Jump to content

Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills


Recommended Posts

Daring Fireball linked to a really great piece in the New York Times over the weekend about how U.S. Consumers “may overpay by over a quarter of a trillion dollars for worse levels of service than customers in other countries receive.

 

So why the $41.50-a-month difference in price? Several factors are involved, but an important one is regulatory policy. Britain has forced companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost. The United States has not, allowing a formidable barrier against competitors.

 
“The United States lacks meaningful competition in its cellular market sector, which leads to higher cell plan prices than a growing list of other countries,” said Sascha Meinrath, founder of the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are they getting those numbers from? I thought you could get talk text and 2gb for $60 and a subsidized phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every carrier is stock market based....that is the problem! The premium investor must get his piece of the pie, and then CEO's, and direct subordinates must get their bonuses. We are paying for the big bonus, and investor premiums.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every carrier is stock market based....that is the problem! The premium investor must get his piece of the pie, and then CEO's, and direct subordinates must get their bonuses. We are paying for the big bonus, and investor premiums.

 

You are wrong.  You realize that Verizon isn't a charity, right?  Regardless of being a public or private company, it's going to still attempt to be as profitable as possible, right?

 

Verizon makes a ton of money because people who subscribe to verizon feel like they offer a service(s) that competitor(s) do not.

 

It's one of the reasons why was against the merger between Sprint/T-Mobile and why I am always baffled by posts worried about competition driving down prices and how it will not make wireless carriers profitable in the US.

 

We have a lot of fat to trim in the US wireless word.

 

Step 1) Trimming wireless subsidy out of the wireless bill

Check

Step 2) Wait for T-Mobile and Sprint to finish building out their LTE networks

In progress

Step 3) Watch people realize that they can save a bundle switching while still receiving solid service

**fingers crossed that people will figure this out**

Step 4) Watch AT&T/Verizon scramble to match prices

**fingers crossed that AT&T/Verizon lobbying dollars don't stop competition**

Step 5) Watch US customers profit as prices go down

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are they getting those numbers from? I thought you could get talk text and 2gb for $60 and a subsidized phone?

You can get talk and text and 2GB of 4G in Italy for ~$25/month, plus data cannot be turned off so long your service is in good standing. That means that the previous technology has to be free and unlimited as long as you keep your account in good standing. So it used to be unlimited EDGE but now it unlimited HSPA where LTE is available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong.  You realize that Verizon isn't a charity, right?  Regardless of being a public or private company, it's going to still attempt to be as profitable as possible, right?

 

Verizon makes a ton of money because people who subscribe to verizon feel like they offer a service(s) that competitor(s) do not.

 

It's one of the reasons why was against the merger between Sprint/T-Mobile and why I am always baffled by posts worried about competition driving down prices and how it will not make wireless carriers profitable in the US.

 

We have a lot of fat to trim in the US wireless word.

 

Step 1) Trimming wireless subsidy out of the wireless bill

Check

Step 2) Wait for T-Mobile and Sprint to finish building out their LTE networks

In progress

Step 3) Watch people realize that they can save a bundle switching while still receiving solid service

**fingers crossed that people will figure this out**

Step 4) Watch AT&T/Verizon scramble to match prices

**fingers crossed that AT&T/Verizon lobbying dollars don't stop competition**

Step 5) Watch US customers profit as prices go down

People pay more for ATT and Verizon service due to the fact they offer coverage on areas sprint only roams in, or T-Mobile has edge only or no service in. And those areas will still be there. It'll take sprints expansion to be able to truly say they have coverage on a larger scale. The CCA and rural partners will help that greatly. Also a big upsell Verizon and ATT have is also a wireline, and TV service bundles. Sprint should try and work with dish with fixed wireless(however they want) and bundle with dish satellite TV. For some people it would be a huge saver. And would probably benefit sprint. But they just need to be careful with how the do plans and pricing, as well as keeping unlimited from killing their network(if they go the unlimited route). Easy thing would be to throttle, or do a day time data limit, unlimited whatever at night past a certain time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong.  You realize that Verizon isn't a charity, right?  Regardless of being a public or private company, it's going to still attempt to be as profitable as possible, right?

 

Verizon makes a ton of money because people who subscribe to verizon feel like they offer a service(s) that competitor(s) do not.

 

It's one of the reasons why was against the merger between Sprint/T-Mobile and why I am always baffled by posts worried about competition driving down prices and how it will not make wireless carriers profitable in the US.

