Verizon, Vodafone Agree to $130 Billion Deal, WSJ Reports

[Nickel]

If the coverage map is true, I will give VZW credit.  It has improved eastern Colorado LTE 750 footprint greatly over the summer.  A few weeks to a few months ago, the LTE 750 site "islands" were all too apparent -- even along the heavily traveled I-70 corridor.  Now, those "islands" have been bridged.  That said, I am placing my bets on repeaters.  They do not require backhaul, just power, maybe even solar power.  They reduce capacity and increase latency.  I could be dead wrong, but I hope to be vindicated.

 

AJ

They no doubt deserve credit because they have, without a doubt in my opinion, the best LTE coverage in the US. Although that repeater thing is a little troubling.

[S4GRU]

If the coverage map is true, I will give VZW credit.  It has improved eastern Colorado LTE 750 footprint greatly over the summer.  A few weeks to a few months ago, the LTE 750 site "islands" were all too apparent -- even along the heavily traveled I-70 corridor.  Now, those "islands" have been bridged.  That said, I am placing my bets on repeaters.  They do not require backhaul, just power, maybe even solar power.  They reduce capacity and increase latency.  I could be dead wrong, but I hope to be vindicated.

 

AJ

 

If not repeaters, then I would venture a guess that it is a daisy chained terminal end microwave backhaul running along those highways.  But this would probably be a good solution for rural low capacity highway sites.

 

Robert

[iansltx]

If not repeaters, then I would venture a guess that it is a daisy chained terminal end microwave backhaul running along those highways.  But this would probably be a good solution for rural low capacity highway sites.

 

Robert

 

I'm going with daisy-chained microwave backhaul on those towers. Which doesn't actually impact speeds that much, or latency. That's how VZW is serving up LTE south of San Angelo, TX, and I'm sure they're using it in other areas.

 

Does capacity take a hit this way? Sure. But when fiber to these sites is nonexistent you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

My guess is that one immediate ramification of this deal is that FiOS builds will pretty much stop, even more so than they already are doing. Now that Verizon can take 100% of profits generated by VZW, they'll try to sink all of their money there.

 

They'll also have a bit more incentive to invest in their network. So AWS might come online sooner in some areas. Which would be nice in places where LTE 750 site density (which is increasing in urban areas, even after the initial build-out) just isn't enough.

[GinaDee]

Reality Check:

 

As long as Sprint enthusiasts have to pack up and drive hundreds of miles on a road trip to find an active 2.5 GHz site broadcasting LTE I can assure you that they are no credible threat to Verizon and I'm no fan of Verizon.  

 

T-Mobile enthusiasts to some degree do the same thing.... find an intersection where they get an incredible download speed on some mobile speed-test app then they post it on the internet and claim T-Mobile has the fastest network in their area.  What they fail to tell you is that walking 30ft in any direction their phone falls back to GPRS or No Service.

 

Sprint is getting better but to some extent I don't give them a free pass for finally doing what they should have done years ago.  Adding fiber backhaul and new remote radio heads at the 11th hour is not revolutionary although to some it appears to be.  It's something they have to do in order to catch up then they have to worry about competing which will require additional CAPEX.  A Japanese CEO who was successful in Japan does not guarantee a successful network strategy in the good ol' US of A.  Everything stated is forward thinking and invalid until properly executed. 

 

Let's give Verizon Wireless a little credit here.  They build networks like no other and short term capacity issues are a barometer of their own success.  They are pioneers of US LTE deployments and have the broadest LTE coverage... at least until AT&T catches up with them early next year. 

[Paynefanbro]

Reality Check:

 

As long as Sprint enthusiasts have to pack up and drive hundreds of miles on a road trip to find an active 2.5 GHz site broadcasting LTE I can assure you that they are no credible threat to Verizon and I'm no fan of Verizon.

 

T-Mobile enthusiasts to some degree do the same thing.... find an intersection where they get an incredible download speed on some mobile speed-test app then they post it on the internet and claim T-Mobile has the fastest network in their area. What they fail to tell you is that walking 30ft in any direction their phone falls back to GPRS or No Service.

 

Sprint is getting better but to some extent I don't give them a free pass for finally doing what they should have done years ago. Adding fiber backhaul and new remote radio heads at the 11th hour is not revolutionary although to some it appears to be. It's something they have to do in order to catch up then they have to worry about competing which will require additional CAPEX. A Japanese CEO who was successful in Japan does not guarantee a successful network strategy in themistakel' US of A. Everything stated is forward thinking and invalid until properly executed.

 

Let's give Verizon Wireless a little credit here. They build networks like no other and short term capacity issues are a barometer of their own success. They are pioneers of US LTE deployments and have the broadest LTE coverage... at least until AT&T catches up with them early next year.

 

You made a mistake, Verizon doesn't build networks like no other. They buy networks like no other.

