Should Comcast Buy Sprint? Bloggers certainly seem to think so... This morning's news that T-Mobile's parent company Deutsche Telekom is considering buying Sprint and fusing it with T-Mobile has re-ignited a familiar question: why doesn't Comcast buy Sprint? The question was asked last Spring when it became clear that Cox Communications was building their own wireless network. It's being asked again today by Colin Gibbs over at GigaOM, who insists that Sprint's been getting leaner, Comcast has plenty of money saved up, and the time is right for Comcast to bite: Sprint is attractive in a number of ways. It’s offloaded its network-management operations to Ericsson, eliminating the need for any buyer to deal with the hassle of operating the infrastructure. It’s also building out the WiMAX technology that Comcast is already backing, and the carrier’s portfolio of devices has vastly improved . . .Sprint’s wireline businesses could offer Comcast an advantage when it comes to access and peering agreements for middle mile access. While Comcast's obviously interested in a wireless play, they've already invested heavily in Sprint's Clearwire spinoff, and are busy simply reselling Clearwire Mobile WiMax service in a growing number of markets as part of a fairly compelling pricing bundle. Comcast has also made it pretty clear that they're more interested in content acquisitions, with rumors in recent weeks that the company is saving its pennies to buy a content industry juggernaut.
|
 | | Eh Comcast should buy Fairpoint... 
--
Splat | |
|  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Eh Meh, antitrust. | |
| | | | | Re: Eh What country do you think you're in? LoL. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Eh At that point there would be no New England competition for wireline communications. Plus, Comcast doesn't need Fairpoint's network. | |
|
|  LocoObviously InsanePremium
join:2002-11-09
21 Jump St.
kudos:2 | Nah | |
|
| | Meh Sprint isn't a match for Comcast - VZW is IMO. | |
| | | | Re: Meh said by nthach:Sprint isn't a match for Comcast - VZW is IMO. Nah, VZW is large enough as it is and probably wouldn't get regulatory approval especially after just devouring Alltel.
The perfect match would be Sprint and US Cellular. | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | VZW-Sprint is fairly unlikely- it'd probably be too big even for the very loose merger regulators (we'd be talking well over 100 million customers)... plus, VZ(W) has a rather large debtload- nothing to worry about right now, but they might have issues borrowing enough money in the future.
Plus, there'd probably be antitrust issues on the wireline side, what with VZ owning the ex-MCI network. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Cableco and telco? Antitrust. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Meh said by iansltx:Cableco and telco? Antitrust. What was AT&T? Forgot the old name of Comcast? | |
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | Re: Meh said by patcat88:said by iansltx:Cableco and telco? Antitrust. What was AT&T? Forgot the old name of Comcast? AT&T was always AT&T. Before 1984, and after 1984. But AT&T was not a 'telco' after 1984. They divested their telco (LEC) business to seven companies which retained the right to use the "Bell" logo; AT&T had to create a new logo after the 1984 divestiture.
AT&T was still AT&T before 2001, but they had formed a 'cable unit' to get in on competition with the LECs. After 2001
Comcast merged with AT&T's cable unit, which was called, "AT&T Broadband Internet". The plan was to call the new company, "AT&T Comcast". But that plan fell through.
AT&T was still AT&T, and separate from Comcast, when it was finally bought by SBC, effective January, 2006.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | said by patcat88:said by iansltx:Cableco and telco? Antitrust. What was AT&T? Forgot the old name of Comcast? AT&T Broadband (ATTBi).
That was a different "AT&T" though. It was a long distance telephone carrier, a wireless carrier, Tier 1 network operator, and a cable company.
During the 90s they bought up a bunch of cable companies like TCI and MediaOne.
They sold the cable division to Comcast, creating the modern Comcast that we know.
They also sold the wireless division (AT&T Wireless) to Cingular, a joint venture between BellSouth and PacBell/SouthwesternBell/SBC/etc. SBC later bought AT&T, and took their name. And then later bought BellSouth, largely to bring wireless completely in house (now called AT&T Mobility). | |
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Meh said by Samsonian:That was a different "AT&T" though. It was a long distance telephone carrier, a wireless carrier, Tier 1 network operator, and a cable company. During the 90s they bought up a bunch of cable companies like TCI and MediaOne. They sold the cable division to Comcast, creating the modern Comcast that we know. AT&T is still a long distance telephone carrier, wireless carrier, and Tier 1 network operator. Only two changes since then:
• They sold off their cable interests to Comcast.
