Jump to content

DOJ unlikely to grant VZ Spectrum deal...


Sgt. Slaughter
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/13/verizon-spectrum-deal-doj-block/

 

...Citing unnamed sources, WSJ says that the Justice Department is concerned that the proposed deal “will hurt competition for broadband Internet service” and would be “in effect, an agreement not to compete for Internet users in each other’s territory.” The sources say the DOJ is highly unlikely to pass off on the proposed deal unless Verizon and the cable companies make significant changes that satisfy the agency’s concerns over anticompetitive behavior.

Previously, Verizon had tried to bolster its case that its spectrum deal would be pro-competitive by essentially buying out one of the deal’s former critics and agreeing to swap some of its AWS spectrum with rival T-Mobile. Under that deal, Verizon and T-Mobile would agree to swap licenses on the AWS band that spans from 1710MHz to 1755MHz for uplink and 2110MHz to 2155MHz for downlink to patch up weak spots in their LTE spectrum portfolios. For its part, T-Mobile says it “will gain spectrum covering 60 million people.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't understand why the sale of Spectrum had to include promises of collusion between these companies. If the cable co's are intent on selling the spectrum, then the price should include unrestricted rights and privileges. The sale shouldn't hinge on a buyer agreeing not to compete with the seller in the future or promising the seller a business relationship.

 

When we're talking "competition", first thing that comes to mind is places where both verizon and comcast are an ISP. But does it stop a wired connections? It just stinks to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...two positive marks for the Justice Dept. I cannot remember the last time that I really felt a real concern for consumers ever in the past. And this is not a Democrat or Republican comment. I cannot recall any previous Administration really standing up for consumers like this. Lets see if they continue.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, the FCC has jurisdiction over the AWS 2100+1700 MHz spectrum portion of the VZW-SpectrumCo-Cox transaction. With the recent concessions from VZW to auction its Lower 700 MHz A/B block licenses plus sell/trade plenty of AWS spectrum to T-Mobile, the spectrum portion of the transaction has been pared down to something reasonable. And the FCC is said to be in favor of approving the spectrum license transfers.

 

That said, the DoJ has say on the antitrust concerns that arise from the cross marketing and joint operating agreement portion of the transaction. And word on the street is that the DoJ is not going to let the non compete agreements fly, since they effectively undermine the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that engendered telco and cable to compete in exchange for deregulation.

 

So, that brings us back to the spectrum transfer. SpectrumCo-Cox has said that it will not sell the AWS spectrum without the other agreements. If so, then an interesting stalemate seems to be in the offing.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that cable shouldn't give Verizon preferential treatment, or vice versa, as a result of this deal...or at all, really. On the other hand, I think that the spectrum sale should go through. Just add as a condition that cable companies must allow any cellular carrier to use their WiFi offloading networks at a non-discriminatory charge per subscriber (or per gigabyte, either way), and that cable companies must offer cell site backhaul on similarly non-discriminatory terms. That's what everyone is whining about, or should be if they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, that brings us back to the spectrum transfer. SpectrumCo-Cox has said that it will not sell the AWS spectrum without the other agreements. If so, then an interesting stalemate seems to be in the offing.

 

That is indeed interesting. Didn't know that SpectrumCo/Cox predicated the spectrum sale on the noncompete etc.

 

I mean, are they that terrified of Verizon HomeFusion?

 

Personally, VZW being the fourth part of a quadruple play by a cableco isn't a problem, even if it's Comcast in Colorado (where CenturyLink's quad-play also includes...you guessed it...VZW). Cable companies limiting access to what should be shared resources (backhaul, WiFi) on the other hand is a big issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Added, and 2 more estimated sites: T-Mobile eNB 876480. Looks like its located at (40.62210996397784, -73.97627312607108), as the tower looks like a Sprint setup. T-Mobile eNB 875632. Both this site and Sprint eNB 9022 seem to be located at (40.61640722407462, -73.96985178560767).
    • Many of these sites I am uploading are for sites that do not exist, yet.  Although, I suppose I could go into NR only mode every time I connect to a new site, and then switch back, allowing all the TAC NR trails that occur to now have a home. Ideally, I would love to ne able to add the TAC's myself.  I have the NR Trails CSV file downloaded, and I see all the TAC-less NR entries.  Is there any way I can edit and manually upload them myself?  Maybe create a portal for such an upload?  Or at least give me a way to create at least one manual entry for every new site? Robert
    • Could we send the TAC as -1 if it’s invalid? Then, if there’s and existing site that matches the other info, I could match the web data entry up with it (despite the TAC being absent). 
    • Mine has been enabled.  And they show up in my device logs with the TAC null. Robert
    • If the TAC is missing, an entry is still recorded in the log, but it would not be included in uploads.. so you could probably manipulate a trail log export to add the data to the map if you were able to nail down the sites without the TAC. EDIT: Sites with a missing TAC are only recorded in the log if the option to do so is enabled (Logger > Log Sites with Missing TAC).
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...