 

We have a lot of fat to trim in the US wireless word.

 

Step 1) Trimming wireless subsidy out of the wireless bill

Check

Step 2) Wait for T-Mobile and Sprint to finish building out their LTE networks

In progress

Step 3) Watch people realize that they can save a bundle switching while still receiving solid service

**fingers crossed that people will figure this out**

Step 4) Watch AT&T/Verizon scramble to match prices

**fingers crossed that AT&T/Verizon lobbying dollars don't stop competition**

Step 5) Watch US customers profit as prices go down

 

 

Who said anything about running a charity. The last time that I checked Verizon made over 50 GP or close to it. That's loads of money being made. I am not against anyone making money period! The structure of most companies on the stock market is structured to pay bonus, and the premium share holders. When profits are this high they attract investors and the drive to MAKE MORE BONUS DRIVES  INCENTIVES TO EXTRACT MORE OUT OF CUSTOMERS TO REACH THAT GOAL!

 

Am I mad at them for doing this ...no.1 As a consumer you choose to buy or not buy. You have your opinion on this and I have mine we can agree to disagree.

Edited by QWIKSTRIKE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about running a charity. The last time that I checked Verizon made over 50 GP or close to it. That's loads of money being made. I am not against anyone making money period! The structure of most companies on the stock market is structured to pay bonus, and the premium share holders. When profits are this high they attract investors and the drive to MAKE MORE BONUS DRIVES  INCENTIVES TO EXTRACT MORE OUT OF CUSTOMERS TO REACH THAT GOAL!

 

Am I mad at them for doing this ...no.1 As a consumer you choose to buy or not buy. You have your opinion on this and I have mine we can agree to disagree.

 

I think you just fail to realize that if a company is public or private, the goal is be profitable.  A non-public company isn't just trying to be "sort of profitable" while a publicly traded company's goal is to be "extremely profitable".

 

Verizon extracts as much as they can from their customers.  Regardless if Verizon was a privately-owned company or a publicly traded company, if Verizon could charge $1,000/month per customer, they would.  That's my only point.  The reality is, they can't, so they don't.  They charge as much as they can to get the most out of the subscriber base.

 

It's not like being a publicly traded company gets magical fairy dust incentive to charge more to get a bigger bonus...

 

For example, look at Cargill (a private company) vs. Archer Daniel (a publicly traded competitor).  The privately held company is bigger and more profitable.  If the publicly traded company's goal is to make more bonus and extract more out of customers, why is the privately held company making more profit?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a brit that isn't a fair comparison.  Three are not a bad company but they are far closer to tmobile than Verizon, it would be fairer to compare Vodafone to Verizon. Things may have changed since I escaped but the whole leasing networks used to only apply to voice and text and the UK was years behind the US on unlimited voice and text. I used to carry 3 phones around to have a reasonable chance of a data service. I'm not pro or anti regulation in this context but I worry about the intentions of the author when they compare two very different providers,  they should either know better and don't or they deliberately compared them to exaggerate the effect. 

Three started as a 3g only network when the UK auctioned spectrum for 3g services,  they nearly tanked because of poor coverage and they bet the farm on expensive video calls that no one made.  Luckily mobile data came along.  Iirc they leased all 2g/voice from an existing company. They tended to market themselves as a similar proposition as tmo usa, unlimited etc but forget about coverage.  Last I recall they had made big strides in becoming a more credible national provider but I would hesitate to class them as compatible to Verizon,  at&t, orange, or Vodafone (although they've probably all merged into 1 by now). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you just fail to realize that if a company is public or private, the goal is be profitable.  A non-public company isn't just trying to be "sort of profitable" while a publicly traded company's goal is to be "extremely profitable".

 

Verizon extracts as much as they can from their customers.  Regardless if Verizon was a privately-owned company or a publicly traded company, if Verizon could charge $1,000/month per customer, they would.  That's my only point.  The reality is, they can't, so they don't.  They charge as much as they can to get the most out of the subscriber base.

 

It's not like being a publicly traded company gets magical fairy dust incentive to charge more to get a bigger bonus...

 

For example, look at Cargill (a private company) vs. Archer Daniel (a publicly traded competitor).  The privately held company is bigger and more profitable.  If the publicly traded company's goal is to make more bonus and extract more out of customers, why is the privately held company making more profit?

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I don't fail to realize that a company strives to make a profit. In fact I started off by saying that I am not against a company making a profit.   You fail to realized how the world works especially when it comes to stock, products and sales. I have been in sales for over 30 years, and completely understand what it means to be profitable. I have made million dollar contracts, and can tell you all about profit margin and the bottom line.