• They got bought by an ILEC.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meh True enough, but it's the SBC people running the show over there. | |
| | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Meh said by Samsonian:True enough, but it's the SBC people running the show over there. They do call themselves AT&T now, and have since 2006.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by patcat88:said by iansltx:Cableco and telco? Antitrust. What was AT&T? Forgot the old name of Comcast? ... yea.. tell us.. what was the old name of Comcast...? .. was it, um, Comcast?  | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | VZW isn't for sale and Comcast couldn't afford it even if it was. | |
|
| | TM Sprint will go to TM and Comcast will still be there. Probably taking on more stock in Clear.
TM wouldn't be stupid and give up a 4g network that is already being built and is proven to support users, unlike LTE. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: TM said by hottboiinnc:TM wouldn't be stupid and give up a 4g network that is already being built and is proven to support users, unlike LTE. They will grandfather, and build the rest out with LTE. TM's AWS and PCS, Clear's BRS/EBS, Sprint's national PCS, and that white elephant called Nextel's SMR. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: TM too much money to grandfather and still run 2 different networks for a hand full of people. would be smarter just to leave WiMax where it is and keep building.
After all Sprint has this problem now with running two networks. You NEVER cut off the hand that feeds the mouth and thats what TMO would do to WiMax if they killed that and went with LTE. | |
| | | | | | Re: TM There would also be the 'spectrum cap' problem as well. DOJ/FCC wouldn't like them holding that much spectrum. Not that merging their wireless operations makes any sense.
Some have speculated these rumors could be about the wireline side. Forming a joint venture to deal with the backhaul problem. That actually makes a lot of sense.
'»seekingalpha.com/article/161496-···articles' | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | So the analysts are trying to create business for themselves again and here everyone is speculating and making their predictions... gotta love it.
Sprint isn't going anywhere.. T-Mobile isn't buying anyone... VZ will still be VZ (and suck) and ATT will still continue to destroy the world.
T-Mobile has been called for purchasing Sprint/Nextel for a few years now. These "analysts" area always out calling the next merger.. sooner or later, they'll get lucky and call one right, and then they can add it to their resume that they were able to predict a merger.
I guess this is what happens when they're underpaid and out of work.. their minds melt. | |
|
Reviews:
·ProLog
 ·DIRECTV
·Comcast
| What would happen to Dan Hesse? Would he retire or become like a new V.P. of Wireless or something?
What about all those classy Sprint Commercials? Would we see more goofy Comcast spirited ones instead. I do have to admit those Sprint commercials are pretty boring.
But what about the service? Would it improve? Would customers benefit from "Quad Play" services? What about features like setting DVR recordings up from the phone? What about integrating mobile broadband access through tethered smartphones and PDA's? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What would happen to Dan Hesse? Well... if comcast took Sprint, they could have the Slowsky's slam VZ & ATT for how slow their wireless data is just like they do DSL today.
Personally, some of the new sprint commercials are "cute".. and, to be honest, the "classy" ones aren't bad either. There are times where I just want to be told what they are selling and I don't need to be patronized with song and dance to get a crafty formed message across to me. (Think the old days when a housewife would hold up Ajax soap and say "Ajax really cleans")
Features like setting DVR recordings can be done with out spending millions or billions in cash to buy a cellular network. Video providers have cellular customers on various networks.. interesting note anyway, comcast dropped the ball on this one.. they were the first to talk about remote programming of the DVR and are now last to the table with it. | |
|
| | More rumors involving Comcast Comcast also involved in Cablevision rumor...
"Cablevision might be takeover target -Barron's
Cablevision also could become ripe for takeover by cable providers such as Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) or Time Warner Cable (TWC.N), Barron's said."
Guess it is good to have a lot o cash. | |
|  kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | No Sometimes things have to have a better reason than just "Wall Street Expectations".
Comcast is big enough. And bad enough. On it's own.
Sprint is doing fine on it's own. A decade of bad management can't be fixed in a quarter or two. Hesse is working on it. Give him time.
What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company?
