Cox Scraps Wireless Build, Will Stick to Sprint MVNO Network Build to be Decommissioned Tuesday May 24 2011 17:48 EDT In 2008's 700 MHz Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum auction, Cox Communications won 14 Block A and 8 Block B licenses for bids totaling $304 million. Unlike Time Warner Cable and Comcast, Cox wasn't content with piggybacking on Clearwire's network to offer the "quadruple play," and originally planned to build their own network. The original plan was to ride on Sprint's EVDO network, with Cox shifting users to their own LTE service as the build proceeded. Last November Cox launched the service in portions of Virginia, Omaha, Nebraska and California, and more recently Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The company's pricing, advertised as disruptive, really hasn't been. Back in March we noted that with Sprint's likely planned switch to LTE, it could make sense for Cox to ditch their planed build and just ride over Sprint's LTE network, something also rumored to be in the cards for both LightSquared and Clearwire. Right on cue, Fierce Wireless scoops the fact that Cox is going to be decommissioning their own network build, and sticking to life as a Sprint mobile virtual network operator (MVNO): quote:
We believe this approach is good for our customers, allowing us to take the necessary steps to fulfill our promise to deliver a Cox experience that customers expect from us," he said. "In continuing with our successful wholesale model for 3G wireless services, we will accomplish speed to market while achieving greater operational efficiencies from a wholesale model that continues to improve." Deliman said Cox has already doubled its projected subscriber forecast, though he did not say how many wireless subscribers Cox has.
Cox had done a lot of work with network vendor Huawei and had brought in a number of executives from wireless operators to build this network -- so this is a fairly significant backpedal. The company isn't stating when the Cox-built portions of the network will be decommissioned, but Cox says they'll offer their MVNO service to 50% of Cox customers by year end. After Sprint finally announces sometime this summer the not-very-well-kept secret that they plan to migrate to LTE, you'll likely hear more detail from Cox. |
 | |
AT&T buys Cox networkSelling the Cox network to AT&T now wont we? | |
|  | | |
en103
Member
2011-May-24 4:50 pm
Re: AT&T buys Cox networkPersonally - I think they'll be license squatters for a bit, unless they're hurting financially, and need that cash now. | |
| | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-May-24 5:25 pm
Re: AT&T buys Cox networksaid by en103:Personally - I think they'll be license squatters for a bit, unless they're hurting financially, and need that cash now.
Well before the FCC goes taking away spectum for OTA TV they need to force these squaters to sell. | |
| | | | | |
Re: AT&T buys Cox networkThe FCC should institute a deadline for anyone holding an AWS or 700 MHz license. Either you build out to a specified percentage of either your license's geographic area or its population by a specific date, or your license is revoked. No extensions, no refund. It'll be revoked and offered to someone else, and you cannot bid on it when it comes around again. | |
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by en103:Personally - I think they'll be license squatters for a bit, unless they're hurting financially, and need that cash now.
Well before the FCC goes taking away spectum for OTA TV they need to force these squaters to sell. This and the pending merger of AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile USA (we all know the government won't stop the merger) proves that there is no good reason to take away any more TV spectrum in the foreseeable future. | |
|
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
to en103
said by en103:Personally - I think they'll be license squatters for a bit, unless they're hurting financially, and need that cash now.
This is an example of why there should be "Use It or Lose It" riders on the auctions. Someone buys the licenses and then sits-on/warehouses the frequency and does not use it. This keeps those who have a need for it and would use it from getting it and competing with them. Under Use It or Use It, the license would be revoked/confiscated and given to the 2nd bidder. | |
| | | | | |
en103
Member
2011-May-24 5:57 pm
Re: AT&T buys Cox networkPersonally - I don't think they should 'give' anything.
Similar to many other licensed industries, I do think that it should be a use it or lose it, and the terms need to be similar to what cellular had (cover % of population with y% of spectrum by z date for any given market). If its not used, the FCC should be able to take back those licenses, and decide whether or not to hold another auction, or wait on it themselves. | |
|
| |
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-May-24 5:22 pm
Good news for Sprint's wholesale businessThis is good news for Sprint's wholesale business, which contributes a lot of revenue to Sprint's bottom line.
Instead of decommissioning their LTE build, what there is of it, I wonder why they don't sell it to Sprint? | |
| | | |
Re: Good news for Sprint's wholesale businessProbably not; Sprint is working with vendors other than Hawei for their Network Vision project, though Clearwire has done a lot with Huawei. | |
|
| |
FrustratingThis is ridiculously frustrating for people who care about the health of the market and achieving some semblance of competition.
Now we'll get yet *another* spectrum squatter. i don't understand the point of being an MVNO when there are so many other, better MVNO's out there using Sprint's network.
Why not build your own network?
The FCC *needs* to attach buildout requirements with their spectrum licenses. They're doing such a pathetically bad job of handling spectrum it's just saddening to watch. | |
| | |
talz13
Member
2011-May-24 5:54 pm
Nothing more.fulfill our promise to deliver a Cox experience | |
| | |
this round..We will have a duopoly (AT&T and VERIZON). Sprint is NOT a reasonable competition for the two major carriers. Sprint does NOT have similar coverage despite claims to the contrary. Sprint has at LEAST 20% fewer tower coverages than either at&t or verizon. The saving grace for Sprint was that they could ROAM onto Verizon's network for VOICE. For data, the game's about to change because the major carriers will not be supporting widespread use with unlimited data. Expect prices to rise as a result.
