Verizon Wireless cries foul, responds to FCC-mandated data roaming rules

If Verizon doesn’t want the gov’t to have a say in their business then they shouldn’t ask for money to help them build their network (which they have). If a business uses my tax dollars to grow then I should stand to benefit somehow… Now I can since I’m not a Verizon customer.

OMG! Here comes the Socialist Agenda again!

Requiring data plans with smartphones has nothing to do with this issue. If you don’t like the requirement, buy an unlocked phone and use it without a data plan with a carrier that allows such configuration. The minimum data charge is probably necessary in order to recover the rebate (and make profit, with which I find nothing wrong.)

To further your analogy, it is as if HOA is telling you how much you can charge for the playground. That right, given that you built your playground with materials you bought with your own money, should not belong to the government. Oh, but what about the people who want to be in the playground? Well, there are other playgrounds. Don’t like it? Go to one with less play things or more dangerous toys.

Soooo the FTC doesn’t want any of the larger companies to become a monoploy, but the FCC wants to make them all the same price? Can somebody elaborate this for me. Seriously, I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around this.

The bigger issue here is that the FCC and DOJ has allowed all these carriers to consolidate to the point where there is no fair competition.

This is the good ol government at work. The FCC ignored anti trust issues with buyouts such as Alltel and now Tmobile. Now they feel they need to meddle in the operations of businesses. The gov. is no different than big business. They only do whats good for them.

Nothing unexpected.

Verizon and AT&T will always threaten less investment when their hand is forced. Overcharging local access fees (considered extortion in some states) and sucking in government money then they turn around and cry foul.

Verizon please. You get no sympathy from me.

@anDROIDfan
I think I see what you’re talking about; but, that isn’t how these “commercially reasonable terms and conditions” are being set. They’re not being set by lawyers from both carriers, they’re being set by a single party, the FCC in this case.

They are using our PUBLIC airwaves. I’m not saying that the FCC is correct here, but Verizon is being very one-sided. Not only that, but the phone networks in the United States are on public property too. The FCC may be “mean” but they have every right to regulate Verizon.

Poor VZW and AT&T. They can’t have the Duopoly they wanted so bad. I see to many cry babies whining that the government is going to far. Go piss and moan at some Faux news Tea party. This is the real world and people are getting sick of major corporations screwing us.

@anDROIDfan
It’s not up to the government to decide at all. It’s up to the two carriers. The carrier that owns the network shouldn’t be forced to let the smaller carrier roam on their network at a price of anything less than they’re willing to charge.

If the FCC came in and said the smaller carrier should be forced to pay *more* than they were willing to pay, there would be riots and everyone would be crying that the smaller carrier is getting screwed. So why is the exact opposite any different?

@anDROIDfan
Right, those are all the other network components I’m talking about. If this is the case, the backyard is still wherever the equipment is (agreed). If you want to take this to a national level, the backyard isn’t really the USA because the backyard is private. This is why I used a small scale and the property that the tower was on.

Blah, blah, blah….. *business words*…. Blah, blah, blah….”…consumers benefit from…”. Blah, blah, blah. Knock it off Verizon, pretending to care so much about what consumers want. That was your bitch-slap from the U.S. Government for erroneously overcharging their asses…

if verizon has taken any government money to build its infrastructure (which they have) then they have no problem with positive government intervention. the problem stems from the unknown – what is the price going to be? it might be dead on and fair for all parties.

the end result if verizon wants to use public airwaves and take govt funds to build infrastructure, then they have to understand that they may be subject to some regulation in regards to that infrastructure.

think how highway funding is tied into a 21 yr old drinking age.

Good for the consumer, however, this might in turn hurt us as well. You have to wonder if AT&T and Verizon knew about the possibilities before hand. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but most businesses do have connection with the people they deal with. It’s normal, it’s not that regular people don’t know about it, it’s they don’t dedicate their time looking for the scoop until it’s posted on a site like this.
How good is it for consumers when you consider AT&T just acquired T-Mobile, you have to wonder if they anticipated something like this. At the same time Verizon has no problems with the acquisition.
The ability to “share” each other’s network is beneficial for consumers in a way that they will most likely be within the coverage footprint. In terms of pricing, with the lack of major competitors it can hurt the consumers at the same time.
However, another way of looking at it is you now have AT&T +T-Mobile and Verizon competing with each other under the same network essentially (same network indirectly).

Seriously?
FCC, just back off Verizon’s ass already. Really now, it’s like some executive felt like she got screwed by them or something. What the hell man? This is an absolutely ridiculous venture. Does the government have nothing better to do than to finance resources for the FCC to go after companies that show a little bit of advantage an a particular industry? Everyone always says that companies become monopolies or have millions of customers because the customer has no other choice. Does anyone ever stop to think that the 90 million customers Verizon has are with them because the want to be? Maybe because paying a little extra for the services – or in ATT’s case the same amount for better services – is worth it.
So let me get this right, Verizon built a tower for $10 bucks, and now the FCC wants to step in and allow other carriers to use it for less then a penny a year? Ultimately putting more stress on Verizon’s network and hindering further growth.
I’m sorry, I’m all for the government doing the right thing, but this is not right.
Let the invisible hand work. Let free market reign and do what it does best.
Until next time-
JD

AT&T has held a license to build a cellular telephone system in my area for 22 years and not spent a dime doing so. Verizon covers only 1/4 of my state with their native system, relying on roaming for coverage in the rest of the state, and they have publicly stated that they have NO intention of ever building out the rest of the state’s coverage. We do have coverage from T-Mobile, Pioneer Cellular, CellularOne, and Sprint, both small regional carriers and majors. And now Verizon and AT&T are crying foul over having spent all this money to “build out the network in small towns and rural areas” and they are now being forced to allow the small regional carriers who HAVE actually spent the money to build out these rural areas, to roam on their networks? As one other poster said: “Boo f***ing HOO! Either build the damn network or give up your license instead of sitting on it and preventing anyone else to actually do it.

This is good. Smaller carriers do not own spectrum in large cities. As such, they have been prevented from offering their own customers the ability to roam there. Now they can. It’s good for consumers. And wow…so Verizon gets more revenue. It’s not a matter of smaller carriers not wanting to build their own networks…they don’t own spectrum everywhere so they can’t. They’re not asking for a freebie. They will gladly pay. But when the duopoly won’t allow them, that’s bad for consumers.