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
| |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: No said by kapil:What kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? I agree that Comcast shouldn't try to buy Sprint. But Comcast is much more than a TV company. They are a major internet provider and a major wired phone company as well. But I don't think they need TO BUY a wireless company to offer a quad play option. They can do that thru agreements with a wireless company.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | | | | Re: No said by ThrowDemsOut:I don't think they need TO BUY a wireless company to offer a quad play option. They can do that thru agreements with a wireless company. You're right. They can, and are, pursuing that path right now with with wholesale agreements with Sprint and (also an equity investment in) Clearwire.
It seems to be the cheapest and quickest way to wireless, with the least amount of risk.
But by wholesaling, they're dependent on a partner, and they don't have full control over the wireless network and product. This can reduce the likelihood of success.
And if they are successful, they're leaving a lot of money on the table by not owning it outright. Especially when they had the opportunity to buy them out on the cheap. Keep in mind, AT&T and VZ make billions a year on wireless, and keep squeezing more out of that golden goose. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No said by Samsonian:Keep in mind, AT&T and VZ make billions a year on wireless, and keep squeezing more out of that golden goose. But AT&T and VZs billions are on a downhill coast. The unlimiteds (Cricket/MetroPCS/Revol), and now Clear's uncapped internet service at biting away viciously. ATT/VZW's only real customer base is those that think more expensive=better and rural customers. | |
| | | | | | | Re: No said by patcat88:But AT&T and VZs billions are on a downhill coast. We haven't seen that yet. Both of them have been able to keep boosting revenue, profit, margins, ARPU, subscriber count, and all those other financial metrics.
There's a bunch of reasons for this. The most obvious is the barriers to entry. You can't just into the game and start building a wireless network. You need spectrum licenses from the government, which don't come cheap. And building a network requires lot of capital. Not that many people have billions lying around, and the desire to do this.
And even if they did, they know that the 2 biggest players are entrenched in this market. AT&T Mobility and VZW have ~60% of the market, who wants to jump into this?
In a perfect market, there's little to no barriers to entry and many competitors. This market is far from that, and the government's policies have only made this worse (extorting insane prices for spectrum, approving big wireless mergers, etc.).
The unlimiteds (Cricket/MetroPCS/Revol), and now Clear's uncapped internet service at biting away viciously.
They're all tiny compared to AT&T and VZW for the time being. And they've had a negligible impact on the big 2.
The regional CDMA unlimited carriers have done a decent job so far though. But, their growth has slowed dramatically since Boost Mobile (on Sprint's iDEN network) and T-Mobile have launched aggressive prepaid plans of their own. Both of which are national carriers.
Cricket/Leap, MetroPCS, and Revol should merge already. They could fit their networks together like a jigsaw puzzle, achieve greater scale, have a network that is somewhat national in size, and be the 5th national carrier.
Clearwire is also still tiny right now. It'll be late 2010 before they have a good sized network, based on their deployment plan. It'll mainly be a metro broadband service til next year (handsets should arrive around then), but that reduces potential customers for the time being.
The problem is deploying a 4G network is a lot harder, mainly because of the backhaul problem. You can't just hook up tariff'd T-1, like with 2G and even 3G. Serious pipes (fiber or wireless+fiber) are needed to get this traffic to the internet, and that takes time and money.
ATT/VZW's only real customer base is those that think more expensive=better and rural customers.
No doubt many people subscribe to either AT&T or VZW mainly because it's a known brand, or they already get home phone from them. The devil you know is better than the one you don't.
Also, many people in more rural areas can only get service from VZW. There's something to be said for having the biggest network. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No said by Samsonian:said by patcat88:But AT&T and VZs billions are on a downhill coast. We haven't seen that yet. Both of them have been able to keep boosting revenue, profit, margins, ARPU, subscriber count, and all those other financial metrics. We will eventually. I mean the regional unlimited's business model is cherry picking urban areas. The urban areas are the most profitable for the big 4. The regional unlimiteds are as disruptive as Cable and 3rd VOIP to ILECs.
There's a bunch of reasons for this. The most obvious is the barriers to entry. You can't just into the game and start building a wireless network. You need spectrum licenses from the government, which don't come cheap. And building a network requires lot of capital. Not that many people have billions lying around, and the desire to do this.
