer experience for all customers. The only people to benefit from this legislation are the owners of rural carriers.
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying.
But what happened in this case is that Verizon and AT&T refused to play ball at all, at any price. The rurals asked the FCC to step in, because ensuring infrastructure gets built out throughout the country is part of the FCC's mission (at least they think so). Verizon and AT&T could've dictated their own terms; they took a calculated risk that the FCC wouldn't extend the voice ruling to include data, and they lost.
Back to the accounting discussion for a moment, the cost of the electronics in the tower is amortized (IIRC) over five years. So the fees charged would necessarily include the costs of building the tower, and the lease for the land and building if the wireless carrier didn't own it or depreciation on the building if they do. That's the case in any regulated environment, and there are tariffs for calculating those "allowable" costs to be passed on to other companies as well as to the consumer. Obviously, what that doesn't includes is the cash flow side of the equation, but the way I see it AT&T and Verizon have no choice to continue to build out their networks. That is, if they want to continue to expand by buying smaller carriers.
FWIW, Sprint leases it's 3G data network out to smaller outfits like Virgin and Boost, and they now have data caps. I don't see why this ruling couldn't include some similar provision, or at least why this couldn't have been included if the Big Two had conducted direct negotiations in good faith with the rural networks.