Sprint Is Worried About Verizon Cable Deal
Concerned About Discrimination Via Wi-Fi, Backhaul Arrangements
Like other smaller competitors and consumer advocates, Sprint is worried that Verizon's new massive marketing and spectrum deal with the cable industry
and the cable industry's new Wi-Fi sharing arrangement
are collectively anti-competitive nightmare in the making, with the involved companies trying even less hard than they do now to compete on the landline and wireless front. In a new filing with the FCC
, Sprint pushes for several new conditions on the deal, which is currently being reviewed by regulators.
Sprint wants protections from discriminatory treatment when it comes to having access to cell site backhaul, worrying that the industry's new BFFs will work collectively to drive up backhaul pricing for competitors. Sprint also wants assurances that the cable industry won't block or throttle competitor device access to the the cable industry's planned pooled network of 50,000 Wi-Fi hotspots:
Sprint's afraid that the cable operators and Verizon could erect barriers that would make Sprint customers enter "a complex code" whenever they try to access the one of these access points. Sprint said it had been in talks with "several large cable companies" about allowing its customers to use cable's wireless hot spots, but claims the MSOs broke off those talks late in 2011, before the Verizon Wireless deals came into play. "Those negotiations have not resumed," Sprint said.
Most of the documents related to the deal remain redacted or confidential, and consumer groups have been arguing they should be made public to put such fears to rest
. However, if there are any anti-competitive tactics involved in the deal (and knowing Verizon and Comcast, you'd be foolish to think otherwise) it's not like the companies would put such plans into print. As such, regulators will have their hands full imposing conditions that ensure that the deal won't become, as Public Knowledge recently put it, a "template for a cartel between the most important providers of video, broadband, and wireless services."
Re: Scary "Great Scott!!! [...] The encounter could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted that's a worst case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy."
Saint Clair Shores, MI
Re: Sue first and get a partner.
said by iansltx:That sounds good but.... Ericsson has been laying off some of it's talent. Funny you mention Samsung. One of, what I consider, one of Sprints TOP switch tech was shown the door in March of this year. He turned around and was scooped up by Samsung. He now flies all over to Sprint switch sites and is setting up Samsung LTE equipment. Most of us wished like hell the FCC was going to make Sprint let the LD division go with Sprint local when they took stake in Nextel. But Sprint local (now known as Century-link) went off on their own. Leaving the rest of the landline side to be sucked up (and sucked dry) by the wireless division.
Keep in mind that Sprint could go to another network solutions provider after the Ericsson contract expires. Alcatel-Lucent and Samsung are both helping Sprint rebuild its new network,s o if Ericsson offers Sprint a raw deal after the contract expires they could just pick one of the other two, or even somoene like Nokia Siemens Networks (who is helping with the T-Mobile network modernization).
Saint Clair Shores, MI
Re: Sue first and get a partner.
said by iansltx:What was wrong with a long distance provider having it's own wireless division? Oh wait, Sprint did. They were a LD and local land line provider before they scooped up PCS. Then, Sprint PCS was always in the red till access to Sprints backbone was provided, then more access charges to the LD side were seen to get that last mile to the cell site, whereas, less charges for PCS. It really didn't balance out. Wireless pretty much took over the show and started causing LD to bleed off profits due to write offs to providing access to it's own Wireless division. It wasn't just one big happy company. When everything "merged" in like early 2000's, we started seeing less money being spent on that "backbone". Don't kid yourself. That back bone is being held together on a shoestring budget and the money is getting even tighter.
What's so bad about a wireless provider having their own nationwide backbone/long distance system? If I remember correctly, wasn't Sprint the first to offer a cellular plan with no long distance charges?
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
Re: Sue first and get a partner. I'm aware...SprintLink in some cases relies on direct-buried fiber (so old-fashioned). This is why Sprint has pretty much stopped trying to sell connections to its backbone (at least aggressively), focusing on higher-margin wireless services. Which is fine, because backbone access (unless you're at a location few or no other backbone providers reach without a tail circuit) is an intensely competitive market, between Level3, Cogent, XO, Hurricane Electric, Highwinds, etc.
The competitive environment is why T-Mobile doesn't have its own national backbone...it's cheaper just to pick up Level3, AT&T or whoever at each of their major switch centers (Dallas, Denver, Orlando, Charlotte, etc.). Heck, Verizon, who owns alter.net, still opts for other Internet egress paths in some markets (e.g. in Denver they're all Level3 last time I did a traceroute on my LTE iPad, whereas in Atlanta and DFW they use alter.net though things tend to get peered off pretty quickly).