Alltel/AT&T divested markets

H

(his)noodly_appendage

New member
I don't think they are going to give it up. With all these "map" commercials/advertisements VZW has hit ATT big weakness. You apply the Alltel divested network to that map and it will look similar to VZW and effectively shut down that argument.
 
Of COURSE that's the plan shango, to get AT&T to back out. It's time we tell the FCC what *we* the customers caught in the middle, think. I sent in a letter today (and realized a major typo after I read it in ECFS so yeah, that's embarrassing, but hopefully doesn't detract from the point I made). Here is the form for public comments:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=tfmtf

You will need to know the proceeding number you are commenting on. AT&T - Verizon Wireless (the markets divested to AT&T) is proceeding 09-104 . Atlantic Tele-Network - Verizon Wireless is proceeding 09-119.

I'd encourage everyone to file a well-written (PLEASE proofread twice for typos, I thought I had and missed a MAJOR one that ruined the grammar of one of my sentences) comment explaining the consumer benefits of a second national carrier, the disadvantages to numerous, disjointed, local competitors, and perhaps the fact that a lack of CDMA roaming for Sprint should only serve to admonish Sprint for failing to follow the spirit of the build-out requirements attached to their licenses.

Here is my contribution, posted for your reference, but write your own from the heart. As of right now it is only one of two comments from the general public in support of 09-104 - and the other one is very poorly written (makes my "want wait" look like a minor mistake, which in terms of meaning it is - even though it's a major grammatical error):

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397357

Also, please note that there are *no* public comments on 09-119 - the ATN divestiture. We need to write these comments in support of these transactions people!
 
Markie, I thought part of the rules of this sale was to keep existing roaming agreements for X amount of time? If thats the case Sprint is fine for roaming in MT they even have EVDO. Maybe I dreamed this lol...
 
Agreements, sure. But not the network. What good is an agreement to roam on a network that doesn't exist? That's what Sprint is asking for. I say, let Sprint find themselves with no network to roam on. They deserve it!

Anyways sprke, the big thing is to write a comment in support of docket 09-104. It can only help now...
 
Nope. They just have to honor the agreement - and the FCC doesn't even need to say that, contracts pass on to people buying a company. The thing is, the roaming agreements never say they have to maintain a network anywhere... they just govern roaming on it if there is one.
 
I see, thats interesting. Sprint is going to lose a lot of their EVDO roaming here in the west then. It looks like VZW is going to be the only carrier they can roam on in a lot of areas. VZW could raise their rates and put Sprint in a world of hurt if they wanted...
 
sprke81, to be honest I hope that happens. I really, truly, hope Sprint finds themselves in "a world of hurt" as a result of this. They've blatantly disregarded the spirit of the buildout requirements attached to their licenses here in MT by leasing them to Western Wireless now Alltel instead of building out native coverage and signing up subscribers here.
 
Rather than wishing ill on Sprint, it would actually be better for customers if both Sprint and T-Mobile got their acts together and put up some tough competition for Verizon and AT&T. It would obviously include some build-outs. All of these companies have numerous questionable practices speaking both ethically and legally. Sprint's lack of build-out in MT seems pretty far down the list compared to some of what I have read.
 
I wish ill on Sprint in a form that will cause them to build out here. If they lose roaming here that'll be a strong incentive for them to buildout here. BTW, if you live here no coverage isn't "pretty far down on the list"

I really hope Sprint and T-Mobile do choose to build out here, and sooner rather than later. But it seems almost certain that they have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.
 
Wow the FCC is really dragging it's feet on this. First AT&T says (and hopes) that it would be by the end of the 4th quarter. Then it's the end of the 1st quarter. Still nothing. I think they have given up trying to figure out 'when'. Much like the rest of us.
 
Want to move it along faster? Instead of complaining about the FCC, complain to the petitioners holding it up, like Sprint and the Ogala Sioux tribe. Personally, the longer the better. I want no part of AT&T.
 
Back
Top