I'm just waiting for the major carriers to hang themsleves by getting slapped with State Supreme Court class action lawsuits.
Aside from tracfone and net10? Have you seen really good deals on prepaid service and/or phones? Nope. Price gouge on the data and consumers should let it wither on the vine. Let's put it this way...if the carriers forced you to *BUY* a $500 calbemodem and/or $500 ONT and sign a 2 year contract (with boiler plate terms which look more like an auto lease agreement) would they have lots of customers? And limited your consumption to very low caps?!? HELL NO! | |
| | | |
Re: this round..Sprnt actually has more towers than Sprint or Verizon when you count Clear's deployment. It's just that Sprint uses them a bit less efficiently.
Also, there are plenty of good prepaid providers, assuming you're willing to spend $25 or more per month for service. Virgin Mobile, Simple Mobile and Page Plus Cellular come to mind. | |
| |  swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME |
to tmc8080
said by tmc8080:Sprint is NOT a reasonable competition for the two major carriers. Sprint does NOT have similar coverage despite claims to the contrary. Sprint has at LEAST 20% fewer tower coverages than either at&t or verizon.
Actually, Sprint has twice as many towers company wide than Verizon or AT&T. » www.sprintusers.com/foru ··· t=219837"Currently, Sprint/Nextel/Clear has three different protocols on three different spectrum bands distibuted on 82,000 towers. By comparison, Verizon and AT&T have about 40,000 towers each. Network Vision will reduce the number of towers to around 45,000 to 50,000 towers, while setting up the remaining towers to handle all three spectrum bands (800 MHz, 1.9 GHz, and 2.5 GHz) and any protocol (CDMA, Wimax, LTE, etc). This will provide Sprint with substantial savings in maintenance costs." Sprint is a viable competitor and I hope they can stick with things. They are certainly the most innovative. While AT&T lobby there asses off to get money and to get thee own way...Sprint gets new technology out at a great pace, and many times, is the first to do it. Where I am, I really should be with Verizon. I stick with Sprint because there native network is where I go a majority of the time and I like what they do as a company and technology wise. | |
| | | (Software) pfSense
|
Re: this round..Sprint's network is just a clusterfuck. They have 82,000 towers over lapping each other with two different wireless technologies in the same geographic areas. It would be great if they were spread out over the entire US with 1700Mhz spacing, but they're not. They'll save millions in just power consumption by consolidating the base stations. | |
| | | | | |
Re: this round..and that's what they're doing on the Sprint side but they can't touch Clear's network until they merge/buy them out. Until then Clear will be Clear. Although if Sprint shut down the Clear network; I know many will leave as Sprint does NOT have equipment on a lot of towers that Clear does. My house being one of them. | |
|
| |
Anonymous982
Anon
2011-May-24 7:52 pm
mehAs a Cox employee, this is despicable. | |
| | cableguy619
Premium Member
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA |
Re: mehsaid by Anonymous982 :As a Cox employee, this is despicable.
lol maybe inquire and find out more | |
|
| |
Small correction, KarlAdvanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum is 1700/2100 not 700MHz. | |
| | | |
Re: Small correction, KarlThey owned licenses in BOTH bands. | |
| | | | |
Re: Small correction, KarlYes, I'm well aware of that. However, that doesn't change the fact that that's not how the first sentence of the article reads. | |
|
| |
DSLR User Unite!Let's buy it and show these millionaire CEOs how to run a network! | |
| | | |
Re: DSLR User Unite!why? just tell Google to buy it after all they were interested in creating a cell carrier and everything else but blew smoke after they lost. And if you want to run something create an MVNO and then work out the details of building later. | |
|
| |
sprint is terrible heresprint is terrible here My dad has a sprint phone picking up 2 bars lots of dropped ect I have a straight talk phone threw AT&T and it works almost perfect there has been weather related outages but it's a hell of a lot better than sprint. | |
| | |
lostmechanic
Anon
2011-May-25 2:56 am
no more wirelesseven cox field techs hate sprint, cox moved back to sprint phones for there field techs and to this day they have large wholes in the system wear techs can't call there offices for assist, what a laugh, the techs have request that the company go back to the verizon system. | |
| | | |
Re: no more wirelessPost Office employees should be worrying about delivering and sorting mail not what COX is doing. Gotta love being protected by that USPS union eh? | |
|
| |
Joshua
Anon
2011-May-25 8:48 am
It really depends.......on where you live as to what service provider is best. Even T and VZ have places where they don't work so well. I've had Sprint for seven years now (3 of those while I was working there) and it's great everywhere I've gone except the Inland Empire down in CA (Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, etc). Not to mention I probably save at least $60 a month from what I'd be paying with T or VZ for way more minutes than I will ever use and unlimited everything else. | |
|
| |
|
|