 

You can't make examples of anything until you truly understand the relationship between preferred stock holders, CEO compensation, bonus, profit margin, demand. You don't have a clue and if you did you would understand what I am saying. I bet a stock analyst would agree whole heartedly with my comment. 

 

You asked why do privately held companies make more money, but try to prove a point with out  the knowledge of why  this is. Privately held companies make more money because they don't have to answer to preferred stock holders. When public held companies  trade preferred stock holders like Carl Ichan try to dictate how and what a company should do. In order to satisfy those people companies like Dell bastardized a very good product in the name of bonus and sales. As dell began to trade openly the need for more money  to satisfy the stock holders, and to increase stock value, and profit margins arose so they started selling inferior products under their good name until the consume decided  not to buy their product line any more. "see the rise of Apple;)" Now dell is going private to try to rebuild whats left of a once powerful computer giant.

 

Apple and Steve Jobs are perfect examples of this since the preferred stock holders and board members kicked him out of his own company. Apple did not stock thriving until Jobs returned. I have no time to give you lessons on how the stock market, companies, bonus and compensation packages cause the rise and fall of companies!

 

Let's just agree to disagree respectfully.

Edited by QWIKSTRIKE
Link to post
Share on other sites

The structure of most companies on the stock market is structured to pay bonus, and the premium share holders. When profits are this high they attract investors and the drive to MAKE MORE BONUS DRIVES  INCENTIVES TO EXTRACT MORE OUT OF CUSTOMERS TO REACH THAT GOAL!

 

Am I mad at them for doing this ...no.1 As a consumer you choose to buy or not buy. You have your opinion on this and I have mine we can agree to disagree.

Not to continue to beat a dead horse, but I too have a couple of issues here. According to the shareholder theory of business the goal of a publicly traded company is to maximize value for all shareholders. The vast majority of the time what is beneficial for what you call "premium" shareholders is proportionally beneficial to any shareholder based on their ownership stake. If a company is more profitable, raises a dividend, etc every shareholder benefits; some just more so than others due to how many shares they own.

 

Secondly, I too think your notion of public vs. private is misguided. The goal of almost any private company/partnership/sole proprietorship is also to maximize profit. Much like a publicly traded company there are still ownership percentages: be it a family controlling it, employee ownership, or an outside entity, distributions of profit occur in some manner, and management incentives are still present. Irev210's point about ADM verus Cargill illustrates this. Kiewit, a large employee owned company in Omaha is notorious for having employees retire as millionaires due to having to cash in shares of the company at retirement. There really isn't the difference you are trying to make. Whether or not a company is publicly traded or not, there are owners and they want to make money.

 

I'd argue some of the things you seem to concern about are actually more prevalent in privately held companies. The reporting requirements are less than the scrutiny a publicly held company is held to. Ownership stakes tend to be more concentrated (A publicly held traded company may be lucky to have one person/institution holding more than 10% of the company). Thus from a management perspective in a privately held company there is just as much if not more temptation than to run things to benefit the owners than a publicly held corporation.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I don't fail to realize that a company strives to make a profit. In fact I started off by saying that I am not against a company making a profit.   You fail to realized how the world works especially when it comes to stock, products and sales. I have been in sales for over 30 years, and completely understand what it means to be profitable. I have made million dollar contracts, and can tell you all about profit margin and the bottom line.

Your sales experience has little to do with publicly versus privately held companies.

You can't make examples of anything until you truly understand the relationship between preferred stock holders, CEO compensation, bonus, profit margin, demand. You don't have a clue and if you did you would understand what I am saying. I bet a stock analyst would agree whole heartedly with my comment.

I'm not a stock analyst, but I do hold a degree in Business Administration, concentrating in Finance, with an emphasis in financial analysis (basically a degree for an analyst). That said, I don't think an analyst would agree with your comments. I also think an analyst would point out that a "preferred stock holder" in finance has a completely different meaning than what you are using.

 

Preferred stock, like common stock,  is a form of equity. However it tends to have a lot more similarities to debt instruments than common stock. A preferred stockholder typically has no voting rights. To compensate this they are typically guaranteed a fixed dividend payment (hence the similarity to debt instruments like bonds) that must be paid before common stockholders receive a dividend.