The regional unlimiteds don't plan to expand the same way as an incumbent cellular has.
The regional CDMA unlimited carriers have done a decent job so far though. But, their growth has slowed dramatically since Boost Mobile (on Sprint's iDEN network) and T-Mobile have launched aggressive prepaid plans of their own. Both of which are national carriers.
Growth slowed on purpose. I don't remember how many AWS cities they have yet to launch, but most of them seem to have launched.
Cricket/Leap, MetroPCS, and Revol should merge already. They could fit their networks together like a jigsaw puzzle, achieve greater scale, have a network that is somewhat national in size, and be the 5th national carrier.
Bad idea. Cricket and MetroPCS, and Cricket and Revol overlap in a couple markets. They have near/identical prices, but still, merging is worse for competition. Their target demographic doesn't want endless coverage to roam in. You HAVE to roam to go between markets. I believe at one point (or still?), you had to pay extra to roam out of your local market to another market of your regional unlimited.
The problem is deploying a 4G network is a lot harder, mainly because of the backhaul problem. You can't just hook up tariff'd T-1, like with 2G and even 3G. Serious pipes (fiber or wireless+fiber) are needed to get this traffic to the internet, and that takes time and money.
I do wonder what Clear's main idea for bandwidth is? 100K construction cost plus 10K a month for a ILEC T3, $200/megabit/mo, monthly fee from clear subscribers can't cover. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No said by patcat88:said by Samsonian:said by patcat88:But AT&T and VZs billions are on a downhill coast. We haven't seen that yet. Both of them have been able to keep boosting revenue, profit, margins, ARPU, subscriber count, and all those other financial metrics. We will eventually. Maybe, but we haven't even seen indicators of that. As big as the big 2 are, they keep posting strong growth.
I mean the regional unlimited's business model is cherry picking urban areas. The urban areas are the most profitable for the big 4. The regional unlimiteds are as disruptive as Cable and 3rd VOIP to ILECs.
...
The regional unlimiteds don't plan to expand the same way as an incumbent cellular has.
True, but I'm not sure that's enough.
Coverage matters for wireless. No coverage = no service.
VZW has invested more in its wireless network than its competitors' have. VZW has made its name off "The Network." Quite a bit of their customer base was acquired, but most of it was organic growth. Their success isn't a complete accident.
Growth slowed on purpose. I don't remember how many AWS cities they have yet to launch, but most of them seem to have launched.
I was referring to net subscriber adds, not network deployment plans. The regional unlimited net adds have slowed. Boost Mobile added around 1 million net adds in a recent quarter. It's the main thing holding up Sprint's sub numbers for a while now.
Bad idea. Cricket and MetroPCS, and Cricket and Revol overlap in a couple markets.
...
They have near/identical prices
The have almost the exact same business model, and largely different network footprints. Hooking them up is simple and straight forward.
VZW had to divest over 100 markets after the Alltel acquisition. Mainly because VZW would have been the only national provider, or only provider at all, in those markets.
A couple of competitive, urban markets is nothing to worry about, especially as regional carrier goes compared to a national. The government probably won't care. They could repurpose some of that spectrum, or just off some of those spare assets.
Not a big deal.
but still, merging is worse for competition.
This doesn't follow. I keep noticing some people bring this up every time a M&A occurs, is proposed, or even just wildly speculated on.
Not all mergers are bad for competition, there are plenty that result in more competitive markets.
Determining whether a merger will result in less competition is an incredibly detailed and complicated process as far as the government goes.
I personally don't have any particular rules for what is or isn't an acceptable merger. It really depends on the companies in question, their competitors, their customers, their suppliers, and the markets they're in.
I can say for certain in this instance: that regional wireless carriers merging amongst each other to effectively form a 5th national carrier, is good merger that will create more competition. National carriers merging with each other, would be detrimental to competition.
If you have a problem with a relatively small merger like this (which hasn't even been proposed), what about far larger acquisitions that did happen? Like AT&T Wireless/Cingular? or Alltel/VZW? Those deals actually reduced the number of national carriers, and reduced competition.
Their target demographic doesn't want endless coverage to roam in. You HAVE to roam to go between markets. I believe at one point (or still?), you had to pay extra to roam out of your local market to another market of your regional unlimited.
