backtop

Print 100 comment(s) - last by gusharu.. on Feb 22 at 10:40 AM

  (Source: Zazzle)
Sprint claims it's only doing what's best for customers

America's number second and third largest carriers -- AT&T Inc. (T) and Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) -- have hardly been best buddies, particularly since Sprint was a key player in helping convince the federal government to sink AT&T's acquisition of America's fourth largest carrier Deutsche Telekom AG's (ETR:DTE) T-Mobile USA.  But in the wake of a controversial decision by Sprint, the icy détente has exploded into a full-blown war of words.  And to make things even more intense AT&T is tossing out accusations of government meddling and federal interference.

I. AT&T Calls Sprint Out for "Freeloading"

The dispute comes down to Sprint's decision to pull out of the Oklahoma City, Okla. (metro population: 580k; rural population: 1.25m) and Kansas City, Miss./Kans. (metro population: 100k; rural population: 2.03m) in terms of a first-party infrastructure provider.  Instead, in these traditionally weak areas in Sprint's network, Sprint will rely on compulsory roaming agreements with its rival AT&T, using AT&T's infrastructure to serve its customers.

AT&T views this as freeloading on Sprint's part.

The company, who recently turned on LTE services in these cities, blames a pair of federal regulatory changes for allowing Sprint to force AT&T to sell it roaming.  

The first is the U.S. Federal Communication Commission's 2010 decision to eliminate the "Home Market Rule", which prevented carriers from forcing rivals into compulsory roaming agreements in regions they owned spectrum (AT&T voiced its frustration at the time).  The elimination means that even though Sprint owns spectrum in these two metropolitan regions, it can refuse to use that spectrum, instead renting it out and relying on compulsory roaming from AT&T.

The second regulatory change is the FCC's 2011 "extended" roaming rules (a link to these rules on the FCC's servers appear to be inaccessible at present), which required carriers to offer high speed broadband roaming to small rivals, as well as voice services.  Again this allows Sprint to piggyback off of AT&T's high-speed LTE network in these metro regions.

AT&T senior VP Bob Quinn comments, "Sprint can now use other folks' networks rather than pony up its own investment dollars. Nice work if you can get it."

II. Sprint Says It's Just Doing What's Best for Customers

Sprint, as can be expected, sees things quite differently.  It's not freeloading; it's helping its customers in an area it long struggled.  Tom Cook, a Sprint spokesman, released a statement commenting, "A lot of customers won’t even notice any difference in call quality or changes on their bill."

Kansas City Wide
Kansas City is one of two metropolitan regions that Sprint is switching to roaming in.
[Source: Ron Saari]

In a longer statement to The Verge, a Sprint spokesperson directly counters the allegation of network infrastructure disinvestment, pointing out that overall its expenditures are increasing.  It writes:

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that AT&T wants to challenge a consumer's right to access email, the Internet and other mobile broadband services wherever they may travel in the U.S. Along with Verizon Wireless, AT&T is the only other wireless carrier in America which opposes the FCC's pro-consumer data roaming decision from last year.

The facts are that Sprint, as part of its Network Vision program, doubled its 2011 capital investment over 2010 to make tens of thousands of capacity upgrades, resulting in a better wireless experience for its customers. With these network investments, Sprint continues to offer consumers a better value than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.

But Sprint fails to address the criticism that it's exploiting its membership in the Rural Carrier Association.  Critics say Sprint isn't a rural carrier at all, but only joined the group to gain regulatory favors.  These critics allege that the membership allows Sprint to abuse federal regulations that are meant to look out for the "little guys" when in fact it is a top competitor.

Sprint is currently deep in the red and likely to plunge even deeper, asking for $7B USD in debt to float its recent commitment to Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone.  Between the pressure that places on Sprint's big infrastructure needs in traditionally weak regions and between increased competition with AT&T amidst Verizon Wireless's (a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD)) solidifying top spot in the U.S. market these kind of clashes are only expected to grow more common between Sprint and AT&T in the near future.

Sources: AT&T, NewsOk, The Verge


Comments     Threshold


By Solandri on 1/25/2012 4:43:47 PM , Rating: 5
Though most of the companies are sure to resist. IMHO, there should be three layers in the cell phone business, all separate. This means all aspects of the product are independent of each other, and there's no pressure to pick one offering over another for reasons unrelated to that offering.

The phone makers should sell phones. That's it. You can get any phone you like; you're not stuck with just the phones offered by your carrier. You're not put into a position where if you want an iPhone, you have to get service with AT&T. This will force phone makers to compete based on making the best phone possible.

The carriers should sell service. That's it. If they want, they can offer you a loan to reduce the cost of buying your phone. This will force carriers to focus on competing based on price, features, and customer service.

The network providers should provide service. That's it. The carriers would negotiate with network providers to "roam" on those networks for service. This will force network providers to compete based on providing the best network they can for the lowest price.

If one provider has a really good network, the carriers will try to make contracts with it. Consequently service coverage will be more or less uniform regardless of which carrier you have. Problems in coverage will be fixed more quickly (just contract with another network provider to use a couple more towers in the area, instead of having to build new towers).




By idiot77 on 1/25/2012 4:54:44 PM , Rating: 1
Because you're a backbone provider and that's what you do... whole sale connections.

Quit being such an obvious fascist.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 3
AT&T's cellular network has never have been a "backbone". Repeating the same made up lie doesn't make it so.


By Black1969ta on 1/26/2012 3:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
Just because AT&T is a spineless worm does not mean that their network is not a backbone, it still manages to attain sporadic high speeds, dropped voice calls on an iPhone that did everything but make calls before other networks were used. A weak backbone is still a backbone!


By teacherlee on 1/25/2012 9:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Um no. Godwin's law applies when you invoke a comparison to Hitler.


By teacherlee on 1/25/2012 9:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
And it's clear he was talking about dictatorial control having nothing to do with Hitler.


By Just Tom on 1/26/2012 7:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
I find it humorous that he is calling someone a fascist yet he is the one seeking to dictate the structure of a market. Allowing the market to function freely, even when the result is a monopoly or oligopoly, is about as far from fascism as possible. But then again fascist no longer has any real meaning other than you're a dumb poo-poo head.


By JediJeb on 1/25/2012 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 5
I think you are missing his point. The network provider would not be sharing his network with competitors. The network provider owns the towers not the carrier(AT&T, Verizon,Sprint ect). If two companies own towers in a region they compete with each other on who has the strongest reception and highest bandwidth, then the carriers compete on who has offers the best plans.