 

You asked why do privately held companies make more money, but try to prove a point with out  the knowledge of why  this is. Privately held companies make more money because they don't have to answer to preferred stock holders. When public held companies  trade preferred stock holders like Carl Ichan try to dictate how and what a company should do. In order to satisfy those people companies like Dell bastardized a very good product in the name of bonus and sales. As dell began to trade openly the need for more money  to satisfy the stock holders, and to increase stock value, and profit margins arose so they started selling inferior products under their good name until the consume decided  not to buy their product line any more. "see the rise of Apple;)" Now dell is going private to try to rebuild whats left of a once powerful computer giant.

 

Apple and Steve Jobs are perfect examples of this since the preferred stock holders and board members kicked him out of his own company. Apple did not stock thriving until Jobs returned. I have no time to give you lessons on how the stock market, companies, bonus and compensation packages cause the rise and fall of companies!

 

Let's just agree to disagree respectfully.

So what you call preferred stockholders, most would call concentrated investors, corporate raiders, etc. Basically an individual or group that makes a significant investment in a company to gain ownership to benefit them. I'd contend such investors are not the norm in publicly traded companies.

 

The big problem with your argument here is particularly in many of the companies in the wireless industry is there isn't the dilution of ownership that is present in other publicly traded companies. Softbank owns 79% of Sprint. DT owns 67% of T-Mobile. While both of those companies are publicly traded, the concentrated ownerships by the "parent" companies effectively moot any outside investor from doing anything. Furthermore, there aren't any corporate raiders in the wireless market making any tirade against said corporate raiders and publicly held companies irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

That said, I'm with you to an extent. Large concentrates owners can influence companies in such a manner that is beneficial to them and not the company/other shareholders (It isn't the norm). I think a large part of T-Mobile's current strategy over the past 12-18 months has been to prepare for DT's exit. Some of those moves aren't necessarily the best for the company in the long-term or the other shareholders.

 

But if T-Mobile were a privately held company looking to sell themselves, DT's strategy would've been the exact same. Make the company look better in the short-run to sell. That is where I fundamentally disagree with you in the public vs. private debate.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to continue to beat a dead horse, but I too have a couple of issues here. According to the shareholder theory of business the goal of a publicly traded company is to maximize value for all shareholders. The vast majority of the time what is beneficial for what you call "premium" shareholders is proportionally beneficial to any shareholder based on their ownership stake. If a company is more profitable, raises a dividend, etc every shareholder benefits; some just more so than others due to how many shares they own.

 

Secondly, I too think your notion of public vs. private is misguided. The goal of almost any private company/partnership/sole proprietorship is also to maximize profit. Much like a publicly traded company there are still ownership percentages: be it a family controlling it, employee ownership, or an outside entity, distributions of profit occur in some manner, and management incentives are still present. Irev210's point about ADM verus Cargill illustrates this. Kiewit, a large employee owned company in Omaha is notorious for having employees retire as millionaires due to having to cash in shares of the company at retirement. There really isn't the difference you are trying to make. Whether or not a company is publicly traded or not, there are owners and they want to make money.

 

I'd argue some of the things you seem to concern about are actually more prevalent in privately held companies. The reporting requirements are less than the scrutiny a publicly held company is held to. Ownership stakes tend to be more concentrated (A publicly held traded company may be lucky to have one person/institution holding more than 10% of the company). Thus from a management perspective in a privately held company there is just as much if not more temptation than to run things to benefit the owners than a publicly held corporation.

Your sales experience has little to do with publicly versus privately held companies.

I'm not a stock analyst, but I do hold a degree in Business Administration, concentrating in Finance, with an emphasis in financial analysis (basically a degree for an analyst). That said, I don't think an analyst would agree with your comments. I also think an analyst would point out that a "preferred stock holder" in finance has a completely different meaning than what you are using.

 

Preferred stock, like common stock,  is a form of equity. However it tends to have a lot more similarities to debt instruments than common stock. A preferred stockholder typically has no voting rights. To compensate this they are typically guaranteed a fixed dividend payment (hence the similarity to debt instruments like bonds) that must be paid before common stockholders receive a dividend.

 

So what you call preferred stockholders, most would call concentrated investors, corporate raiders, etc. Basically an individual or group that makes a significant investment in a company to gain ownership to benefit them. I'd contend such investors are not the norm in publicly traded companies.

