AT&T, Verizon Detail Roaming Plans for FCC to Avoid Mandate
The Government is to blame..... but that doesn't make the BIG 2 innocent
Our government has "allowed" ATT and Verizon to become the size they are now. The government could have easily disallowed the mega-mergers that have created these behemoth carriers. Its still a head scratcher that they allowed Verizon to gobble up Alltel , except in certain places, then let ATT gobble up the rest. The fact that things like "fair roaming" weren't stipulated upon allowing these mega-carriers to form is a fault of the government.... And before you say "its not the government's business".. Please take a history lesson.. The government "gave" away much of the 800mhz cellular spectrum that ended up creating the national network we all praise Verizon for. Same for ATT. They flourish in coverage because of their spectru...
(continues)
(continues)
I believe that...
Every carrier should be mandated to allow any competitor with a compatible network to roam on their networks. The price should not be mandated, but negotiated between the carriers.
How awesome would that be... I don't travel and live in one area and it'd be nice to take advantage of having service with a local company from where I live when I rarely leave the area. That way I know that when I have to travel I'll still have some ...
(continues)
(continues)
Wonderful. I disagree with you, but as long as the carrier gets to negotiate the price this mandate can be overridden by simply naming an exorbitant price.
...
I'm Confused
Aren't these smaller rural companies complaining because they're redundant and want a piece of a larger, more relevant company's pie... or is there some precedence for this?
yea i was thinking that, why should a larger carrier allow a smaller one to roam off of them, so the larger carriers customers can roam in a small area, it would seem like the larger carrier would lose money on this, because the smaller carriers custo...
(continues)
(continues)
...
The FCC's Goals are Clear
They don't want to 'promote competition', they want to bankrupt the national carriers so they can step in and take them over and create a government controlled wireless network.
To say that AT&T and Verizon have an obligation to give away their service to smaller carriers and get absolutely nothing in return is to say that they have a moral obligation to go bankrupt and cease all operations.
Just giving away your network and get absolutely nothing in return is simply bad business which will lead to bankruptcy, anyone with any sense can see that. But for the FCC, this is the objective. They want to bankrupt the national carriers, so that they will be able to step in as 'saviors' and start up a system of government control.
If you t...
(continues)
To say that AT&T and Verizon have an obligation to give away their service to smaller carriers and get absolutely nothing in return is to say that they have a moral obligation to go bankrupt and cease all operations.
Just giving away your network and get absolutely nothing in return is simply bad business which will lead to bankruptcy, anyone with any sense can see that. But for the FCC, this is the objective. They want to bankrupt the national carriers, so that they will be able to step in as 'saviors' and start up a system of government control.
If you t...
(continues)
I agree. Power corrupts. Yet, what can be done? No matter how well intentioned an individual is when he is outside of the Beltway. Once he goes to Washington he is seduced by the power he possesses. Jefferson took liberties as president that he w...
(continues)
(continues)
In an industry that has very little regulations, who acts as a govern to keep things in check? Big Red, AT&T or the FCC? Currently, it seems like it makes no difference. But if the chips are down, I will have to go with the least of the three evils a...
(continues)
(continues)
...