Say Epic Win and Total Failure (fictitious network tower companies obviously) both put up towers in Kansas City, then AT&T and Verizon lease towers from Epic and TMobile and Sprint lease towers from Total because they can get them for less per month. You then have to decide if you go with Sprint or AT&T based on price versus performance. Also if you wanted an iPhone Apple would have to sell it at the Apple stores not at the AT&T store, also the RAZR would be sold by a Moto dealer instead of by Verizon bundled with a plan.

This way phone makers compete on how well their phones are made and what they can do, the carriers compete on what they can provide, and the networks compete on how good their towers and backbone are. There would be on roaming of Sprint on AT&T. And there would be no roaming of Epic on Total, since the carriers would have to work out deals with both if they wanted to use both towers since they would be separate networks. This would be the same thing as how Hospital companies can not be Insurance companies such as how the government split up Humana's hospital and insurance divisions into two separate companies to avoid monopolies in health care.

I think the OP has a good idea on this.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 5:47:37 PM , Rating: 1
You already CAN buy phones outright without a provider. Nobody really does this all that much because it's too expensive. The Apple store wants $850 for a new unlocked iPhone 4S! How many people would actually pay that if they had to? Seems like it would be a net-loss for cell phone manufacturers if they had to have their own "stores" and people had to pay the upfront full price on the phones before they got service.

quote:
This way phone makers compete on how well their phones are made and what they can do


I would argue that, for the most part, this is already the case.


By JediJeb on 1/26/2012 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
If the iPhone did not sell when priced at $850, would they continue to offer it at that price or lower it until it sold?

Does AT&T buy the iPhone for $850 then sell it to you for $300 and make $500 above the actual cost of a plan just to recoup the cost? If so then AT&T could let you fork over the cost of the iPhone while offering a much cheaper plan so in the end you would come out the same or maybe even better.

That is the point for breaking up the business into three segments, to avoid the monopoly of where if you wanted an iPhone you had to pay an inflated price because Apple and AT&T were able to tie up that product in a bundle of phone, carrier and network with no competition to keep the prices down. Had Apple made the iPhone and had to compete price wise with other phones(though at the time they were offering a fairly unique product as far as what it did beyond making phone calls) and all the carriers had to compete with plans to offer service for iPhone owners and the networks had to compete to offer the connections to the carriers to carry the iPhone traffic, then I believe you would have seen a much lower cost of ownership for the iPhone than what people had to pay when they were introduced. You would also probably have seen much better service for those iPhones at that time also.

When you have to compete to survive you become a lean strong fighter, when there is no competition you become a fat lazy sloth. That works in both the business world and the animal kingdom.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 5:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
You already CAN buy phones outright without a provider. Nobody really does this all that much because it's too expensive. The Apple store wants $850 for a new unlocked iPhone 4S! How many people would actually pay that if they had to? Seems like it would be a net-loss for cell phone manufacturers if they had to have their own "stores" and people had to pay the upfront full price on the phones before they got service.

quote:
This way phone makers compete on how well their phones are made and what they can do


I would argue that, for the most part, this is already the case.


By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:22:26 PM , Rating: 3
There is no incentive to buy phones out of contract because the cell carriers have taken away any incentive. I would GLADLY pay $600-$800 for a cell phone if it meant a cheaper monthly cell phone bill. As it stands you don't save anywhere nearly enough money to justify the up front increase in costs.

That's the reason no one buys smart phones out of contract.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:27:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I would GLADLY pay $600-$800 for a cell phone if it meant a cheaper monthly cell phone bill.


You're in the vast minority though. And please, don't pretend you aren't. Our society has proven time and again, they rather borrow debt and finance it back slowly, than making a large initial purchase and save up-front.

The average person would MUCH rather pay $10 or $20 more a month, than $800 up front. That's a fact.


By Kurz on 1/26/2012 9:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
The Cost to make these phones (Smart phones) is no more than 300 dollars in Materials, I would assume thinking about marketing & Design costs a very good Profit price point would be $500. The actual cost maybe much lower than this.

Though your argument forgets we are forced into this current pricing scheme of Paying as we go. Because the Carriers and phone makers don't want you to buy everything seperately, they make much more money keeping everything buddled into two year long term contracts. They further more incentivize us to buy into these contracts by making the phones expensive to own.

Its clearly we have a lack of choice in this arrangement, though I wonder what laws are in place currently that enables this to happen, or what Laws we could write that would allow a more competitive enviornment.


By mcnabney on 1/26/2012 9:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
You are talking about manufacturing costs alone. All of those wireless chips have hefty licensing fees. Plus, I'm pretty sure Apple spent some money to develop, test, and advertise these products.

In fact, smartphone markup is pretty much in-line with other electronics. And it is MUCH lower than something like a bag of potato chips. You pay $3 for a bag of chips that costs the manufacture 25 cents to prepare and package - 12x markup between manufacturing and the consumer vs 2x with an iProduct.


By Kurz on 1/26/2012 10:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
I already took it account of the costs,
Of course my cost estamation is just a guess, The costs probably will be a large range depending on the customer wants and price points.

iphone 4S costs $190 in materials alone. (Just for comparison sake)

I just don't agree with the fact phones are going to cost 600-800 dollars, they probably cost around an Entry level Laptop.


By sprockkets on 1/25/2012 9:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
I just paid $300 for a near new HTC Sensation, and pay only $30 a month, with only sales tax for 1500 min or txts + 30MB of data. If I need more, I can go up to $70 for 5GB of 4G data and after that it is speed capped and unlimited everything else.

Otherwise, I'd be paying ~$60 a month just for 200MB of data and 500minutes. That sucks.


By tayb on 1/25/2012 6:50:41 PM , Rating: 1
Regulation is keeping the market place competitive. Nothing stifles innovation more than a lack of competition.

I see both sides here and I would rather have the reality where Sprint is free loading than the reality of Sprint not being able to compete and being eaten up by AT&T or Verizon.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 6:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint can compete just fine. They are choosing not to because they no longer even have to try in those areas. Hello?

And you can't effectively regulate competition. You can try, sure, but it won't work. It never does.

Your use of the imagery "eaten up" by AT&T or Verizon is also a deflection because it implies Sprint is somehow blameless from their own business failings. If Sprint can't compete, it certainly isn't anyone else's fault.

I swear the use of caveman logic on Daily Tech is astounding. I feel dumber for having been here half the time. It's like the average person uses this checklist to determine which side to pick.

1. Is party/company A larger than party/company B?
2. Does party/company A profit more than party/company B?
3. If the answer to any of the above is "yes", deduce that party/company A is a hostile entity you must be against.


By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
Can't legislate a competitive market place? Ever heard of anti-trust laws? You certainly CAN legislate a competitive market. It's been happening for hundreds of years in the US.