 

The big problem with your argument here is particularly in many of the companies in the wireless industry is there isn't the dilution of ownership that is present in other publicly traded companies. Softbank owns 79% of Sprint. DT owns 67% of T-Mobile. While both of those companies are publicly traded, the concentrated ownerships by the "parent" companies effectively moot any outside investor from doing anything. Furthermore, there aren't any corporate raiders in the wireless market making any tirade against said corporate raiders and publicly held companies irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

That said, I'm with you to an extent. Large concentrates owners can influence companies in such a manner that is beneficial to them and not the company/other shareholders (It isn't the norm). I think a large part of T-Mobile's current strategy over the past 12-18 months has been to prepare for DT's exit. Some of those moves aren't necessarily the best for the company in the long-term or the other shareholders.

 

But if T-Mobile were a privately held company looking to sell themselves, DT's strategy would've been the exact same. Make the company look better in the short-run to sell. That is where I fundamentally disagree with you in the public vs. private debate.

 

 

"Not to continue to beat a dead horse, but I too have a couple of issues here. According to the shareholder theory of business the goal of a publicly traded company is to maximize value for all shareholders. The vast majority of the time what is beneficial for what you call "premium" shareholders is proportionally beneficial to any shareholder based on their ownership stake. If a company is more profitable, raises a dividend, etc every shareholder benefits; some just more so than others due to how many shares they own."

 

After selling products for major corporations for 25 years, and in sales over 30 years I can tell you that to maximize profit they screw the consumer. They start out doing reputable things, but in the end they always try to make money by screwing unsuspecting buyers. When sales slow on a product they cut the size and charge more to maximize profits, and as a consumer you must have noticed this. One of the largest paper cup MFG let's just call it "XYZ" sells paper cups but sells to Mc Ronalds. To help Mc Ronalds make more money and to boost sales it sells cups  that are 12oz.

 

Mc Ronalds use to sell say 13oz cups with a dotted line  that is filled with fluid up to the dotted line and with ice it is less than 12 oz. Now the 12 oz cups with ice is less than the 12 oz that the unsuspecting consumer buys even though it is labeled 12 with ice its like 8 ounces. Ice maker MFG make ice to nest in a cup that displace more liquid. Now the consumer pays for 12 ounces gets 8 ounces or less for a glass of coke that only cost 5-6 cents for every 12 ounces. Give more ice and less fluid and maximize that 2.00 cup. 

All you can eat places give you all you can drink to fill you up because 12 ounces for .06 cents fills you up and any one can give you unlimited drinks for 2.00 when each cup cost .06.

 

Dell made quality machines but to maximize profits and satisfy stock holder value stopped using quality parts, and started using inferior parts to maximize share holder value now look at them. They are going private because you don't have to answer to board members and major stock holders when selling their product. When Google took a write down on R&D many people were not happy and the stock fell, but Google did what was right for the company and the stock rather than to listen to people that cry like a Carl Ichan....this is rare, ans is how it is supposed to happen as you so eloquently put it!

 

Sprint did the same in the late 1990's they came on like a gang buster but forgot to invest in infrastructure now they are scrambling to change for the better. Contacts by cellular companies change mostly to maximize share holder value and Verizon said this to the shareholders in one of the shareholder meetings. Their goal was "to get unlimited legacy users converted to tiered contracts by 2015 before VOlte is implemented for obvious reasons!"

 

Don't think for a second that big bonus is not on the minds of anyone that is in sales and in fact that is what drives many of the sales at most corporations! That drive usually conflicts with the "the shareholder theory of business the goal of a publicly traded company is to maximize value for all shareholders."

 

 

 

 

Toilet tissue used to be 4x4.5 squares now they are 3.75x3.75 and shrinking. As MFG start cheating consumers by nickle and diming the consumer to maximize profit and make larger bonus they forget that the consumer usually fights back by looking for another brand.

The drive for any company on the stock market is to return values to investors and usually the preferred investor is always 1st in mind period. The drive to earn big bonus, and return value to stock holders go hand in hand but after a certain point the consumer usually gets the shaft in the end. 

Edited by QWIKSTRIKE
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By Paynefanbro
      I figured since Verizon's 5G-NR network officially launched it would make sense for there to be a thread for it.
    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
       
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
       
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
       
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
       
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
       
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
       
       
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
       
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By runagun
      Unless this is a mistake. Mobilitie is also helping VZW on there small cell approach too. I'm familiar with them doing arenas with all the providers , just not small cell.
       
      http://www.downers.us/public/docs/agendas/2017/11-14-17/RES 2017-7580 - Right-of-Way License Agreement with Mobilitie, LLC - 11-14-2017_8260.pdf
    • By Andrew Revering
      This one has stumped me and I'm hoping someone can shed light on this...
       
