1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AT&T and others drooling for VZW/Alltel divested markets

Discussion in 'Wireless News' started by JFB, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. JFB

    JFB Silver Senior Member
    Administrator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1998
    Messages:
    4,510
    Likes Received:
    425
    #1
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  2. ComicalMoodyDan

    ComicalMoodyDan Gold Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    53
    I actually hope AT&T or T-Mobile end up with the divested Alltel markets in Virginia. There is little to any GSM coverage in those areas up for divesture in SW VA.
     
    #2
  3. Quint101

    Quint101 THE (Samsung) Beast
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    453
    Wirelessly posted (Q's Mobile: BlackBerry8130/4.5.0.77 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

    Are the private equity partners fronts for some of the smaller wireless carriers like USCellular?
     
    #3
  4. larry

    larry Go Lakers!
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    13,715
    Likes Received:
    45
    Critics, including consumer advocates and Verizon’s smaller competitors, believe such a deal — allowing one giant telecom provider to transfer customers to another — would not be in the interest of consumers, according to the paper.

    I agree with this. It's too bad the two giants keep getting bigger while everyone else gets smaller. I'd like to see some smaller carriers end up with some of the divested assets.
     
    #4
  5. Kalimotxo

    Kalimotxo Bronze Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,181
    Likes Received:
    14
    I agree 100%. GSM is a joke compared to CDMA.
     
    #5
  6. hf1khal

    hf1khal Who am I to judge
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,269
    Likes Received:
    54
    I in all honesty would opt for AT&T to get asI am not a fan of private equity investors. They seem to always mess things up.
     
    #6
  7. M in LA

    M in LA Gold Senior Member
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,898
    Likes Received:
    208
    I'm hoping smaller CDMA carriers like US Cellular, MetroPCS, and Leap get all or most of the divested areas.
     
    #7
  8. larry

    larry Go Lakers!
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    13,715
    Likes Received:
    45
    I agree Mike. Spread the goods around a little to help the smaller CDMA carriers.
     
    #8
  9. Jay2TheRescue

    Jay2TheRescue Resident Spamslayer
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    12,321
    Likes Received:
    297
    LOL, in my area there were never any "small" CDMA Carriers. Alltel was the closest thing, and even they didn't have native service until you got 20 or 30 miles from here.
     
    #9
  10. larry

    larry Go Lakers!
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    13,715
    Likes Received:
    45
    Just give it all to AT&T and further reduce competition in the wireless market. Nobody seems to mind paying the higher prices these days anyway.
     
    #10
  11. hf1khal

    hf1khal Who am I to judge
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,269
    Likes Received:
    54
    Here is the problem, the smaller providers are not really looked at as competition so their lower price does not matter to the big 4. What I really like to see is 4 nationwide providers with at least some equal footing and then let the games begin. I think that once the market has saturated and not many new potential clients available the big 4 would have to compete to steal the others clients.
     
    #11
  12. Jay2TheRescue

    Jay2TheRescue Resident Spamslayer
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    12,321
    Likes Received:
    297
    Isn't that what the iPhone was all about? Having an exclusive device that "everyone" wanted?
     
    #12
  13. hf1khal

    hf1khal Who am I to judge
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,269
    Likes Received:
    54
    Yes but that is not enough to do the job. It did help AT&T but how long could that go on with the industry now taking aim on the iphone
     
    #13
  14. bobolito

    bobolito Diamond Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    12,725
    Likes Received:
    41
    Do you honestly believe that helps competition? All those small CDMA carriers will eventually end up on Verizon's shopping list, so what's the difference? At least selling those assets to T-Mobile or AT&T will help balance the inconsistency in coverage.
     
    #14
  15. KyleAndMelissa22

    KyleAndMelissa22 Woot Woot, Splat !!!
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    36
    From Verizon's point of view, it would be smart to sell to the smaller carriers,
    because you're right, Verizon may eventually buy them out too.

    Selling to AT&T, Verizon would never get those properties back.
     
    #15
  16. chokaay

    chokaay Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    5

    Too bad T-Mobile doesn't seem to be in on it (at least according to the article). I would rather T-Mobile get it than AT&T... at least that would level the playing field a little more than it is now. At the rate mergers/buyouts are going for AT&T, pretty soon there won't be any "serious" nationwide GSM competition anymore (not that there seems to be now anyway... especially with all the terminated roaming agreements between AT&T and T-Mobile). :(
     
    #16
  17. chokaay

    chokaay Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    5

    And I also agree that it's probably within Verizon's interest to favor small carriers than major direct competitors. However, the question is... can the smaller carriers afford the price that Verizon/Altel wants? And if they can, is there any restrictions/limitation to selling to a lower bidder?
     
    #17
  18. KyleAndMelissa22

    KyleAndMelissa22 Woot Woot, Splat !!!
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes Received:
    36
    Like a give and take scenerio it seems (if they're smart),
    They'll practically give up properties to a small carrier dirt cheap, and then turn around and buy that company out. ;)

    If Verizon could get the spectrum back by buying the smaller carrier out one day,
    then it seems like a better choice to sell to USCC or Cricket, rather than AT&T or Sprint.

    My guess is that the are allowed to sell to whoever they want, because it's theirs to give away.
    As long as they get rid of it, thats all the FCC cares about.
     
    #18
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  19. Fullstrength

    Fullstrength Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0

    Its such a joke, Verizon is committing to it. Duh. 4G gsm is still in the gsm family...
     
    #19
  20. spleck

    spleck Tool
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    36
    I generally accept GSM = "2G GSM" which at its heart is TDMA. Especially since 3G "GSM" is actually UMTS, which is on the "GSM Path", but is not "GSM". 4G would also happen to be UMTS of the LTE variety. Duh. :)
     
    #20
  21. spleck

    spleck Tool
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    36
    Good point. It will probably come down to what dollar value VZW can place on NOT letting AT&T have a particular market. There's probably very few places that VZW can keep AT&T out of, or keep them in a spectrum starved position. So it will probably just come down to whoever is willing to pay more for the market--meaning AT&T most likely.

    I'm not aware of any restrictions on who they can sell the divestitures to. However, VZW will most likely be unable to reacquire any of these markets for a length of time without a judge's ruling. However, they did just get approval for a reacquisition of some of Alltel's markets, so that won't be a major stopping point.
     
    #21
  22. blsemp

    blsemp Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Vz is really worried about it. They have been swapping properties with T after acquisitions for a long time.
    :D
     
    #22
  23. strunke

    strunke .:|Always Covered|:.
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    6
    GSM is not the 4G you speak of. In fact the 3G used by ATT, etc is not really gsm it is WCDMA or UMTS.
     
    #23
  24. Fullstrength

    Fullstrength Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0

    3GPP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    It is . Its part of 3gpp or the gsm family. LTE is umts rev 8.
     
    #24
  25. strunke

    strunke .:|Always Covered|:.
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    6
    But it is not GSM. The "family" is mostly irrelevant. The 3g and 4g choices by ATT and T-Mobile have more to do with cdma then gsm in their very nature. GSM is an antiquated technology as will be cdma, however the principles of cdma (which is what umts uses that is why it is also called wcdma) is not. They are not identical of course, but overall gsm the 2g interface option based off tdma has less to do with umts then cdma does. That is what WumpusVA and spleck was/were referring to. And I and most others agree with them. GSM will not exist in the modern countries in probably 5-8 years (guesstimate), while cdma will more then likely last longer yet, especially in principle given the fact that umts uses cdma variant as an air interface. With umts taking gsm's place as a entirely new technology separate from gsm. You see, the way GSM uses it's spectrum is less efficient overall then cdma does. That's why all things equal for example one tower in the desert with both panels on it at the same height, etc. CDMA will hold more calls and what not. There are variations with cdma such as cell "breathing" however in the same way that GSM networks have made up for their disadvantage with numbers and placement so really no one can tell the differences (because it's cheaper, "economies of scale" as it were, gsm is used more worldwide and cheaper in general to operate). Overall the concept of cdma is more efficient and the way of the near future (rather the variant it). If qualcomm hadn't made it so expensive and the carriers had adopted rium cards I honestly don't think GSM would have been chosen by cingular/att for their network. But, qualcomm will be getting some big royalty checks from LTE, though less of a percentage then with regular cdma.
     
    #25
  26. Buickman

    Buickman Gearhead/Gadget freak
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    9
    OK guys, let's skip the whole CDMA vs GSM debate here. Back on topic, VZW can't sell the spectrum to someone based on who it would be easier to acquire it from, because they can't have it, period! If they sold it to US Cellular, and then bought them 6 months later, they would just have to resell it again. There could also be some benefits to selling the CDMA properties to AT&T. Not only would VZW get some of their money, but than AT&T would have to devote time, money, and resources to converting the network to GSM. Now it isn't exactly a secret that AT&T is already way behind VZW in network deployment (about 3 years behind in 3G coverage), so giving them more work to do could be a good defensive move.
     
    #26
  27. tmobileman

    tmobileman Iphone Hater
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    46
    I think one of the reasons why vzw may not want to pick up the metro pcs or cricket type providers is because half the time these providers are pure profit for them already due to reselling of airtime and tower sharing, its the old principle of why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free.
     
    #27
  28. tiguemon

    tiguemon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    GSM is actually the world standard, CDMA is secondary. Used mostly in the US due to the low cost of building out a CDMA network from the ground up.
     
    #28
  29. M in LA

    M in LA Gold Senior Member
    Super Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,898
    Likes Received:
    208
    With all due respect to you as a new member, this is a well-known detail here. The CDMA/GSM battle on this site has gotten long in the tooth.

    As was said in an earlier post, it's time to move on. Although the thought of Verizon/Alltel divestitures ending up in AT&T's hands can bleed into the CDMA/GSM debate, it's better left out of this discussion as it leads to this thread getting way off topic, as earlier posts can attest.

    Welcome to Wireless Advisor, by the way.
     
    #29
  30. strunke

    strunke .:|Always Covered|:.
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    6
    I could argue all day how that is incorrect. "World" standard doesn't= superior. But I'm not going to argue this and agree with Mobile Mike.

    Hey larry, any chance of Sprint finally breaking from their crazy policy of PCS and picking up some cellular markets? :)
     
    #30

Share This Page