The fact that Sprint is doing this in Oklahoma PROVES that they can't compete in some areas. It's too expensive for them. They don't have enough cash flow or capital.

Sprint's inability to compete is largely irrelevant. It would be harmful for US consumers if they disappeared from the market. Extremely harmful.

I'm astounded at how smart you think you are. Have you ever been wrong?


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 1
So Sprint now is "too big to fail"? I think I remember that being said about some banks and a few auto companies. As I recall that didn't work out too good for the country.

quote:
It would be harmful for US consumers if they disappeared from the market. Extremely harmful.


False. Economics 101. If Sprint doesn't have enough capital and can't expand, they are consuming resources that could otherwise be used elsewhere. THAT is what's harmful to markets.


By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
You don't know how it would have worked out if we let those companies fail. Sprint isn't bankrupt and this isn't a bailout so the comparison isn't valid anyway. It's a bone being thrown to a smaller carrier to help them remain competitive.

What is harmful to consumers is having an non-competitive market place. It's a race to see who can charge more if Verizon and AT&T are running the show.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:22:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What is harmful to consumers is having an non-competitive market place. It's a race to see who can charge more if Verizon and AT&T are running the show.


Verizon is the biggest carrier and they've ALWAYS charged more. What in the world are you talking about? If competitive pricing was utmost in consumers minds, Smart-Talk and T-Mobile would be GIANTS!

Pretending that Sprint is the only thing keeping the country from devolving into a post-apocalyptic cellular rape-fest is an idiotic fantasy.

quote:
It's a bone being thrown to a smaller carrier to help them remain competitive.


Contradictory. You say this is just a "bone being thrown", then go on to claim it's all that's saving Sprint from epic doom. Which is it?


By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
If I have to explain how the loss of the cheapest carrier in the market would negatively effect consumers I don't see a point in continuing this discussion.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
Pushing a false premise isn't a discussion. It's ignorant. You're so ignorant in fact, you improperly proclaimed Sprint as the "cheapest carrier". When, in fact, that is T-Mobile.

Actually I'm not even sure you realize T-Mobile still exists by your wild claims that there's only one or two carriers in the country.

Also there's a huge logic-fail on your part because you insist cheapest prices are critical in this market, while ignoring that the two cheapest carriers are the ones in financial trouble. How do you explain that one?


By teacherlee on 1/25/2012 9:20:46 PM , Rating: 1
I don't even know why anyone continues to discuss ANYTHING with you. There could be a post here about orange juice, and your post would eventually attempt to turn the conversation into:

1. Government bad.
2. Freemarket is perfect and wonderful.
3. Obama is satan.
4. Liberals are stupid.
5. You are right on everything and know it all (as you said here "I ALWAYS understand.)
6. Bush was pretty good.
7. Democrats are always at fault.
8. Fox News is fair and balanced.

It's really almost funny.


By teacherlee on 1/26/2012 11:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Umm try again. I created a separate account because one won't let me post (it keeps saying that I'm posting spam and I've already contacted DT about it), and the new account doesn't let me rate, I know you're a republiCON, but everything isn't a conspiracy.


By Kurz on 1/26/2012 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 1
Freemarket is far from perfect... but its closer to an Ideal world that anything that a politicion can cook up.

Liberals are stupid, I've debated and tried to have logical arguments backed up with History and facts. They ignored it and kept speaking talking points. At least I attempt to look up my info, Liberals take everything on face value.

The rest I pretty much I agree with.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberals are stupid, I've debated and tried to have logical arguments backed up with History and facts. They ignored it and kept speaking talking points. At least I attempt to look up my info, Liberals take everything on face value.


That's because Liberals don't base their opinions on facts, history, or common sense. They FEEL a utopia is possible, and when you bring up Liberalism's failures, they dismiss them because they think that proves it wasn't done the "right" way. If they could just get it "right", the Liberalist utopia awaits. Never-mind the fact that you can't do something inherently wrong the right way.

Look around. Liberalism, State ism, Socialism - what have you - is collapsing all around the world. And these people think it's a good idea to follow their example? European debt crisis is SIX TIMES bigger than the one that hit the U.S in 2008-2009.


By Just Tom on 1/26/2012 7:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
When the cheapest carrier on the market is also the one supposedly unable to compete in the 31st largets metro area in the US perhaps the problem is their price structure and not AT&T or Verizon.


By mcnabney on 1/26/2012 9:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sprint's problem is that you get what you pay for, or worse.

Has anyone mentioned that Sprint is Headquartered in KC. They are pulling out of their home market. How pathetic is that?


By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the cheapest carrier on the market is also the one supposedly unable to compete in the 31st largets metro area in the US perhaps the problem is their price structure and not AT&T or Verizon.


BINGO!


By Just Tom on 1/26/2012 7:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that Sprint is doing this in Oklahoma PROVES that they can't compete in some areas. It's too expensive for them.


It does nothing of the sort. What it proves is Sprint made a smart business decision by choosing the lower cost option. The mere fact they did so does not proof they could not have added capacity.


By txpatriot on 1/25/2012 7:27:37 PM , Rating: 3
Regulation = competition? Goodness talk about "Newspeak" -- have you read "1984"?

And regulation encourages innovation? SMH . . .


By rrburton on 1/26/2012 7:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget about the other side of the equation where sprint doesn't deploy it's spectrum but it sells iPhones to its customers who roam on the other carriers networks. With all that extra demand on the spectrum but no increment deployed quality suffers, you will get more dropped calls, slower dl speeds,etc. and for that privelidge you get to pay roaming fees.

So how is that good for the consumer?


By Invane on 1/26/2012 11:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
The current state of the market is based on this same government regulatory crap. AT&T and company are happy to whine and complain when regulation isn't in their best interest, but you don't hear a damn thing from them as they reap the benefits of all the regulation that is underwritten by their checkbooks. That's not to mention the amount of subsidized tax dollars they receive one way or another.


By bh192012 on 1/26/2012 5:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't they remove a regulation to setup this situation?

"The first is the U.S. Federal Communication Commission's 2010 decision to eliminate the "Home Market Rule", which prevented carriers from forcing rivals into compulsory roaming agreements in regions they owned spectrum (AT&T voiced its frustration at the time). The elimination means that even though Sprint owns spectrum in these two metropolitan regions, it can refuse to use that spectrum, instead renting it out and relying on compulsory roaming from AT&T."

