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

[JFB]

NY Times:
AT&T Said to Seek Verizon Wireless Assets - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com

[ComicalMoodyDan]

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.

[Quint101]

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?

[larry]

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.

[Kalimotxo]

Originally Posted by TNDan21

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.

I agree 100%. GSM is a joke compared to CDMA.

[hf1khal]

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.

[Mobile Mike]

I'm hoping smaller CDMA carriers like US Cellular, MetroPCS, and Leap get all or most of the divested areas.

[larry]

I agree Mike. Spread the goods around a little to help the smaller CDMA carriers.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

I'm hoping smaller CDMA carriers like US Cellular, MetroPCS, and Leap get all or most of the divested areas.

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.

[larry]

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.

[hf1khal]

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.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by hf1khal

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.

Isn't that what the iPhone was all about? Having an exclusive device that "everyone" wanted?

[hf1khal]

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

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by larry

I agree Mike. Spread the goods around a little to help the smaller CDMA carriers.

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.

[KyleAndMelissa22]

Originally Posted by bobolito

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.

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.

[chokaay]

Originally Posted by TNDan21

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.

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).

[chokaay]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

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.

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?

[KyleAndMelissa22]

Originally Posted by chokaay

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?

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.

[Fullstrength]

Originally Posted by WumpusVA

I agree 100%. GSM is a joke compared to CDMA.

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

[spleck]

Originally Posted by Fullstrength

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

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.

[spleck]

Originally Posted by chokaay

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?

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.

[blsemp]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

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.

I don't think Vz is really worried about it. They have been swapping properties with T after acquisitions for a long time.

[strunke]

Originally Posted by Fullstrength

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

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.

[Fullstrength]

Originally Posted by strunke

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.

3GPP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[strunke]

Originally Posted by Fullstrength

3GPP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

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.

[Buickman]

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.

[tmobileman]

Originally Posted by Buickman

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.

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.

[tiguemon]

Originally Posted by WumpusVA

I agree 100%. GSM is a joke compared to CDMA.

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.

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by tiguemon

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.

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.

[strunke]

Originally Posted by tiguemon

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.

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?