how-to block ads
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Sprint, or Clearwire? Correct, Sprint couldn't fund 100% of the rollout, but they probably contributed more than 51%. It is incorrect to state that Comcast/TWC had the largest contribution. It is however fair to say that all of the players allow the rollout to continue as Sprint couldn't do it themselves. | |
|  EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Sprint, or Clearwire? The 51% is the amount of the new Clearwire that Sprint will own, coming with it a controlling number of seats of the new company's board.
Actually, Comcast/TWC/Google/etc. will only own less than a quarter of the company. From what I've seen of the breakup, it goes something like this:
51% - Sprint
27% - CLWR shareholders
22% - Everyone else | |
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| without TWC or comcast or even Brighthouse this project wouldnt be going anywhere. Clearwire cant do it. their funding is limited and are were not planning any new cities until this project. Google is only in for the stock and to get more people on Google Apps.
So it is fair to say without CC and TWC this would not have the cash. They gave the most in cash. Sprint just gave what they already had. a network that could not operate and a brand name that won't be kept that they spent $$$$$ on getting out. Without the $$$$ to get the network rolling you have nothing. You need the $$$$ to make it work-even if you had the spectrum and tower sites and all the equipment. | |
| | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: Sprint, or Clearwire? Presenting speculation as fact is like putting lipstick on pig. You don't have any idea what the dollar amount of each of the other 22% of the investment was. For all you know it could have been 20% google and 2% everyone else or even 21$% venture capital and 1% google, time warner, comcast. You simply don't have the facts and asserting your speculation as fact is frankly stupid. | |
| | | |
|