Now Sprint can compete the same way that MetroPCS or other smaller services do in areas they don't have proper infrastructure. The only difference is Sprint owns spectrum, why should that matter? At least that's how it seems to me, but I'm no wireless buff, so if there is some other angle here I'm willing to look at it.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 8:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
How the hell can you "force" someone into a roaming agreement? The entire premise of this regulation is ridiculous. Doing business is now being "forced into compulsory" agreements?

You know I hate that I was forced into a "compulsory rental" agreement by my landlord. It's really unfair. Clearly I need regulation to fix this injustice.

quote:
Now Sprint can compete the same way that MetroPCS or other smaller services do in areas they don't have proper infrastructure.


Sprint is the third largest carrier in the nation! They CAN compete. And comparing them to MetroPCS is just laughable.


By Motoman on 1/26/2012 10:29:12 AM , Rating: 1
I'd even go farther and say that the bottom-level tier should be a government, or quasi-government service...like roads and perhaps telephone lines.

The basis of the service is a common need for all - then let private companies compete on the top 2 levels to leverage that public infrastructure to compete for business.


By Motoman on 1/26/2012 10:29:22 AM , Rating: 1
I'd even go farther and say that the bottom-level tier should be a government, or quasi-government service...like roads and perhaps telephone lines.

The basis of the service is a common need for all - then let private companies compete on the top 2 levels to leverage that public infrastructure to compete for business.


The alternatives aren't good either
By tayb on 1/25/2012 6:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
You either let Sprint do this and remain competitive or you don't and watch them fade into bankruptcy and out of the market. Which will lead to AT&T and Verizon high fiving and raising prices higher than you can imagine.

If you don't like either of those you can go with a third plan which is that the federal government owns all airwaves and funds the construction of wireless networks. Any company, for a fee, a tax, and a revenue percentage, can access the network anywhere the network exists. Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and everyone else would have to compete on service, support, and pricing.

No one wants the third idea because it would be a huge expansion of government power and people will start throwing out the socialism word when it doesn't even apply.

Of the three options I would say Sprint free loading or the government taking over wireless construction are the most desirable outcomes. They both suck. Oh well.




RE: The alternatives aren't good either
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint is going to fade into bankruptcy because they don't offer service to less than half of a percent of the U.S population?


By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:11:39 PM , Rating: 3
It's a water fall. No carrier could possibly compete if they are crossing entire cities or areas of the country off of their "we offer service here" map.


This explains it...
By Sisyphean77 on 1/25/2012 6:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
As a Sprint user in the Kansas City area this explains why I can no longer make calls from my house without dropping signal.

Pretty sad decision on Sprint's part considering Overland Park (a suburb of KC) is their home office.

I might as well switch to AT&T or Verizon when my contract is up because Sprint is not long for this world.




RE: This explains it...
By mcnabney on 1/26/2012 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
Sprint has always been pathetic in KC. I have tons of friends that use Sprint in KC (because they work for them or have a friend that does which allows them to get amazing pricing). They pay a pittance, but their phone never seems to work. Inside a building - no bars. At any major event - can't connect.

Sprint has lost money every quarter for six years. You can't hemorrhage a couple billion dollars a year forever. Sprint will get bought-out this year.


Something to think about.
By kg4icg on 1/27/2012 12:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Sprint and AT&T can't roam on each others networks, so this isn't really a story to harp on considering Sprint is CDMA and AT&T is GSM. If Sprint is roaming it would be under Verizons and not AT&T.




RE: Something to think about.
By Icebain on 1/27/2012 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not true, AT&T uses a multi-mode network combining CDMA for data and GSM for voice communications. That's why you can "surf the internet" and talk on the phone at the same time.


I agree..
By liaptsumer88 on 1/25/2012 10:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint is worthless. By far the worst telecom company. I agree 100% with AT&T..
____
Lia
http://www.tech-bargain.com




Proof-reading
By Galcobar on 1/26/2012 1:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
First sentence:

"America's number second and third"

America's second and third largest, or America's number two and number three by size.




Sprint has always sucked
By talikarni on 1/27/2012 1:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
When it first started, Sprint was a decent cell provider.. but rather than expand and cover as much area as possible like the others have done, they started offloading their cell signals to other providers. Since then their signals have gone tot he trash and I certainly hope a decent company buys their failing system and makes it a real competitor in the US and hopefully drop that crappy AT&T network further down the list, who themselves actually freeload off Verizons excellent network. AT&T actually passes along a lot of the "freeloading" from other carriers onto the Verizon network, which was one big thing with the poor 3G service since the phones kept wanting to hop networks unless the person specifically set the setting to only use the AT&T network for cell and 3G service.




By okcountryboy on 1/27/2012 8:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why would anyone (at least anyone that is reasonable) think this is good. Sprint has told us in rural America that we don't care anything about you. Pulling their service out of just rural areas is telling us that we don't like and could care less about people in the country. This isn't anything about poor old sprint and woe is me, i'm just a little company that needs help from the FCC. They are screwing the folks in rural areas and that is exactly what's happening. They say it won't affect us, but read your terms and conditions, they reserve the right to terminate your contract if you go over their criteria! Hell of a concept, to be able to run a business and not have to invest a damn dime......thank you OBAMA...the FCC is helping you destroy our rural economy.




Attitude is Everything
By TileGuyJesse on 1/30/2012 8:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T is the new Apple




Sprint=Waste of $
By gusharu on 2/22/2012 10:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T is in the right here. Sprint treats their customers like s*** and this is mainly why they are failing.
___
Gus
http://www.chrome-theme.org




Girl Fight!!!!
By Arsynic on 1/25/2012 4:14:27 PM , Rating: 1
Some wireless industry lobbyists prevented other wireless industry lobbyists from getting one step closer to the industry becoming a cartel.

Verizon and AT&T wouldn't mind being the DeBeers of wireless.




By regrup on 1/28/2012 12:35:29 PM , Rating: 1
Must be a reason you got your name "idiot77", because that's exactlyt what you are. You would rather the government tell us what do to for everything. Why don't you just move out of the United States of America! Here we like to rely on our own hard work, investment, sweat, ingenuity to get things done! We don't need others to tell us what to do. Especially the good ol' FCC! They say things one time and change them the next, that so-called organization is the biggest bunch of SHIT to the American people as any organization in the government! They pick and choose who can do what, when, where and how. That is adamently wrong! There are tons of choices in the wireless world and one company shouldn't have to share resources with anyone if "i" choice not too, whether it's a big OR small company.....who cares, it's their network, it's not the governments or anyone elses, IT'S THEIRS! In this particular case, Sprint has decided not to invest in particular areas.....then fine, if they don't want to invest in a network that it takes to use their services then...SEE YA! So close your stores, lay off your employees and just say we aren't going to play in these towns and cities. Don't come out and say, "This doesn't mean anything to customers.....customers won't be affected. When they know good and well that those customers WILL BE negatively affected.

