Verizon Wireless Appeals FCC's Data Roaming Rules
May 17, 2011, 10:55 AM by Eric M. Zeman
Verizon Wireless has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. District over the Federal Communications Commission's recently adopted data roaming rules. The FCC ruled earlier this year that larger carriers such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless must sign data roaming agreements with their smaller rivals at "commercially reasonable rates." Verizon Wireless feels the FCC overstepped its bounds on this issue and that the existing, voluntary system is already working well enough. Verizon said the FCC's "action represents a new level of unwarranted government intervention. By forcing carriers that have invested in wireless infrastructure to make those networks available to competitors that avoid this investment, at a price ultimately determined by the FCC, discourages network investment in less profitable areas."
AST SpaceMobile Successfully Launches First Five Commercial Sats
Motorola Upgrades its razr Foldables Across the Board
T-Mobile, Verizon in Talks to Carve up US Cellular
Motorola Gives its Stylus Phone a Spec Bump
Motorola Brings More Affordable 5G Phones to its 2024 Lineup
Comments
Typical Democratic Government
I've come to expect this from the Democrat run FCC. Make companies that are successful give to companies that haven't invested into their network. Stand your ground Verizon! Don't make us pay for other companies lack of network.
This is not the fault of the FCC, which is doing EXACTLY what it was mandated to do. Verizon and AT&T (aka "The Sisters") would love nothing more than to snub out the "little guys" and then they could rule the wireless space. With no real competitio...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Man if you think there is a difference between "Democrats" and "Republicans", you might want to look at the policies. There is no difference. They only try to fool you with the insignificant differences like gay marriage, abortion rights, social secur...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Didn't they do the exact same thing?
I'm pretty sure that the bigger companies all petitioned the FCC or sued each other over roaming rights in the past. These companies never had a problem suing or petitioning for what they wanted, so why the double standard?
Let's look at the bigger picture here. Why would Verizon refuse to let another company roam? They would make a ton of money. So are they doing it only to stifle competition?
Leap had this to say about it in 2009:
“Verizon itself has relied on roaming agreements for over two decades as it built out its network and acquired competitors, but now has unilaterally decided that its remaining competitors are only entitled to roaming for two or three years,†Itkin said in an emailed statement.
So it looks lik...
(continues)
Let's look at the bigger picture here. Why would Verizon refuse to let another company roam? They would make a ton of money. So are they doing it only to stifle competition?
Leap had this to say about it in 2009:
“Verizon itself has relied on roaming agreements for over two decades as it built out its network and acquired competitors, but now has unilaterally decided that its remaining competitors are only entitled to roaming for two or three years,†Itkin said in an emailed statement.
So it looks lik...
(continues)
There is no double standard dude. This is about data roaming...NOT voice roaming. No one denies that voice roaming is necessary. Get back on point. I have already explained that to you in another post. Verizon is being consistent here.
...
Why This Is Mandatory.
I hear everyone making a Carrier Vs Government issue on this. However, much is not being consumed within minds of what lasting detriment this will have on consumers if not mandated.
First: Voice calling as we know it, will be done through 4G technology in the very near future. It's very important that people realize this because this will eliminate the current way it is used now. With the top two carriers acquiring the last of valuable spectrum for 4G, it will be impossible for the smaller carriers to compete at this level and offer communication to their subscribers. The smaller will then die. We need more competition; Not less.
Second: The argument of "Smaller carriers should build out instead of relying on the larger", is growing...
(continues)
First: Voice calling as we know it, will be done through 4G technology in the very near future. It's very important that people realize this because this will eliminate the current way it is used now. With the top two carriers acquiring the last of valuable spectrum for 4G, it will be impossible for the smaller carriers to compete at this level and offer communication to their subscribers. The smaller will then die. We need more competition; Not less.
Second: The argument of "Smaller carriers should build out instead of relying on the larger", is growing...
(continues)
+1 Couldn't have said it better myself. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain blind and/or stupid.
...
No. And it does not have to be either. The Feds do not have the right to set prices. They simply are over stepping their bounds here. However, I would prefer to see them require Verizon and AT&T to keep their 1x and GSM voice networks running than...
(continues)
(continues)
...
If they can't afford to advance their business they shouldnt have gotten into it. You know what I wouldnt do if I couldnt afford to compete with mcdonalds, open a burger joint across the street. Why should cell phone companies be the only ones who don...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Verizon is right on this one.
No doubt that the government is trying to run businesses in the US and vastly overstepping their bounds especially in the mobile communications industry.
Limit the government.
Limit the government.
Limit the government.
Thank You!
Thank You!
Yeah. Madison tried that. It's called the Constitution which defined what the government's powers would be. Even included a Bill of Rights which stated that anything the Constitution did not expressly state the Feds COULD do they could not. What d...
(continues)
(continues)
...
i think we should limit the goverment but be careful what you are asking for... in a lot of cases the goverment is the only one defending you from big corporations. so a prudent approach is what is needed
One small problem with your broad assesment that "....the government is trying to run businesses...". Wireless carriers are LEASING the spectrum they use from the government, which, in theory, belongs to the public and is implied to be used in the be...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Normally...
Im all up for bashing Verizon, but i kind of agree with them on this one. Why would any new carrier work on rolling out anything if they can just piggy back off the hard work of the major carriers.
Because:
1) A duopoly will be very bad for the consumer,
2) Because both AT&T and Verizon have benefited hugely from billion's of dollars worth of the most valuable spectrum (850Mhz) over the years, which they got for very little or nothing -- i.e. ...
(continues)
1) A duopoly will be very bad for the consumer,
2) Because both AT&T and Verizon have benefited hugely from billion's of dollars worth of the most valuable spectrum (850Mhz) over the years, which they got for very little or nothing -- i.e. ...
(continues)
...
Go Verizon!!!
This is probably the ONLY issue I will ever back Verizon on. Voice roaming? Yes. Mandate it ALL DAY LONG! Data roaming? No.
Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't, but in general I think you are pretty smart and have a good handle on things. I do think at times you get a little to bitter about your past Verizon relationship, but since I do respect your opinion, I'm ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Ugh... Really?
Afraid of some friendly competition Verizon? Personally I welcome it. The more competition more the costs come down.
The less change VZ or AT&T's stockholders have of making a profit the less change of network growth. Its not the FCC's money. They build the system they get to charge the freight.
Lobbying the government to FORCE your competitors to let you use their products/ infrastructure does NOT equal "friendly competition."
...