[Nickel]

You made a mistake, Verizon doesn't build networks like no other. They buy networks like no other.

You're thinking of AT&T, Verizon's 3G network is mostly its own and the LTE network is entirely their own.

[gnoj]

I'm going with daisy-chained microwave backhaul on those towers. Which doesn't actually impact speeds that much, or latency. That's how VZW is serving up LTE south of San Angelo, TX, and I'm sure they're using it in other areas.

 

Does capacity take a hit this way? Sure. But when fiber to these sites is nonexistent you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

Apparently Sprint also daisy-chains microwave-fed sites along some highways. Although to Sprint's credit, I'm certain that after NV is complete, a much greater proportion of their sites will be fiber-fed than VZW's.

 

My guess is that one immediate ramification of this deal is that FiOS builds will pretty much stop, even more so than they already are doing. Now that Verizon can take 100% of profits generated by VZW, they'll try to sink all of their money there.

 

Unfortunately that ship sailed long ago. Verizon is currently only building out FiOS in places like NYC where they signed franchise agreements several years ago. The only thing that might change now is that Verizon will more aggressively try to wriggle out of the minimum service terms of those agreements. They will also continue to refuse to repair DSL lines (e.g. those damaged by Hurricane Sandy), leaving residents in the Northeast with a poor choice between cable or their high-profit and low-capped LTE service.

 

The sad reality is that most (although not all) private companies, particularly the large ones that serve the most people, are only interested in squeezing what they can out of their existing infrastructure, instead spending that money on lobbying state governments to pass laws preventing locales from doing much about it. IMO muni fiber can't come quickly enough.

 

You made a mistake, Verizon doesn't build networks like no other. They buy networks like no other.

 

Very true. Although AT&T's lately been giving them a run for their money, juggling 3 acquisitions - Alltel (ATN), Leap, and Long Lines - at once.

[Paynefanbro]

You're thinking of AT&T, Verizon's 3G network is mostly its own and the LTE network is entirely their own.

I'm pretty sure Vodafone had a West Coast network and the East Coast had Verizon and when they merged they formed Verizon Wireless. Then they merged with Alltel because at the time Alltel had the largest network in terms of square mikage and they only served small to kid sized markets. Most of Verizon's network has come to be through simply buying other companies.

[Nickel]

I'm pretty sure Vodafone had a West Coast network and the East Coast had Verizon and when they merged they formed Verizon Wireless. Then they merged with Alltel because at the time Alltel had the largest network in terms of square mikage and they only served small to kid sized markets. Most of Verizon's network has come to be through simply buying other companies.

Yeah, I forgot about the Vodafone thing, but some of Alltell's coverage was already in their footprint, some wasn't but some was so some of that deal was part expanding the network and part was about anti-competitive. Also, the LTE network is entirely theirs, they built that by themselves. 

[WiWavelength]

I'm pretty sure Vodafone had a West Coast network and the East Coast had Verizon and when they merged they formed Verizon Wireless.

Yes, Bell Atlantic was Biggie Smalls, and Vodafone was Tupac. No, it was not quite an East Coast vs West Coast thing.  Close but not quite.

 

Vodafone merged with AirTouch, which was the spun off mobile arm of "Baby Bell" US West.  So, Vodafone AirTouch Cellular 850 MHz core holdings were concentrated west of the Mississippi, but it did have some major markets (e.g. Atlanta, Cleveland, et al.) on the eastern side of the country.

 

By the way, the VZW genes have not always been golden.  I have heard AirTouch referred to as "AirDouche."

 

Then they merged with Alltel because at the time Alltel had the largest network in terms of square mikage and they only served small to kid sized markets.

So, Alltel ordered off of the kids' menu?

 

 

AJ

[Paynefanbro]

Yes, Bell Atlantic was Biggie Smalls, and Vodafone was Tupac. No, it was not quite an East Coast vs West Coast thing.  Close but not quite.

 

Vodafone merged with AirTouch, which was the spun off mobile arm of "Baby Bell" US West.  So, Vodafone AirTouch Cellular 850 MHz core holdings were concentrated west of the Mississippi, but it did have some major markets (e.g. Atlanta, Cleveland, et al.) on the eastern side of the country.

 

By the way, the VZW genes have not always been golden.  I have heard AirTouch referred to as "AirDouche."

 

 

So, Alltel ordered off of the kids' menu?

AJ

Sorry, I didn't have access to a computer and didn't proofread.

 

Funny though!

[GinaDee]

Airtouch Cellular did suck at first but then again all of them did.  I had Airtouch back when most of the coverage was analog out here in SoCal and digital reception was hit or miss.  Certain features only worked while in Digital mode and only when not roaming out of your home network coverage area.  Calls were full of static and wind noise.  

 

Verizon Wireless has come a long way since 2001.  A long way.  Now they finally become an fully integrated American company.