This doesn't make sense. People want coverage regardless. Again--No Coverage = No service.
I believe they still charge extra for roaming.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the regional unlimited carriers.
I do wonder what Clear's main idea for bandwidth is? 100K construction cost plus 10K a month for a ILEC T3, $200/megabit/mo, monthly fee from clear subscribers can't cover.
Wonder no more:
'»telephonyonline.com/3g4g/news/cl···ml?imw=Y'
There's no massive recurring fees from ILECs. They're building their own backhaul network. Something few other carriers have done.
90% of their sites use PtP wireless and get aggregated to fiber sites to be backhaul to the core.
Some of the latest PtP wireless systems can do over 1 Gb/s. In a few years they'll be able to do 10 Gb/s. | |
|
|  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Well, aside from the quadruple play of Internet, TV, VOIP and Cellular -- Sprint still has a domestic backhaul network that Comcast could use to improve their own with.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
| | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | | said by kapil:What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position.
AT&T and VZ are Comcast's primary competitors. Both of them have wireless divisions that are ridiculously successful and profitable (~60% of wireless market combined).
Wireless is significantly more profitable than wireline for them, and have added billions to their bottom line. If it weren't for wireless, they'd be closer to Qwest's situation right now.
Why wouldn't Comcast want part of that market? If nothing else, to remain competitive. Sprint and Clearwire are the fastest way there. | |
| | |  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:13 | Re: No said by Samsonian:said by kapil:What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position. Buying out another company is in no way "competitive" in my book.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | | | | | Re: No said by koitsu:said by Samsonian:It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position. Buying out another company is in no way "competitive" in my book. First of all, that's a very simplistic view of business. One not shared by most, including anti-trust regulators.
Second, did you not read the rest of what I wrote in that post?
Comcast competes against AT&T and VZ on the wired side, but not (yet) in wireless.
Yet you apparently think Comcast entering that market would result in less competition? | |
|
| koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:13 | said by kapil:Sometimes things have to have a better reason than just "Wall Street Expectations". Comcast is big enough. And bad enough. On it's own. Sprint is doing fine on it's own. A decade of bad management can't be fixed in a quarter or two. Hesse is working on it. Give him time. What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? I gave your post thumbs up because I agree wholeheartedly.
However, there's one thing people forget: Sprint provides actual tier 1 transit (that is to say, actual fibre running from A to Z end). Don't worry, my statement isn't implying that Comcast might want to buy Sprint to gobble up that infrastructure, but it's not too far-fetched given that Comcast's competing with Verizon FIOS.
Just something to keep in mind: Sprint isn't just a "wireless phone company".
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No said by koitsu:However, there's one thing people forget: Sprint provides actual tier 1 transit (that is to say, actual fibre running from A to Z end). Don't worry, my statement isn't implying that Comcast might want to buy Sprint to gobble up that infrastructure, but it's not too far-fetched given that Comcast's competing with Verizon FIOS. Just something to keep in mind: Sprint isn't just a "wireless phone company". Being Tier 1, and having all those profit peering agreements is very important. The more traffic you pump out, the more pressed is the peerer to upgrade their links to you for more $ to you.
Guess what powers FIOS's massive bandwidth needs? UUNet/MCI. Verizon doesn't pay anyone for bandwidth, the world pays them.
Buying Sprint with SprintLink means Comcast's bandwidth costs are now free. Since Comcast is the largest cable co in the USA, they have an incentive to tame their bandwidth costs. | |
| | | | | | Re: No I'd agree with that overall. But a few things:
1. The costs of peering links are usually shared by both parties. Certainly when they're upgrading links.
2. As long as both operators peer in enough locations, it doesn't matter which direction the flow is overall, both have to upgrade links if they're saturated.
3. It absolutely helps to own a tier 1 network when you provide lots of bandwidth to customers. But it's hardly the end of the world if you don't. Comcast buys a lot of bandwidth from Level 3, and also Savvis, Tata, and probably Global Crossing, but it doesn't cost that much.
Thanks to the dot-kaboom there are numerous providers out, resulting in a lot of competition. Some providers went bankrupt, did a debt-for-equity swap, emerged with no debt, and were able to price bandwidth for a lot less. As well technology improvements resulting in more bandwidth at less costs. All of these factors push down the price of bandwidth very close to the cost of providing it, and results in cheap bandwidth.