      I have Sprint as my provider, and I'm out in a no-coverage area north of Lake Superior in Minnesota.
       
      I purchased a 20db gain Yagi antenna, and pointed it at the nearest tower, which is 16 miles away on the other side of a high bluff.
       
      The antenna is connected to a Wilson (WeBoost) amplifier
      Amplifier showing all green as it's at max power and working properly.
       
      I am getting a signal! It's a middle of the road "2-3 bar" -87 dBm signal on both my Android HTC 10 and my wife's iPhone 6S Plus
       
      Signal Check Pro says it's the Verizon tower, which makes sense as I'm pointing it at the 850 mhz Verizon tower.
       
      The problem is that calls do not work. No tones or audio when dialing and eventually it just disconnects, and no data connection available.
       
      I tried a Verizon MiFi and had similar results. It had a signal but couldn't connect.
       
      What's the problem? I've put in about $800 into this setup, and I don't want to give up on getting data and switching to Satellite if I'm very close to getting a connection!
       
      Thanks in advance for your ideas/explanations.
    • By KD8JBF
      Something interesting I stumbled across on Twitter...Good idea...does Sprint have a "Bat Cave"? 
       
      http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/08/network-cave-protects-emergency-equipment-60-feet-underground.html
       
      Check it out...
  • Posts

    • If your on an LTE device that’s correct but on a 5g device it doesn’t really matter both will be on the T-Mobile network.
    • Thanks all. SA 5G is not important to me at this point.  The aspects of a Sprint-SIM phone, including having non-keep sites as a fallback is more important to me at this point. If one gets a new SIM card with a new phone purchase (as mentioned in my original post, such as Best Buy providing on Sprint's behalf or requesting it through the My Sprint app), will it be the Sprint SIM by default? (that is, if you don't request a specific type?)  Do TNX SIM cards need to be specifically requested? (either on an existing phone or an upgrade phone that is requesting a changeover to T-Mobile)  Also, for new Sprint SIMs that are not TNX SIMs, will those need to be changed out to a New T-Mobile SIM once the Sprint network is completely decommissioned and New T-Mobile is in place?
    • I had a tech try to switch me back to TMO SIM yesterday -- well, he actually did switch temporarily...and it wouldn't activate (at my home), so he switched me back to Sprint. I'm in the 3rd week of having a non-working phone unless I'm within range of wifi that is fast enough to have wifi calling connected. I had to call the store and explain to the tech that during the screen replacement that I had 3 weeks ago, it appears that an antenna wire was not connected because wifi works fine, but cellular doesn't hardly work at all..and the way it goes is: WIfi calling connects and works. VOLTE will connect and work. LTE will pass data but no voice calls...Roaming won't connect at all. At home, in range of the Airave (B41), i show on SCP that it's on the Airave...but soon as I place a call, it goes from 4 bars, 3 bars, 2 bars, 1 bar...then 1 bar of R...then the call just drops. Same for places where VOLTE doesn't connect and it's just LTE only...has the same behavior.  It's strange that my wife has the exact same phone..and hers will work fine but mine will do the 4-3-2-1, R, then drop.  I explained to the tech in the closest store...detailed my hours-long convos with various levels of tech and online chat..and told her that i just wanted a working phone...so, over the phone, she was nice enough to just order me a replacement. I told her that I had brought the phone in to have someone take it apart and verify everything was connected..but all they did was "run tests" on it and didn't do anything to the actual internals...which doesn't solve the problem. I was forced to use my Firstnet phone for the past 3 weeks and missed a couple of job interviews because the apps I put in were a day or 2 before I had the phone screen replaced due to stuck pixels. So I'm not sure who's tried to call...but unless it's been on wifi calling...they haven't managed to get me.
    • The only thing you get with a TNX SIM is SA. Sprint-SIM phones still have TMo as the primary, with keep sites filling in just like they do on TNX, but non-keep sites are available as a fallback (high priority roaming, basically). Oh, and you get CDMA (including 1x800) as a fallback rather than H+/GSM until CDMA goes away. The benefit of a Sprint SIM will decrease over time, but for non-5G there's still a benefit. You want TNX basically for SA (if you wind up in areas where n71 can reach but B2/66 can't) and NR CA at some point where you can get n71 and n41. That's...basically it.
    • I've found a couple more recently tagged Sprint keep sites that are really close to existing T-Mobile sites. It'll be interesting to see when these get converted if they get everything or mid-band frequencies only. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...