Idiot77, you are exactly what your login says you are.....you and your liberal friends should take a hike and get the hell out of the way of business that want to invest, want to grow jobs....actually want to do the things that obama says but NEVER WILL! We need REAL LEADERSHIP to help business grow that want to, and weed out the likes of SPRINT who just cry and cry......woe is me, i need help, i can't build a tower, FCC would you please help me...pretty please......i'm just a whittle guy...

FCC grow up! get out of the way and let business do what it knows best, invest, grow jobs, GROW THE ECOMONY! This industry has the potential to do incredible things for the United States Economy, more than any other sector, so get out of it's way and we'll all be able to see and experience things that we've never seen before......almost every business small,medium or large will be able to do things to help them grow jobs (all due to this industry). There are so many people out of work, that want to work, FCC get out of the way and let this industry take off....open spectrum and let whoever wants to play!




If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: If I'm AT&T
By stm1185 on 1/25/2012 4:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah this whole FFC bullshit just does not make any sense. Why would you pay to build a new LTE network when you can just use someone else's at far less cost.

Where is the incentive to advance your infrastructure if you are going to incur all the costs and your competitors are going to get access to it?

Sprint should not build any new infrastructure then. They should use ATT's and Verizon's and then they can sell their iPhones with access to ATT's faster network or their Windows and Android phones on Verizon LTE. Paying far less then rolling out their own LTE network, and being able to completely match ATT and Verizon on speed and coverage and reliability. Yet since they dont have to cover the infrastructure costs, they should be able to charge less, possibly even giving unlimited data and leaving ATT and Verizon to figure out how to manage their infrastructure with that level of data usage.

The FCC is insane. Socialist nut job insane.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By tayb on 1/25/2012 6:46:46 PM , Rating: 5
Sprint has to pay for the use of the network. You know that right?

The alternative is Sprint and T-Mobile get squeezed out of the market and we are left with AT&T and Verizon in a race to see who can charge more.

I'd rather have the FCC throwing bones to Sprint than the AT&T/Verizon reality.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 6:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sprint has to pay for the use of the network. You know that right?


Okay lets play a game. Give me a round number projection of what it would cost for Sprint to provide service to those areas themselves.

Then look at the payment they make to AT&T. Hmmm I wonder which option benefits Sprint more?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By tayb on 1/25/2012 6:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Congrats on ignoring the rest of the post.

It's an unfair evil I'm willing to tolerate.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The alternative is Sprint and T-Mobile get squeezed out of the market and we are left with AT&T and Verizon in a race to see who can charge more.


No you just don't seem to understand. Read between the lines. This is a market that Sprint has determined isn't worth investing in because the profit margin just isn't there. AT&T, however, DID invest in the area and is providing service to it.

Nobody got squeezed out of anything. Sprint took the easy, and greedy way out. And they got rewarded for doing it by the FCC, at the expense of AT&T.

But I know I know. This is Daily Tech and everyone hates AT&T because they beat your favorite puppy and pissed in your breakfast cereal or something.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
You're reading what you want to read because you are on some "anti-socialism" crusade. The truth of the matter is that Sprint can't AFFORD to continue building up their network in places like Oklahoma City because they don't have the MONEY. Whether that is due to bad investments, poor management, or whatever is irrelevant. Not having them competing in that market is BAD for consumers. What about that do you not understand?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth of the matter is that Sprint can't AFFORD to continue building up their network in places like Oklahoma City because they don't have the MONEY.


Please! Their 2010 and 2011 profits are in the billions.

quote:
Not having them competing in that market is BAD for consumers. What about that do you not understand?


YOU don't understand simple economics or even common sense. How is it better for consumers to have a non-competitive entity that's consuming more resources than it's producing!!??


RE: If I'm AT&T
By tayb on 1/25/2012 7:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah Sprint is doing so well it is searching for an $8 billion loan to continue funding their LTE build out.

You continue to ignore the fact that Sprint acts as a blockade that stops Verizon and AT&T from ballooning their prices. That $100 AT&T iPhone plan? Try $150. Sprint's existence keeps the market in check which is good for consumers.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 7:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You continue to ignore the fact that Sprint acts as a blockade that stops Verizon and AT&T from ballooning their prices. That $100 AT&T iPhone plan? Try $150. Sprint's existence keeps the market in check which is good for consumers.


That's NOT the point. I'm not ignoring it, it's just not relevant. Although if that's the case, than maybe Sprint should raise their prices. What's the point of being cheaper if you can't profit enough to keep the doors open? Man you REALLY need an economics course, for the love of everything.

You seem to be saying that because you think that's the case, the ends automatically justify the means. Are you 12?

quote:
Yeah Sprint is doing so well it is searching for an $8 billion loan to continue funding their LTE build out.


/facepalm

Sigh...I'm a glutton for punishment, but here goes...

EVERYONE takes out loans for things like this. It's a smart business move. Verizon, your nemesis, once borrowed $8 BILLION (with a B) to acquire Altell just two years ago.

Very few companies, including Verizon, has enough cash on hand to spend billions in capital outright. They secure loans! They don't sit on their hands and let markets pass them by. They take risks, they expand, they explore opportunities and make stuff happen.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Church of Dirac on 1/26/2012 3:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how people (except maybe Sprint shareholders) can support this plan. A company invests heavily in a limited resource and then is expected to share it with the competition because they competition chose not to invest. It's as if Chevy closed their factories and forced Ford to make Suburbans instead of Explorers in Ford's factories. Ford prices go up since they have absorbed all of Chevy's overhead while Chevy customers probably get a slight price break while Chevy profits skyrocket. How is that remotely fair? I guess Intel should have to make AMD and ARM chips at cost too. And your neighbor should be able to take your car (a limited resource) when ever he wants to just as long as he fills up the tank. Who cares if you worked hard, saved, and invested (AT&T towers) and he spent all his money on drugs and booze (Sprint $25 billion iphone deal)?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Because they're biased against AT&T, and Liberal in nature. That's why they support this. In their minds it's always a good thing when the Government steps in and keeps the big bad bullying evil corporations down.

quote:
It's as if Chevy closed their factories and forced Ford to make Suburbans instead of Explorers in Ford's factories. Ford prices go up since they have absorbed all of Chevy's overhead while Chevy customers probably get a slight price break while Chevy profits skyrocket. How is that remotely fair?


Exactly! That is exactly what this is like.

quote:
Who cares if you worked hard, saved, and invested (AT&T towers) and he spent all his money on drugs and booze (Sprint $25 billion iphone deal)?