[GinaDee]

You made a mistake, Verizon doesn't build networks like no other. They buy networks like no other.

 

Verizon Wireless is composed of and later did buy legacy networks and gear but had to invest heavily in them to modernize them and make them work.  Softbank will have to do the same with Sprint.  

 

OTOH you have companies like DT who bought a nationwide GSM 2G network called Voicestream and decided to only upgrade metro areas with modern technology while allowing their legacy 2G network to rot in rural markets.  

[WiWavelength]

Sorry, I didn't have access to a computer and didn't proofread.

 

Funny though!

 

And, actually, I misremembered one of my facts.  AirTouch was originally the spun off mobile arm of PacBell.  It then later merged with the spun off mobile division of US West.

 

AJ

[IamMrFamous07]

In all honesty if verizon was in my area I would have switched to them a long time ago. I just admire the fact they have LTE pretty everywhere I travel. They even have LTE in places where they don't have 3G towers (Hagerstown, MD).

 

I just wish Sprint/ Clearwire went with LTE and sprint had already started network vision 5 years ago including the Nextel shutdown. But the past is the past so all I can look forward is for the future.

 

I hope sprint is first to deploy LTE advance before the other carriers and with LTE advance I hope they stick with their unlimited plans.

[Thomas L.]

In all honesty if verizon was in my area I would have switched to them a long time ago. I just admire the fact they have LTE pretty everywhere I travel. They even have LTE in places where they don't have 3G towers (Hagerstown, MD).

 

I just wish Sprint/ Clearwire went with LTE and sprint had already started network vision 5 years ago including the Nextel shutdown. But the past is the past so all I can look forward is for the future.

 

I hope sprint is first to deploy LTE advance before the other carriers and with LTE advance I hope they stick with their unlimited plans.

Where are you that Verizon isn't?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Nickel]

In all honesty if verizon was in my area I would have switched to them a long time ago. I just admire the fact they have LTE pretty everywhere I travel. They even have LTE in places where they don't have 3G towers (Hagerstown, MD).

 

I just wish Sprint/ Clearwire went with LTE and sprint had already started network vision 5 years ago including the Nextel shutdown. But the past is the past so all I can look forward is for the future.

 

I hope sprint is first to deploy LTE advance before the other carriers and with LTE advance I hope they stick with their unlimited plans.

You realize that they couldn't have built any LTE network five years ago, right?

I do wish that five years ago they had started getting backhaul for all the sites.

[IamMrFamous07]

Where are you that Verizon isn't?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

Hagerstown, MD (Washington County) they have an LTE tower and that's it. They can't have 3G data or voice towers due to US celluar (licensing and agreements etc)

[Nickel]

Hagerstown, MD (Washington County) they have an LTE tower and that's it. They can't have 3G data or voice towers due to US celluar (licensing and agreements etc)

I think it's because they don't have any 850 (Celluar) in that county.

[WiWavelength]

You realize that they couldn't have built any LTE network five years ago, right?

I do wish that five years ago they had started getting backhaul for all the sites.

 

A good five years ago, Sprint did attempt to get advanced backhaul to all 4G sites -- through Clearwire.  But it did not pan out.  That happens to operators not regulatorily blessed with "Baby Bell" monopoly money.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

A good five years ago, Sprint did attempt to get advanced backhaul to all 4G sites -- through Clearwire.  But it did not pan out.  That happens to operators not regulatorily blessed with "Baby Bell" monopoly money.

 

AJ

First, if you trust the future of your network to an unproven company, you're probably going to have a bad time. Second, I wish we had S4GRU when all the "Baby Bells" started to merge, it would have been meltdown city.  

[IamMrFamous07]

I think it's because they don't have any 850 (Celluar) in that county.

They don't due to us celluar.

[WiWavelength]

First, if you trust the future of your network to an unproven company, you're probably going to have a bad time.

 

As I said, that is what can happen to companies not regulatorily blessed with "Baby Bell" monopoly money, especially when an asleep at the wheel, pro big business Republican administration allows those babies to reconstitute themselves effectively into the "Ma Bell" that other regulators saw fit to shatter just 25 years prior.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

As I said, that is what can happen to companies not regulatorily blessed with "Baby Bell" monopoly money, especially when an asleep at the wheel, pro big business Republican administration allows those babies to reconstitute themselves effectively into the "Ma Bell" that other regulators saw fit to shatter just 25 years prior.

 

AJ

Wasn't Sprint doing OK financially at that time? I'm not sure I buy you're argument that you need "monopoly money" to compete. Win? probably not, but that doesn't mean that you can't play the game.

[WiWavelength]

Wasn't Sprint doing OK financially at that time? I'm not sure I buy you're argument that you need "monopoly money" to compete. Win? probably not, but that doesn't mean that you can't play the game.

 

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.  But look at what VZ and SBC were able to ram through 2000-2008.  As a society, are we better off?

 

AJ