AT&T, Verizon Have Plenty of LTE Spectrum
Verizon's Just Been More Efficient With Theirs
We've noted in recent weeks Wall Street analysts, trying to boost acquisition rumors and stock holdings, have been insisting AT&T needs to buy somebody really soon because they're desperate for spectrum
. Except as spectrum holding audits show
, AT&T is in a prime spectrum position (especially after the Qualcomm deal) -- they just need to use the spectrum they have more efficiently. Verizon's unsurprisingly in the driver's seat with an average of 62MHz of spectrum available in the top 100 markets after their huge cable spectrum deal
. AT&T will be in just as good of shape once they start migrating users away from 2G networks:
AT&T's trouble is that, despite having roughly the same overall spectrum holdings as Verizon, the company is still using a lot of its spectrum for its legacy 2G services. This in part helps to explain why AT&T has been behind Verizon in terms of overall LTE deployments. As of this month, Verizon has rolled out LTE in 195 markets covering 200 million points of presence while AT&T has set up LTE in 26 markets covering 74 million PoPs. UBS analyst John Hodulik says it will take AT&T some time to migrate its 2G users away from its spectrum on the PCS and cellular bands, but he also says AT&T will be in a comparable LTE spectrum situation to Verizon once it frees up those frequencies.
AT&T continues to insist that they needed to buy T-Mobile for spectrum despite the fact their own data showed otherwise
. Except any network legroom problems are of AT&T's own making, something competitors and consumer advocates recently pointed out during T-Mobile deal hearings. Rumors AT&T needs
to continue gobbling up competitors aren't real; AT&T just wants
that spectrum because the more spectrum they hold, the less potential for competing services there is.
Bon Aqua, TN
airwaves Being these are airwaves and airwaves should belong to the people, they should have an active use law to where if they are not using the spectrum they are sitting on, they have to sell it (give em a realistic time frame to use though).. It would be different if it were lines etc they put up (still think un-upgraded areas they should consider selling off but that's another gripe) this is airwave frequency's.. There is no reason we should have one person/group holding them all hostage so they won't have to compete...
For at&t... it's just a game of keep-away: buy up as much as possible, and even if they don't use it, then at least no one else can either. (Oops, look what just became "scarce"... it's the Spectrum Apocalypse!!!)
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."
Re: For at&t... They rolled the dice and took their chances... oopsy -- snake-eyes!
Re: For at&t...
said by mod_wastrel:I agree. Not defending their decision. Just commenting on having to give away spectrum may make claims they have too much spectrum no longer totally accurate.
They rolled the dice and took their chances... oopsy -- snake-eyes!
| |MoracCat godReviews:
Re: For at&t...
said by Linklist:I thought part of that settlement was also a 7 year 3G roaming agreement so AT&T can use T-Mobile's spectrum and vice-versa?
I agree. Not defending their decision. Just commenting on having to give away spectrum may make claims they have too much spectrum no longer totally accurate.
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
Anti-Trust So they choose to be less efficient to artificially limit the supply in order to claim a shortage and ultimately demand a premium.
Re: Anti-Trust This is AT&T. They aren't that smart...
| |fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
| |said by SysOp:Yes. That kind of logic has always been the AT&T way. To AT&T, the customer and product are a necessary evil. They are solely driven by increases to stock value. That's it. Nothing else matters. Any improvements to product are just a byproduct of the primary goal of increasing profits to investors. If it is determined that being inefficient in the use of resources will return a higher profit, that's what will be done, customer/product be damned.
So they choose to be less efficient to artificially limit the supply in order to claim a shortage and ultimately demand a premium.
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1
| |DaveDudeNo Fear
exo-att I wonder why this isnt being so ridiculed , as the exo-flood guy. Both him and ATT are claiming the same.
ESPN Plays The Same Game With Broadcast Rights Yes, AT&T and ESPN are getting good at this game. For example, even though ESPN only has so many points of distribution, including online streaming (and several channels), it buys the broadcast rights for way more events than it can ever broadcast, just so no one else can broadcast these events competitively against what they decide to air.
ESPN decides what programming they want to use, and anyone who wants to watch an event that ESPN purchased rights to, but decided not to broadcast, is just sh*t out of luck.
If AT&T just eats up all the competition it can afford, it really doesn't matter how lowsy their service or pricing is. If you narrow the choices, sooner or later consumer innovation suffers due to the lack of competition.
AT&T is already known for charing different prices for the same service in different cities, quoted "we charge what the market will bear". Really??? Why not a fair price for good service, wouldn't that build a customer base?
The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you. - David Foster Wallace