It amounts to maybe a dollar or 2, per HSI customer, per month.
'»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/2···-videos/'
'»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/0···evision/'
'»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/0···of-caps/' | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No said by Samsonian:I'd agree with that overall. But a few things: 1. The costs of peering links are usually shared by both parties. Certainly when they're upgrading links. 2. As long as both operators peer in enough locations, it doesn't matter which direction the flow is overall, both have to upgrade links if they're saturated. Well how often are they balanced? I would assume most Tier 2/3s have to discount their cost to compete with the "more reliable" Tier 1s, so Tier 2/3s are filled with servers uploading. Tier 1s discount their bandwidth to consumer ISPs or have more clients so they suck traffic. When the unbalance reaches a certain ratio, it turns into a for-profit connection and stops being free peering. Plus usually a Tier 2 will use a Tier 1 for transit (and a default route) anyways preventing peering with it, and then use an IXP to peer with every other Tier 2/3 at that IXP (birds of a feather flock together).
All of these factors push down the price of bandwidth very close to the cost of providing it, and results in cheap bandwidth.
It amounts to maybe a dollar or 2, per HSI customer, per month.
$2*14 million=$28 million dollars.
Hmmm »www.nasdaq.com/asp/ExtendFund.as···ed=CMCSK Comcast's gross income is $35 million.
Not sure what to think (your bandwidth estimate very high?). | |
| | | | | | | | Re: No quote:
Well how often are they balanced?
Depends on the networks in question. If it's Comcast and TWC, probably pretty balanced. If it's Comcast and Cogent or Akamai or LLNW, probably really out of whack ratios.
quote:
I would assume most Tier 2/3s have to discount their cost to compete with the "more reliable" Tier 1s, so Tier 2/3s are filled with servers uploading. Tier 1s discount their bandwidth to consumer ISPs or have more clients so they suck traffic.
Well, I'm sure you've heard, but the tier concept for networks is a very misunderstood and outdated concept. But I'll use it anyway.
There's nothing necessarily more reliable about a tier 1 network. In fact, it's actually less reliable to buy transit from them, because of the risk of peering disputes interrupting traffic.
Some networks, particularly Cogent, focused on outbound heavy customers, and have been successful with that strategy.
Not all tier 2s do this though. Some of the biggest tier 2s (BT, C&W, Comcast, DT, FT, PCCW/Reach, Tinet, etc.) are bigger and carry more traffic than some tier 1s, and behave similarly to them as well.
Tier 2s don't necessarily discount compared to tier 1s, insomuch as most tier 1 don't really compete in the internet transit market anymore. Most tier 1s focus on carrying their own traffic, or competing for high value customers, and that's about it.
quote:
When the unbalance reaches a certain ratio, it turns into a for-profit connection and stops being free peering.
I wouldn't necessarily say that.
Consider content delivery networks (CDNs) Akamai or LimeLight Networks. They are probably the most extensively peered networks in the world. They deliver content from iTunes Store, Hulu, and countless others, resulting in an almost completely outbound traffic flow.
Say, you're downloading this content on a residential ISP, which is primarily an inbound traffic flow network.
Both are getting something of value out of this exchange. I, or my customers', get fast downloads. They get superior content delivery for their clients at lower costs. Everyone wins.
quote:
$2*14 million=$28 million dollars.
Hmmm »www.nasdaq.com/asp/ExtendFund.as•••ed=CMCSK Comcast's gross income is $35 million.
Not sure what to think (your bandwidth estimate very high?).
I was being conservative with my estimate. That blog post says Comcast paid $120M for "high-speed data service." No other clarification. Assuming that's all for transit (probably isn't):
Assuming for the year: $12M per month / 14 M customers = $0.86 per HSI customer per month
Assuming for the quarter: $40M per month / 14 M customers = $2.86 per HSI customer per month
It's probably less than $0.50, if I had to guess.
In any case, the point is: bandwidth is cheap in the core. The cost is in building it out to customers (fixed costs/capital costs) and recovering that cost. The cost of transit is trivial. | |
|
| | | | Re: I would consider the footprint of each carrier. None of that makes sense.
As others have stated, the various network technologies between Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA, make such a deal really dumb.
If it did happen, it would reduce competition in wireless, when we need more it.
Comcast acquiring Sprint keeps 4 national carriers in the game. And Comcast could afford to invest in wireless, whereas an independent Sprint is still trying to right its ship while keeping its head above water. Sprint can't afford any big investments for a while, that's why the Clearwire deal was dependent on sugar daddies.
Also, how could Comcast charge outrageous prices for wireless if they did buy Sprint/Clearwire?
In case you haven't noticed:
AT&T Mobility and VZW are the ones with ~60% of the US wireless market, charge the highest prices, and make billions off wireless. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | There is mostly overlap between T-Mobile and Sprint, it's not at all like VZW acquiring Alltel. | |
|
 BelinrahsI have an ego the size of a small planetPremium
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI
 ·FreedomNet Wirel..
·Millenicom
| Would this be good? I hope so If being bought by Comcast means using some of the cableco's massive capital to invest in bringing WiMax 4G to even some of the rural areas only covered by EVDO (hint hint: me), I'm all for it. But if Comcast takes some of their brilliant ideas such as unfair caps and traffic shaping (the days of Comcast Sandvine are past, I know, but just referring to Comcast's wondrous history) and put them into their newly-acquired wireless business, it's not going to be so good. I'm happy as long as Comcast doesn't kill the deal with Millenicom that allows them to offer me unlimited service.
--
Sprint MBB thru Millenicom Unlimited service - Franklin CDU-680 modem, connected to a 32" Omni antenna.
I LOVE MUSE! | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Would this be good? I hope so Comcast already has a lot invested in Clear. They don't need to buy up Sprint to keep that going. Better to work with other non-competitors (Spint, Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse, Google) than to have to do a wireless network on your own. | |
|
| | Sprint is bad news It is a bad decision for anyone to buy Sprint now, they are hemorrhaging customers each quarter and are debt-laden. You can say that they have straightened out upper management, but their quarterly results sure don't show improvement. | |
| | fldiverPremium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | Re: Sprint is bad news Say what you want about Sprint, they have done well by me. | |
| | | | | Re: Sprint is bad news I have the same impression. Granted I have never seen the billing side (company pays the bill) but I am very happy with my Mogul and Wireless card's coverage and speed. | |
|
| | | said by ravensfan55:It is a bad decision for anyone to buy Sprint now, they are hemorrhaging customers each quarter and are debt-laden. You can say that they have straightened out upper management, but their quarterly results sure don't show improvement. Sprint's problems really started in earnest in 2005-2006 after the acquisition of Nextel.
Dan Hesse was only brought in Dec 2007. It can take up 5 years to turn a big company like this around.
Regarding financials: well, losing millions of customers will do that to you. They've been reducing costs to bring them in line with the customer base.
They've largely fixed the network problems, customer service, and the churn rate. The problem is, a lot of people remember the Sprint from a few years ago. So Sprint hasn't been able to replace the customers they lost. It'll take time for that to change.
A lot of people feel that Sprint has turned a corner on its problems. | |
|
 TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4
·Cox HSI
| Sprint is amazing. I've been a Sprint customer for about a month now with the Palm Pre and I'm well beyond satisfied with their services. Whatever the outcome, I hope it works very well for Sprint and customers alike.
--
Follow me on twitter!
| |
| | | | Re: Sprint is amazing. I'm with TCub. Been with Sprint now for about 3 months since escaping from the nickel and diming of AT&T and have been happy not only with service but with the readability and understanding of the billing. | |
| | | TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Sprint is amazing. Thanks Derwood. I too had been an AT&T customer and I wasn't impressed at all. Here's to hopefully continuing to recieve the same or equal quality of service! Cheers!
--
Follow me on twitter!
| |
|
| | I say Instead of this buyout....
1: Separate Sprint and Nextel. It was a match made in hell.
2: Nextel/Boost Mobile should stand alone. Nextel was an absolute powerhouse in the corporate market, the iDEN network might be somewhat crappy, but tell you what...it worked almost everywhere.
3: Sprint should become a wireless subsidiary company under someone, like AT&T did with the old AT&T Wireless/Cingular. Someone who can benefit from the customer base and clean up the pork. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I say Small problem: Nextel iDEN is 2G. Their fastest tech is 2.5G. They're also spectrum-limit and can't compete on voice service alone when you've got providers offering nationwide unlimited for $40.
