| Sprint is being killed by excessive "special access" charges The reason why Sprint has spotty coverage, and hence is losing subscribers, is that the incumbents (AT&T and Verizon) are engaged in anticompetitive practices that make it obscenely expensive for Sprint to deploy new towers. See my blog posting at
»bennett.com/blog/2009/06/whats-t···al-axes/
for an explanation of why this issue (on which the FCC has failed to act even though it's been considering it since 2005) is so important to preserving a choice of cellular carriers. |
|
|
|
| maybe sprint should be increasing coverage and revamping nextel .nextel still
uses dial up speed . att and verizon r building up there infrastructure n sprint does nothing. they need to listen to there customers. |
|
| reply to SuperWISP
Aren't you the one who ritually defends the unethical and monopolistic practices of landline ISPs? I guess when it affects *you* you'll argue for fairness, but when it affects everyone else you couldn't care less. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to SuperWISP
Sprint has spotty coverage as compared to AT&T? Maybe in Louisiana and Tennessee, but overall they have good coverage, especially with all of their roaming agreements. Most of the coverage maps I've seen show that Sprint is superior to AT&T. |
|
 TSWYOPremium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Optimum Online
·Bresnan Online
| I have to agree that Sprint has excellent coverage. I carry both a Sprint and Verizon phone... I live in Wyoming, lots of open areas... 9 out of 10 times if I am out in the wilderness I will have coverage on the Sprint phone and not the Verizon phone. Driving from Wyoming to Ohio I see the same thing, a lot stronger coverage on my sprint phone compared to my Verizon phone. |
|
| reply to SuperWISP
Pure propaganda. How much do you think a carrier should pay for T1s? Having managed projects for the three largest wireless carriers, I know for a fact that each carrier receives bulk discounts for access lines. Do you think an AT&T, Verizon or Qwest will not provide service for the true number lines that they are leasing?
If the cost is truly an issue, then why aren't the complainers building their own network? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to cable00
said by cable00 :
maybe sprint should be increasing coverage and revamping nextel .nextel still
uses dial up speed . att and verizon r building up there infrastructure n sprint does nothing. they need to listen to there customers.
Cold day in hell. There is no upgrade path for IDEN. WiDEN (24kbps to 96kbps through channel bonding) was disabled for higher voice capacity a few years ago. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to sides14
said by sides14:If the cost is truly an issue, then why aren't the complainers building their own network? They can't get the ROW touching insurance to apply to the PUC for a license, and the insurance companies won't give them ROW touching insurance unless they have a license from the PUC. Plus pole rental is $50 a pole per year, do the math, its impossible to run your own lines. |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Aren't you the one who ritually defends the unethical and monopolistic practices of landline ISPs? I don't defend unethical or monopolistic practices when they are practiced by anyone. |
|
1 edit | reply to sides14
said by sides14:If the cost is truly an issue, then why aren't the complainers building their own network? Because the "complainers," as you call them, can't get the same government subsidies or monopoly rents that the incumbents got to build out their networks. What's more, they cannot realize the same economies of scale. Remember, when you lay fiber, the first strand costs all the money. All the others are essentially free and thus generate high profits. But a cell phone company isn't in the business of leasing out fiber and so cannot reap these benefits. It simply needs to get to the tower. In short, it's not economically feasible to duplicate the existing infrastructure. |
|
| Let's us for instance say that x wireless company is in Qwest or AT&T territory. Neither company (AT&T or Qwest) are going to lay fiber to cell sites. Since many cell sites are colocated with multiple carriers, there is the revenue stream.
In addition, it's not very difficult to lay your own fiber. Public Utility Commissions aren't the obstacle (I have worked with both the CPUC and Arizona Corporate Commission for CLEC licenses).
As for subsidies, even wireless companies get USF subsidies. |
|
| Wrong. It's the "middle mile" connectivity (the tens or hundreds of miles to the city), not the last mile to the tower, for which cellular providers are being overcharged. |
|