LOL yeah, good call Sprint. They can make a 25 billion iPhone deal but can't provide service even where their home freaking office resides!? Come on.

But they won't let facts get in the way. Somehow it's all AT&T's fault and we have to keep Sprint on their feet no matter how many colossal business failures they make.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By geddarkstorm on 1/25/2012 4:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
This is pretty absurd. What would people say if Sears lobbied for regulation forcing JCPenney to use its trucks to move Sears goods to store locations Sears didn't want to truck to itself?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By LordSojar on 1/25/2012 4:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
I am AT&T... as a stockholder... I'm going to voice my opinion on this scheiße. Sprint is free loading and abusing that regulation. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not only mortified this is happening, but here proves why some regulations are idiotic beyond all logical reasoning. AT&T built and maintains the network. They own it, and should not be forced to give anyone else access unless they want to.

This is equivalent to me building a playground for my children and my neighbor (who I hate) uses some stupid loophole to claim that it should be for municipal use and that his children be given unlimited access to it provided a tiny amount of money is paid to me. BTW, my playground cost me $17,000 and he is only obligated to pay me $10/month... I think not!

Sprint ruined the buyout of TMobile, which could have really helped AT&T with spectrum... but NOOOOO, everyone had to pile on AT&T because they're the bad guy... well guess what? Verizon is far more devious than AT&T. Take a peek at your bill and you'll quickly see why. You pay for that #1 position they're in; you pay a lot for it.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By idiot77 on 1/25/2012 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 5
As always, you don't understand why these rules exist.

The airwave's are the people's. We license them to companies on a competitive bid. It comes with strings attached? Why? I'll explain since everything is a communist/socialist overthrow to you.

This is the government's way of preventing monopolies in rural areas, in the lateral sense. It is also a way to prevent monopolies in the longitudinal sense also. It's not good for consumers to have a company like Verizon or AT&T to own everything from backbone to delivery to service. This is why "Ma Bell" was broken up and the long distance companies were permitted to compete for business. Now they are doing it with wireless.

Surprised? Yeah I bet you, not that you'll admit it. It's actually quite smart to do this. If AT&T didn't want to be a backbone provider, they didn't have to be. They could have read the rules.

So what's more pro-market? Giving customers choice or permitting companies to create mini-monopolies? Who's the commie now?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: If I'm AT&T
By idiot77 on 1/25/2012 5:12:22 PM , Rating: 3
You are so literally minded it's painful.

In the medical world we have RNs and we have DO/MDs. RNs know the first step. DO/MDs know why things work and all the subsequent steps. You are the RN of the everything on DT. You never understand the second step.

You're the type of fool that would think that contracting out a homeless shelter would be a better use of money than permitting the local government in the theory somehow they could do more efficiently. Which is a joke.

They did sell spectrum, they licensed it. Additionally, they won't free load on it, they have to pay for it and I bet it has a margin built in... like all rules like this.

"mini-monopoly" was in quotes for a reason. If you have the only tower in an area, and you claim exclusive rights to it, and for whatever reasons nobody else can build in that area, you just no created a "mini-monopoly".

This happens constantly in health care. That's why we needed reform. Most states had ONE insurer, often BCBS. The law opens up the markets more readily. I'm sure you have some irrational hate for that too but whatever.

I'm quite tired of you. It's getting to the point I don't even like reading the comments on DT because you and a select 1 or 2 others just won't bother to understand or listen to *anything*. Mick doesn't help either.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: If I'm AT&T
By omnicronx on 1/25/2012 5:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. I wish that were the case. The airwaves are the FCC's. Who are made up of people we cannot vote in or out of their position. So "we the people" have absolutely no say in how things go.
Which proves what? The fact is the airwaves are owned by the public, the fact that there is a small body of people that regulate said airwaves without the input of the public does not change this. Any way you want to put it, AT&T has licensed the spectrum for use from the FCC and thus the public.
quote:
It's a little late for that, isn't it? The FCC sold spectrum to these companies. These companies in turn spent billions and billions building an infrastructure, and they have every RIGHT to expect a profit on that. It's a little late to come in at this point and say "well it's not good you did that. You have to let your competition freeload off your network"
They also spent billions and billions of public money, please don't forget this. Not only is the public footing part of the bill in taxes, but they also foot the other part in cell phone service. Please also point me to the ruling where it stated that they have the right to expect a profit. For all intents and purposes it makes little sense to enter such a market if profitability is not possible, but it is hardly their right to do so.
quote:
You're only focusing on one side of the equation and being typically closed minded. The situation is far from the one or the other approach you insist it is. You cannot claim a rule that compels your business to share property and goods with another a pro-market solution. It's a regulatory burden, and an unfair one at that.
You are clearly missing the picture. There is only so much spectrum. Said spectrum is owned by the public and operated by a public entity. Allowing a licensee to operate as the sole provider in an area merely because of a lack of available spectrum, they are in essence a virtual monopoly.

This is what these laws were intented for, not to allow Sprint to essentially biggyback on their network. (which for all intents and purposes is likely not a burden and all and probably makes AT&T more money as roaming rates are terribly expensive) Clearly some holes need to be closed, but please stop making it out as though this is some kind of free market tragedy when the laws are clearly in place to protect consumers from monopolistic activity.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
LOL anytime someone questions Government meddling, you minions throw the word "monopoly" at them, even when it doesn't apply.

This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with a monopoly. Or consumer protection for that matter. Sprint is pulling out of entire areas because the law makes AT&T foot the bill for a competitors expenses. If by protection you mean being protected from Sprints greed to maximize profits by not investing and expanding, then I guess you could say that


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Invane on 1/26/2012 11:37:33 AM , Rating: 1
You seem to have missed responding to pretty much every one of his points and focused on demonizing the 'monopoly' word.

He's correct on pretty much all counts. The biggest being it's not like AT&T is reaching deep into its own pockets to do this. They are subsidized massively on everything from tax breaks to government loans. All that network capacity AT&T is bitching about having to share? Built heavily on our tax dollars.

I'd be far more sympathetic to AT&T's position if this infrastructure was actually funded by them.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By LordSojar on 1/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: If I'm AT&T
By Salisme on 1/26/2012 6:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
The reason I disagree with you is Sprint is buying "time" off of AT&T for the areas of non-coverage at roaming costs. Now, I live 5 minutes from Canada, and I can tell you roaming is holy-hell-high expensive. And if these people living in this area are getting service at normal subscription costs, but in turn Sprint is paying AT&T roaming fees, I'd have to suggest that AT&T is making bank. Math is a bit rough here, but 6 million people, all on roaming, kids sending 100 txt messages a day, uploading pics to facebook, friends and family rates, all being paid as roaming towards AT&T, thanks to Sprint, is going to equal a lot of freaking money.

AT&T is breaking the bank and crying for bad publicity against Sprint.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By mcnabney on 1/26/2012 9:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
The rates in these forced roaming areas are required to be low. AT&T is really getting screwed here because they don't have enough capacity to service their own customers, much less a bunch of low-paying Sprint moochers.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're such an idiot. If AT&T was making a lot of "freaking money" from this, they sure as hell wouldn't have a problem with it! Where is your common sense?

The regulation is forcing them to give Sprint usage at a fee that's FAR below fair market value. Get a clue!

quote:
Now, I live 5 minutes from Canada


You might as well head north for 5 minutes and become a full fledged Canadian, since you're already one in spirit.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Salisme on 1/26/2012 8:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Personal attacks, really? Thats the best you can do?

quote:
The new rules don't set prices for the roaming agreements, allowing carriers to negotiate commercially reasonable rates. But the rules set up an arbitration process at the FCC if two carriers can't come to an agreement.


AT&T set the roaming price in the agreement you idiot. Let me repeat that, AT&T set the price, after they set the price, they ran to the media and cried foul.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/040711-fcc-r...

Anything else, troll?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 9:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Reasonable rates". AT&T was forced to set a cheaper rate than they would have normally. AT&T should be free to set a rate on Sprint that's prohibitively high. To encourage Sprint to build up their own network and stop freeloading.

Whatever Sprint is paying, it's not the billions of dollars they otherwise would be to provide service to their customers. Instead they chose to give 25 billion to Apple and then pretend they're some small little "rural" provider that needs help.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By swankygirl on 1/27/2012 9:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Geez Canada, if you are going to make comments on how the rates are set, then you need to KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! AT&T doesn't get to set whatever rate they want to charge, the rate that has been set that they get to charge Sprint is FAR BELOW what it takes to maintain it!


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Lord you nailed it all so perfectly. Don't ever change, no matter what the idiots who downrate us think.

quote:
If this is the case, I demand access to your kitchen because mine isn't serving me well... and the decor is dreadful. So, I get to use your kitchen 5 days per week for 4 hours at a time or 7 days per week for 3 hours at a time. I'll pay you... oh, I dunno.... little or nothing for this. It's because I belong to the Rural Chef's Society. PS: My name is Iron Chef Mario Batali... I'm totally a rural chef!


LOL I love it. Bravo :)

Sprint is engaging in regulatory abuse of a measure that was agreed on in good faith. It can't get more cut and dry than this, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. Fact, not opinion.

quote:
Sprint isn't a rural carrier.... They are the 3rd largest carrier in the US. This is regulatory abuse if ever there was. It's shameful that you're down rating posts that go against Sprint or aren't "OMG AT&T IS EVIL AND SUCKS SO MUCH"


+5. It's just amazing people can be so biased that reality is foreign to them. The ignorance on this topic is, honestly, shocking.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By crimson117 on 1/25/2012 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
You seem familiar with this stuff... is there any chance the regulation was instated as an alternative to anti-trust actions against AT&T?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Just Tom on 1/26/2012 7:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
How on earth could an anti-trust action be brought against the number 2 carrier?


RE: If I'm AT&T
By KOOLTIME on 1/25/2012 5:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T is stupid in this remark. As if a emergency took out your city and your carriers ability to work in that city you would have to use another free roaming carrier just to dial 911.

No single carrier has 100% USA every inch of space covered by their networks currently, even the mighty AT&T shares space in places, so they cant cry about freeloading.

Cant allow carriers to block free roaming either, as none have 100% complete coverage, so in an emergency event, you would be forced to use a free roaming other carrier if that emergency took out your local system. So you would even be able to place that 911 call for help when that happens.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 5:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
That's not what's going on here though. This isn't an issue where we have a bit of roaming here or there, that's fine. This is the problem.

The dispute comes down to Sprint's decision to pull out of the Oklahoma City, Okla. (metro population: 580k; rural population: 1.25m) and Kansas City, Miss./Kans. (metro population: 100k; rural population: 2.03m) in terms of a first-party infrastructure provider. Instead, in these traditionally weak areas in Sprint's network, Sprint will rely on compulsory roaming agreements with its rival AT&T, using AT&T's infrastructure to serve its customers.

Here we have Sprint actively deciding to not even TRY to provide for millions of customers, because the FCC told AT&T that they have to. Do you not see the problem here?

Again, the original intention of the rules might have been noble. That's well and good. But Sprint is abusing the intent of the ruling in order to blatantly freeload.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Ryrod on 1/25/2012 6:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here we have Sprint actively deciding to not even TRY to provide for millions of customers, because the FCC told AT&T that they have to. Do you not see the problem here?


Well, from the way I read it, if I was Sprint, I would do the same thing. It sounds as though Sprint's presence in those areas are weak compared to AT&T. It's probably more cost-efficient to pay the money for AT&T to maintain the towers and for Sprint customers to use those towers, as opposed to maintaining an expensive tower for a small number of customers.

quote:
Again, the original intention of the rules might have been noble. That's well and good. But Sprint is abusing the intent of the ruling in order to blatantly freeload.


The rules are noble, but it almost sounds as though AT&T is complaining for no reason. AT&T does the same thing to Sprint in areas where AT&T is weak. For instance, in my area, it is rural and the only two providers are Verizon and Sprint (along with a handful of smaller regional carriers). If someone moves here in the future that is on the AT&T network, they will have to run off another network like Sprint or Verizon. It doesn't make sense for AT&T to setup a tower out here when they will only be serving a small number of current customers. Setting up a tower out here would be cost-inefficient.

I'm sure Sprint is looking at the same situation in OK and KS as AT&T is looking at in my area. It is better for Sprint to pay the market negotiated rate for its customers than to setup and maintain a cost-inefficient tower. It isn't freeloading so much as smart business practices that are based upon an agency rule intended to promote nationwide communication.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 6:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, from the way I read it, if I was Sprint, I would do the same thing.


Hell yes! It's like the AT&T guy said: "Sprint can now use other folks' networks rather than pony up its own investment dollars. Nice work if you can get it."

Sure it's smart, but it isn't right. I think the crux of the issue is this:

quote:
Sprint fails to address the criticism that it's exploiting its membership in the Rural Carrier Association. Critics say Sprint isn't a rural carrier at all, but only joined the group to gain regulatory favors. These critics allege that the membership allows Sprint to abuse federal regulations that are meant to look out for the "little guys" when in fact it is a top competitor.


Now I don't fully understand all the details. But it looks as though Sprint, who's never been rural or small, somehow got on a special "Rural Carrier Association" designed to help small rural providers. Which in turn they are using to blatantly freeload off AT&T. If this is accurate, something just isn't right here. Sprint is a giant, not a small rural provider.

I think AT&T has a legitimate point here. I would really like to know who Sprint payed off to get a gig like that.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Ryrod on 1/25/2012 7:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I don't fully understand all the details. But it looks as though Sprint, who's never been rural or small, somehow got on a special "Rural Carrier Association" designed to help small rural providers. Which in turn they are using to blatantly freeload off AT&T. If this is accurate, something just isn't right here. Sprint is a giant, not a small rural provider.


RCA is a lobbying group that is focused on promoting policies in the the FCC and Congress that allows its members (primarily rural and regional carriers) to compete with the larger wireless providers. Sprint is an affiliate member and in theory, Verizon and AT&T could become members as well.

The main crux of the issue goes back to the FCC rule saying that carriers must provide roaming based upon "commercially reasonable terms." Sprint is simply using this rule (lobbied for by the RCA) to reduce infrastructure costs because maintaining a tower in the area would cost more money than they could obtain from subscribers. As such, Sprint would rather pay AT&T money for its subscribers to use the tower that AT&T already leases or owns. Just think of it like economies of scale with Sprint jumping on board with AT&T to reduce the average cost of supporting subscribers.

AT&T is just complaining because if Sprint couldn't do this, Sprint subscribers would be forced to sign up with AT&T. I understand the complaint by AT&T, but if AT&T's service was excellent in that area, Sprint subscribers would be joining AT&T regardless of whether this rule was in effect.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 8:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RCA is a lobbying group


I know but Jason Mick is usually all over that. I guess when lobbying hurts AT&T, it's suddenly not as evil or corrupt and we don't report it.

quote:
AT&T is just complaining because if Sprint couldn't do this, Sprint subscribers would be forced to sign up with AT&T.


Yes and I think it's a damn valid complaint. Don't you? The role of the Government isn't to pick which cell provider people choose.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Ryrod on 1/25/2012 10:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The role of the Government isn't to pick which cell provider people choose.


That's the thing, the government isn't picking which cell provider people choose. In this specific instance, they are increasing choice and competition and AT&T doesn't like it.

As I noted above, if people didn't like Sprint or AT&T service was so much better, we wouldn't be having this conversation because everybody that was on Sprint would have jumped ship by now. The people that are still using Sprint in these areas are one of the following camps: stuck in Sprint contracts for a little longer, fans of Sprint, or just hate AT&T. For people in those last two camps, it's not the government choosing which cell phone provider people use, but the people themselves. Now, I can understand the argument for the first camp, but that problem will resolve itself in 2 years or less.

quote:
Yes and I think it's a damn valid complaint. Don't you?


I understand the argument, but I don't think it is entirely valid. It is not as though AT&T is footing the bill for these subscribers. I'm sure that Sprint is paying AT&T a proportional amount of the cost of using and maintaining the tower for these Sprint subscribers.

I can all but guarantee that AT&T is doing the same to Sprint elsewhere in the country, but Sprint isn't complaining about it.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2012 10:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the thing, the government isn't picking which cell provider people choose.


Granted. I concede I went too far in that aspect.

quote:
In this specific instance, they are increasing choice and competition and AT&T doesn't like it.


I believe those things are best served through the free market. If AT&T broke a law, then the Government should step in. If this was an anti-trust issue, ditto. However in this case, I don't believe this situation warranted their involvement.

quote:
It is not as though AT&T is footing the bill for these subscribers. I'm sure that Sprint is paying AT&T a proportional amount of the cost of using and maintaining the tower for these Sprint subscribers.


I would have no problem if Sprint worked a deal out with AT&T on this. My issue, and theirs, is that they were FORCED to. Also there's ample competition in that area aside from Sprint, so I don't view this as a consumer protectionist issue either.

quote:
I can all but guarantee that AT&T is doing the same to Sprint elsewhere in the country, but Sprint isn't complaining about it.


I don't have info on that. If they are, this would have been the perfect opportunity for the Sprint spokesman to point that out.

Oh and by the way, hi Ryrod :) It's good debating with you again.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Icebain on 1/26/2012 11:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
Government regulation and doing business has a cost. This is a government research project into total costs of regulation upon business in the US in 2008. I can only imagine that costs have gone north of this some bit since then.
http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

Whether or not it is "ok" for them to do so is irrelevant but it's a cost of business. The simple fact that they're complaining about having to adhere to laws put in place to protect against monopolistic behavior, it's kind of absurd.

If it was not profitable for them to be there due to these regulations, maybe they should just pull out of the market too to make a statement. Or, would the end result be massive account closures and migration from one carrier to another. Ultimately, this is a matter of big boys not wanting to play with the little boys because the the big boys want to smash the face in of the little boys.

It's not that AT&T isnt getting compensated for the time that is being used on their network, they're just required to provide some air time.

So Sprint has 15% market share overall compared to AT&Ts 33-34%. Among national carriers, I would say that >2x the subscribers is a big roadblock to getting the income to expand their own network.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/technology/sprin...
http://www.trefis.com/stock/t/articles/74093/atts-...


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2012 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government regulation and doing business has a cost.


Damn right doing business has a cost. Like building cell towers and network infrastructure, Sprint! If the cost of doing business is too high, there's no such thing as having the right to enter it if you can't.

quote:
So Sprint has 15% market share overall compared to AT&Ts 33-34%. Among national carriers, I would say that >2x the subscribers is a big roadblock to getting the income to expand their own network.


But they can find 25 BILLION to give Apple. Hello? Don't talk to me about some goddamn roadblock! There obviously isn't one for Sprint.


RE: If I'm AT&T
By Just Tom on 1/26/2012 7:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure that Sprint is paying AT&T a proportional amount of the cost of using and maintaining the tower for these Sprint subscribers.


You're sure there is a situation where AT&T has existing capacity yet using Sprint's towers AND spring is being quiet about it? Unless Sprint is terrible at PR the first thing they would have done is issue a press release listing the areas where AT&T both has existing capacity AND is using Sprint's towers.

The math on this is pretty easy: It is cheaper for Sprint to use AT&T's tower than to upgrade theirs. If AT&T's costs to add bandwidth are similar to Sprint's, something I do not know, then the actual cost to AT&T to provide that bandwidth is higher than the cost to Sprint to use AT&T bandwidth. It is a smart business move by Sprint, it might actually have social benefit, but to think AT&T should not complain about this is in my opinion naive.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki