Dish to sell Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile phones through Blockbuster stores

[bigsnake49]

(DISH)’s Blockbuster will begin selling mobile phones in its movie-rental stores as a test for Dish’s planned entry into the wireless business, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

Blockbuster recently started selling phones on its website under the banner “Blockbuster Mobile,” working with carriers such as Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) and T-Mobile USA. The effort will soon shift to Blockbuster’s roughly 850 retail locations, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plan hasn’t been announced.

For Dish, a satellite-TV service provider that acquired the Blockbuster chain last year, the move may be a prelude to offering its own mobile-phone service. Dish has acquired a swath of wireless airwaves and is awaiting rules from the Federal Communications Commission governing how it can use them.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-05/blockbuster-is-said-to-beging-selling-phones

[digiblur]

Except they've closed all the stores!

[Ascertion]

Except they've closed all the stores!

There's a Blockbuster here, right next to the Pizza Hut I'm waiting in. It's interesting because I would have been more interesting in looking around if they had phones.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[digiblur]

There's a Blockbuster here, right next to the Pizza Hut I'm waiting in. It's interesting because I would have been more interesting in looking around if they had phones.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

I punched in my zip and two stores, not even one in Baton Rouge or the entire parish for that matter.

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

 

[bigsnake49]

I punched in my zip and two stores, not even one in Baton Rouge or the entire parish for that matter.

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

They just might have to reopen some of them. We had one near my house, but it closed. I thought it was pretty busy.

 

I'd like to see what they're going to do with this spectrum. If they plan to be yet another carrier, good luck to them, there's not enough money for 5 carriers in a mature market Even 4 carriers are one too many. Now if in addition to offering cell phone service they also used it for VOD and other OTT services, it might become useful. I personally think that they are making a feint to have somebody like AT&T buy off of them. If not and they actually develop a network, it will make it much easier for Sprint and T-Mobile to merge.

[ChadBroChillz]

Blockbusters fall from grace was always puzzling to me. Even when Netflix became dominate, I believed they could have competed. They had infrastructure in place to beat netflix and redbox. Sign streaming deals with production companies, then expand your kiosks, while reducing the amount of stores you have, and finally combine all these services into one package. That could have easily taken down netflix and redbox a peg or two.

[bigsnake49]

Dish and DirectTV should be allowed to merge. I don't think the market is big enough for two satellite providers. Then they can more effectively compete with AT&T/Verizon/Cablecos on the broadcast TV market.

Edited December 7, 2012 by bigsnake49

[JeffDTD]

Blockbusters fall from grace was always puzzling to me. Even when Netflix became dominate' date=' I believed they could have competed. They had infrastructure in place to beat netflix and redbox. Sign streaming deals with production companies, then expand your kiosks, while reducing the amount of stores you have, and finally combine all these services into one package. That could have easily taken down netflix and redbox a peg or two.[/quote']

 

I agree.

 

I was baffled during their demise.

 

My local blockbuster never reduced its prices or softened its late fee rape. I would be glad to pay $2-$3 for a new release with a $2 or $3 late fee for the luxury of actually being able to shop and browse vs the redbox subprime torture. Why couldnt blockbuster diversify before its demise? (Crickets)

[digiblur]

Dish and DirectTV should be allowed to merge. I don't think the market is big enough for two satellite providers. Then they can more effectively compete with AT&T/Verizon/Cablecos on the broadcast TV market.

 

I highly disagree. That would create a monopoly in many areas. The level of technology with satellite tv would not be where it is at today if they allowed them to merge. I am so glad that was shot down. We would have DVRs that are 10 yrs old like Cox! Jeez.. Those things are horrible.

 

How would you feel having AT&T as the one and only wireless phone carrier?

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

 

[bigsnake49]

I highly disagree. That would create a monopoly in many areas. The level of technology with satellite tv would not be where it is at today if they allowed them to merge. I am so glad that was shot down. We would have DVRs that are 10 yrs old like Cox! Jeez.. Those things are horrible.

 

How would you feel having AT&T as the one and only wireless phone carrier?

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

The market is mature now. There is not a lot of new subscribers to be had. Most people have at least 3 TV providers to choose from. There cannot be more than 3 competitors in a mature market.

[WiWavelength]

The market is mature now. There is not a lot of new subscribers to be had. Most people have at least 3 TV providers to choose from. There cannot be more than 3 competitors in a mature market.

 

Oh, come on. You make the same claim in regards to the wireless market, but it is not as if this is a mysterious fifth law of thermodynamics: the number of competitors in a mature market shall be less than or equal to three.

 

So, let us at least be honest. Shareholders do not want greater than three competitors in a mature market because that allows the few remaining competitors to impose rent seeking on the market.

 

But shareholders do not always get what they want, especially when their businesses are dependent upon use of publicly controlled resources.

 

AJ

[digiblur]

The market is mature now. There is not a lot of new subscribers to be had. Most people have at least 3 TV providers to choose from. There cannot be more than 3 competitors in a mature market.

 

I only have one wireline TV provider. And their TV services are quite laughable due to their decision of equipment. So in my eyes I really only have 2 pay-tv providers and that's DishNetwork and DirecTV.

 

I'm lucky to have one wired TV provider. Many areas have absolutely zero wired TV providers. 10 minute drive from my house and there isn't a wired TV provider for at least another hour drive. People living in metro areas live in caves I guess and think everywhere there are 3 wired providers. Take a ride to many areas west of the Mississippi River.

[bigsnake49]

I only have one wireline TV provider. And their TV services are quite laughable due to their decision of equipment. So in my eyes I really only have 2 pay-tv providers and that's DishNetwork and DirecTV.

 

I'm lucky to have one wired TV provider. Many areas have absolutely zero wired TV providers. 10 minute drive from my house and there isn't a wired TV provider for at least another hour drive. People living in metro areas live in caves I guess and think everywhere there are 3 wired providers. Take a ride to many areas west of the Mississippi River.

 

Yeah, what's that? 2% of the population? If you live on the farm, then sorry, that's what you get. Maybe if people didn't choose to live so far out in the boondocks they might have more choices. So much money wasted on freaking USF. The federal government could have created an end to end wireless network, covered 100% of the population for what they have spent on USF.

[bigsnake49]

Plus you have on air broadcast TV.

[WiWavelength]

Plus you have on air broadcast TV.

 

"Let them eat cake..."

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

"Let them eat cake..."

 

AJ

 

I have seen you advocate the same with respect to Sprint's coverage.

[bigsnake49]

Sprint slams Dish's latest spectrum proposal

 

 

 

Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) blasted Dish Network's latest proposal to set aside 5 MHz of the lower portion of its spectrum as a "guard band" to protect the PCS H Block. Sprint said in a recent FCC filing that Dish's proposal would actually lead to an increased risk of interference in the H Block, which Sprint has indicated it wants to bid on next year to use for LTE.

The jockeying between Sprint and Dish comes just days ahead of an FCC vote on rules for the terrestrial use of Dish's 40 MHz of spectrum, which is known as AWS-4, as well as rules for the auction of the H Block. The FCC will vote on those rules Dec. 12.

Earlier this week Dish said it would be willing to accept changes to its spectrum holdings that would effectively make 5 MHz of its radio waves a "guard band" to protect the H Block, the upper portion of which runs from 1995-2000 MHz and sits directly adjacent to the lower portion of Dish's spectrum.

 

Read more: Sprint slams Dish's latest spectrum proposal - FierceWireless http://www.fiercewir...7#ixzz2EOqeB3W8

 

I guess they are not BFF's yet. Now I don't understand why Sprint is worried about Dish's uplink interfering with Sprint's downlink.

Edited December 7, 2012 by bigsnake49

[S4GRU]

I don't get why Dish terrestrial and Sprint LTE on H Block would interfere with a 5MHz guard band. Both will be broadcasting similar power.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[digiblur]

 

Yeah, what's that? 2% of the population? If you live on the farm, then sorry, that's what you get. Maybe if people didn't choose to live so far out in the boondocks they might have more choices. So much money wasted on freaking USF. The federal government could have created an end to end wireless network, covered 100% of the population for what they have spent on USF.

 

Far more than 2% require satellite for a tv pay provider. No farm either. Full blown neighborhoods. Your ride awaits you at the entrance to your cave when you choose to walk out.

 

Sent from a little old Note 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

I have seen you advocate the same with respect to Sprint's coverage.

 

Touché. But do you really think that the two situations are analogous? Commission is the same as omission?

 

AJ

[MacinJosh]

 

Yeah' date=' what's that? 2% of the population? If you live on the farm, then sorry, that's what you get. Maybe if people didn't choose to live so far out in the boondocks they might have more choices. So much money wasted on freaking USF. The federal government could have created an end to end wireless network, covered 100% of the population for what they have spent on USF.[/quote']

 

I live in a town of 35,000 where over 50% of the town is covered in cable. My subdivision is not covered because the cable company that was here years ago got bought out, and the company that bought them was too cheap to finish building the infrastructure out. So I have no wired TV, just Dish and DirecTV. And for phone, at&t built out copper thru the area, but they are too cheap to upgrade my subdivision to newer copper or even fiber, and their main fiber line runs down the road a mile from my house. In my case, its a matter of cheap a** companies being evil and wanting to screw customers over. I want more competition where I live.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forum Runner

[buckhunter]

I dont post alot anymore but the "out on the farm" comment was uncalled for. Yes I live out in the country and on a farm so what. By some miracle I have comcast dish and directv to choose from so keep in mind all areas are different! Competition is what keeps prices down.

 

[gangrene]

The federal government could have created an end to end wireless network, covered 100% of the population for what they have spent on USF.

 

Exactly.

 

It wasn't impossible or too expensive to wire the entire country and achieve 100% penetration in terms of electric and copper landline phones nearly a century ago.

 

"Last Mile" issues are *BS* and a symptom of a weak regulatory environment. They only exist because the government is in bed with industry lobbyists and allows modern telecommunications companies to behave in a way that we wouldn't have tolerated from our utilities in the past.

 

If the electric and landline rollouts were done in the same kind of political environment that we have today, we'd have 10%+ of the country without electric or any phone access at all, in perpetuity.

 

The federal government could have built or contracted people to build an end to end fiber network, covering every home in the country with the money that the incumbent ISPs have stolen over the last two decades.

 

Australia is busy building one now and they're aiming for 100% penetration, even in the remote interior towns.

Edited December 8, 2012 by gangrene

[WiWavelength]

I don't get why Dish terrestrial and Sprint LTE on H Block would interfere with a 5MHz guard band. Both will be broadcasting similar power.

 

If these were two downlinks next to one another, there would be no great cause for concern. But the PCS/AWS-2 H block downlink is directly adjacent to the S-band/AWS-4 uplink. Any out of band emissions (and there are always some out of band emissions) from a Dish handset transmission could negatively affect H block handset reception nearby because the Dish handset could be transmitting its uplink at upwards of 20 dBm, while the H block downlink signal could easily be -100 dBm. The problem would be somewhat similar to that of LightSquared vs GPS.

 

Just the other day, Sprint filed an interesting ex parte presentation with the FCC. See the following figures that I extracted from that filing:

 

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Sounds like AWS 4 rebanding is really what would be necessary. That would take a lot of time.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk