Phone Scoop

printed July 29, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=3771&fh=1970820

Home  ›  News  ›

Sprint Can't Offer Service In iPCS Regions

Article Comments  

all discussions

Sprint

Azeron

Jan 5, 2009, 8:44 PM
The whole thing is blowing up in Sprint's face again. Surprise, surprise. Back before the Nextel merger, many Sprint branded stores were actually affiliates. Most of them forced Sprint to buy them out at inflated prices in order for that merger to go through. It was a horrible idea for the two entities to merge in the first place, but the one benefit was the 2.5 MzH spectrum Nextel gained from Public Safety. That spectrum went towards Wi-Max and now one more affiliate is standing in the way. I hope Sprint has the dollars to purchase iPCS.

As to iPCS' claims...they are quite valid. Forget the dual mode CDMA/WiMax phones to come. iPCS sells Sprint Broadband Connect cards. How are they going to feel about competing directly with WiM...
(continues)
...
carmodboy99

Jan 5, 2009, 10:26 PM
On the surface, how is Clearwire offering WiMAX unfair to them? Thats like saying ATT shouldnt be allowed to sell phones in their territories, kinda silly. Yes, yes, we all know Clearwire is Sprint rebranded, but it is in fact its own entity, with a seperate CEO CFO CTO et cetera..., HQ'ed in its own location. For all legal intents and purposes, its a seperate company.
...
Azeron

Jan 5, 2009, 10:32 PM
Seriously, did Sprint sell all that spectrum to Clearwire or does Sprint have a minority stake in the new Clearwire entity. If the answer is the latter then I have a feeling the ruling is going to go against them. We'll see...
...
Azeron

Jan 5, 2009, 10:42 PM
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to approve Sprint Nextel Corp's proposed joint venture with Clearwire Corp. Sprint and Clearwire plan to combine their resources to build a high-speed wireless network with investments from companies such as Comcast Corp, Intel Corp and Google Inc. Sprint said it received DoJ approval for the venture in August, but Clearwire shareholders needed to vote on the deal on November 20 before it could be finalized. The companies announced their $14.5 billion venture in May and their plan to build a network based on WiMax, which promises to blanket entire cities with high-speed wireless access for everything from cameras to computers."

Hmmmm...says here it was a joint...
(continues)
...
Mektah

Jan 6, 2009, 1:26 AM
People never learn. This is the perfect example of why the economy is failing, you have a couple of idiots who only look at how much money they can stuff into their pockets. They could careless about their customers. IPCS is only hindering the company which in turn is only going to hinder itself, since technically they are Sprint if sprint fails IPCS fails. IPCS is on a ship, Sprint is trying to save the ship by bringing out new products and IPCS is steady drilling holes in the bottom of the boat. By preventing Sprint from from providing the best service to ALL of it's customers, Sprint's gonna continue it's confusion among customers and IPCS customers are gonna suffer the most.
...
algorithmplus

Jan 6, 2009, 8:28 AM
Imagine you pay $25 million for the exclusive rights to franchise a company, I'll say Dunkin Donuts, in a 3 state region in the midwest. You have exclusive rights to Dunkin Donuts stores in the states. Dunkin Donuts decides they are going to open up a new doughnut chain called Nuts and Bolts it owns 51% of, but lets the company manage itself and outside investors help capitalize the company. It is going to place the new Nuts and Boltds doughnut shop across the street from every Dunkin Donuts shop you own in the market you paid $25 million for exclusive rights to.

Would you be pissed? Would you feel like you wasted $25 million? Would you feel that Dunkin Donuts has ownership in the new company so it wouldn't have to follow non-compe...
(continues)
...
Mektah

Jan 6, 2009, 2:44 PM
I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be mad. the problem is that sprint is divided between nextel customers and pcs customers this causes enough in fighting amongst the companies and in turn for customers if ipcs would just fold be bought out it would allow sprint to regroup somewhat. eventually verizon/att will offer similar serviceds and then ipcs will be screwed either way. they may as well fold now and at least have a chance of keeping stores open as well as contributing to something great. hat they are doing is saying hey. If I'm gonna lose out so r u.
...
Anonymous2

Jan 6, 2009, 2:49 PM
Your donut analogy is funadamentally correct, but does not apply here.
You have to look at this from a nationwide perspective and not a local business.
Clearwire (aka Sprint 51%) does not need to set up shop in iPCS areas. In fact, they probably would rather not. The iPCS territories are rural and have low populations. Clearwire operates at a high frequency and as such would be cost prohibitive to launch in rural markets anytime soon. iPCS is more worried about other disrtuptive carriers and LTE at 700. Those guys will crush them in broadband in the next 18 months. This whole lawsuit is a method for the major shareholders (Yeager) to bail out with millions and leave Sprint holding the empty bag. iPCS could have sold out 2 years ago with ...
(continues)
...
Mektah

