Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Verizon/Alltel Divestiture Carries Competitive Implications
23 Jul, 2008Ahead of their Alltel acquisition regulatory review, Verizon filed a letter with the FCC outlining their wireless spectrum divestiture plans. In hopes of reducing “market dominance” fears, they plan on divesting of 85 markets, including all of North and South Dakota, and rural serving areas in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana , Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Ohio. Larger markets in the divested territories include Billings, Great Falls, and Casper. The divested territories may include either Alltel or Rural Cellular territories. Verizon’s acquisition of Rural Cellular is expected to close later this year. Additionally, Verizon committed to maintaining all existing roaming agreements with “regional, small and rural carriers” for the length of those existing agreements. Of course, once those existing agreements expire, those regional, small and rural carriers will need to negotiate a new deal. Judging by most recent roaming agreements between large and small carriers, “negotiate” can be a very relative term.
This potential opening of 85 markets presents opportunities with competitive implications. The usual suspects of AT&T and T-Mobile will surely take a look at acquiring these markets, and so will smaller carriers like MetroPCS and Leap. But perhaps even smaller rural carriers may get an opportunity to gain a foothold in these markets and offer a true competitive option to the large national brands. Smaller carriers, many of whom currently lack wireless assets, probably have much more interest in serving these rural territories. Should public policy mandate that the divested properties be given preferential acquisition treatment to carriers other than the usual suspects? Or maybe a consortium of rural carriers (new or existing) should consider trying to gain these wireless assets. These are questions worth debating.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google

I am considering purchasing
I am considering purchasing a Verizon plan, but I live in South Dakota. Does this mean I would be without Verizon service should this merger occur?