That said, their Direct Connect service is awesome. Then again, so is PTT over CDMA with Sprint. The integration has been far from perfect, but at this point Nextel probably couldn't stand on its own if it were spun off. | |
|
Andy S
join:2009-05-14
Stockbridge, GA | Sprint Well I have to say... I have been with Sprint for probably 10 years or so and have had fine service. I guess I'm not a needy customer that has tons of problems but my coverage has always been good (I even talked on a cruise long past seeing land and in the Virgin Islands) all on the Sprint Network. Some areas I'm sure other carriers are better but In and around Atlanta and the S.E. It has done a good job for me. | |
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Sprint is great The company has turned around from all the crap people deservedly talked about them. Get over it, its not the same company it used to be, and im hearing more positive things than negative lately.
Im not sure how a merger with T-Mobile would go, we all experienced how smooth the iDen-CDMA things is, and to add GPRS into the mix. well i dont have a lot of faith.
The company has gotten better, my billing isnt messed up (unless i messed it up), most of my interactions with customer service are favorable, and they come out with NON CRIPPLED phones, which is awesome.
Complain all you want, but while your overpaying for your pretty iPhone, or overpaying for "the network" Im living in the Now, and buying toys to play with all the money im saving every year. | |
| | | | Re: Sprint is great why doesn't comcast buy frontier? | |
| |  RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | said by slckusr: or overpaying for "the network" Im living in the Now, and buying toys to play with all the money im saving every year. Well, that's great for you, where I live Sprint and Nextel don't even have service, but Verizon does and has EVDO on all of their network. The Now Network? Well, it roams on US Cellular here, and Nextel is just a dead paperweight. I'll take "the network" any day 
--
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. | |
|
koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:13 | Simple answer: no. Why? Save money. Spend it on something more useful, such as continued network upgrades across the states, or use it to invest in technology that will lower consumer monthly rates.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Simple answer: no. said by koitsu:Why? Save money. Spend it on something more useful, such as continued network upgrades across the states, or use it to invest in technology that will lower consumer monthly rates. Any technology that would "save the consumer money" really wouldnt, but it would save the company producing it money. | |
|
| | i think Comcast should purchase more into their infrastructure. Offer bandwidth twice as cheap. | |
|  hambone42Peace, through superior firepowerPremium
join:2002-02-02
Manassas, VA | Why not? Their customer service strategies are already practically identical.
Seems like this rumor was floating around early this year... 
--
Sarcasm is the Body's Natural Defense Against Stupidity | |
| | | All of a sudden... All of a sudden, T-Mobile possibly buying Sprint doesn't seem so bad. | |
| | | | Re: All of a sudden... Having had service with both T-Mobile for a short few months and Sprint for over 10 years, I can say that a merger between the two of them is a horrible idea. Any interaction that I had with T-Mobile was only after holding for 10 to 15 minutes to get a customer service agent, where I typically get directly to an agent with Sprint. Sprints coverage is head and shoulders above T-Mobile both here in Chicago and in Florida where I lived before. I cant speak for other areas of the country but in these 2 Sprint is by far superior. Sprint operates an open network when compared to the other wireless carriers. Sprint may have had their problems in the past, especially when trying to integrate Nextel into their operation, but they have come a long way.
Besides, if you look at the coverage maps for iPCS and T-Mobile they definitely overlap, and I can almost assure you that iPCS isnt going to allow a competitor to purchase Sprint and compete against them in their exclusive markets. | |
| | |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Just say NO to mergers. I'm tired of all the mergers. And if Comcast buying Sprint means that I have to call COMCAST customer service for help, well that sucks bigtime.
I wish the FCC would just put a freeze on corporate mergers, especially among the big players. It's ridiculous. It hurts competition. It drives up prices. It needs to end.
Also, Comcast is a cable company. It doesn't need wireless services. I'm also of the opinion that phone companies don't need to offer television service as well, and that cities should have more than one phone company and cable company to choose from, but you know what? It'll never happen. This country's economy is all screwed up. | |
|
| |
|
|
I would consider the footprint of each carrier.