Jan 6, 2009, 7:53 PM
While may not 'need' ipcs's territory, they do want it, the reason is tht one of the major selling points of wimax is its ability to provide wide spread high speed internet coverage. this is especially true for rural areas tht have few high speed options for the net. sprint will want to compete for these areas. it allows them to be competitive and eventually if they can apply similar coverage ranges to voice most likely in the form of voip and make it reliable then they'll really have something. but they need to get this ipcs thing settle its bad press and regardless of whether it really affects customers it will make them nervous. and tht makes them more likely to leave. speculation and nervousness is what causes so many customers to jump...
(continues)
...
jhr2112

Jan 6, 2009, 7:53 PM
Well said.
...
carmodboy99

Jan 7, 2009, 4:29 PM
algorithmplus said:
Imagine you pay $25 million for the exclusive rights to franchise a company, I'll say Dunkin Donuts, in a 3 state region in the midwest. You have exclusive rights to Dunkin Donuts stores in the states. Dunkin Donuts decides they are going to open up a new doughnut chain called Nuts and Bolts it owns 51% of, but lets the company manage itself and outside investors help capitalize the company. It is going to place the new Nuts and Boltds doughnut shop across the street from every Dunkin Donuts shop you own in the market you paid $25 million for exclusive rights to.

Would you be pissed? Would you feel like you wasted $25 million? Would you feel that Dunkin Donuts has ownership in the new company
...
(continues)
...
algorithmplus

Jan 8, 2009, 8:30 PM
I would surmise that Best Buy and Radio Shack in iPCS regions actually sell the iPCS branded Sprint service, or none at all.
...
algorithmplus

Jan 6, 2009, 8:17 AM
carmodboy99 said:
On the surface, how is Clearwire offering WiMAX unfair to them? Thats like saying ATT shouldnt be allowed to sell phones in their territories, kinda silly. Yes, yes, we all know Clearwire is Sprint rebranded, but it is in fact its own entity, with a seperate CEO CFO CTO et cetera..., HQ'ed in its own location. For all legal intents and purposes, its a seperate company.


The fact is, Sprint owns a majority of the combines Clearwire company, roughly equal to about 51%. The fact is, Sprint can't just startup or buy into separate companies to avoid contract disputes or antitrust scrutiny. I mean, in theory, AT&T could buy 51% of Verizon but not merge the companies, and therefore, you woul...
(continues)
...
SprintNextelUSA

Jan 6, 2009, 4:03 PM
I don't think even if Sprint was a minority owner, that iPCS will not take Sprint to court. You don't hear any one taking Clearwire to court.
...
algorithmplus

Jan 7, 2009, 9:32 AM
SprintNextelUSA said:
I don't think even if Sprint was a minority owner, that iPCS will not take Sprint to court. You don't hear any one taking Clearwire to court.

You don't hear about Clearwire having affiliates which it grants exclusive rights to in certain markets, either.
...
carmodboy99

Jan 7, 2009, 4:38 PM
algorithmplus said:


You don't hear about Clearwire having affiliates which it grants exclusive rights to in certain markets, either.



You just proved my point. This has nothing to do with Clearwire, and its Clearwire thats offering WiMAX
...
JL9000

Jan 7, 2009, 5:14 PM
thats what im not understanding i agree 100% with carmodboy there's no sprint name in any of this but yet they are getting the shaft this has to do with clearwire
...
algorithmplus

Jan 8, 2009, 8:26 PM
The name doesn't matter. Wal-Mart could start opening new identical stores called Shop America, but just because they have a different name, the ownership would be the same.
...
carmodboy99

Jan 7, 2009, 4:36 PM
However the fact remains that Clearwire, as Clearwire is not in the cellular business, whereas your example contained two very cellular companies.
...
algorithmplus

Jan 8, 2009, 8:33 PM
carmodboy99 said:
However the fact remains that Clearwire, as Clearwire is not in the cellular business, whereas your example contained two very cellular companies.

So should we assume that Sprint is leaving the cellular business and will shut down the Sprint network as Clearwire is deployed?

The fact is, they are *wireless* companies. Whether it be AMPS, TDMA, GSM, CDMA, UMTS/HSPA, or LTE, the technology will change, but they won't simply abandon their customers as they adapt to newer, faster, more efficient technology.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
2