Sprint’s hypocritical attempt to destroy a wireless company…

On Oct. 7, Sprint finally announced their future intentions regarding “4G technology”.  While there was no surprise that Sprint has decided to drop WiMAX in favor of LTE (probably the best part of the announcement), Sprint’s plans will result in the termination of it’s Nextel PTT unit and effectively try to bankrupt Clearwire so Sprint can pick up the pieces on the cheap.  Meanwhile, Sprint is suing to block the AT&T-T-Mobile merger, stating that the merger would leave 2 giant wireless companies with Sprint a distant third.  As I’ve said before on this blog, Sprint’s problems aren’t because AT&T and Verizon have an unfair advantage; it’s because Sprint is just incompetent.  I have corroborating information from others in the wireless world.  And this plan of Sprint's shows just how bad their incompetence is.

I’m going to ignore Sprint’s iPhone deal, which suggests that even under optimal conditions, Sprint will not turn a profit on the iPhone until 2014—even if they meet their expectations on the contract.  But, as an aside, Steve Jobs' likely final business decision was a stroke of genius at the expense of Sprint’s CEO, Dan Hesse.  Apple will never get a deal that good ever again.

So let’s sum up Sprint’s LTE plans… They plan to deploy LTE in their 1900-MHz band currently occupied by their CDMA network.  This is far higher in the spectrum range than AT&T and Verizon, which deploy their LTE networks in the 700 MHz band (AT&T will also deploy LTE in the AWS bandwidths of 1.7/2.1 GHz, similar to where Sprint’s network will be).  Translation:  Sprint will need more towers than AT&T and Verizon does to cover the same areas.  Sprint will likely deploy 5x5 MHz LTE Spectrum, far lower than the 10x10 MHz spectrum Verizon and AT&T (in some areas) has for LTE.  Translation:  Sprint’s LTE rate will be slower than Verizon and AT&T, and it may even be slower than its current WiMAX network, which goes up to 10 MHz as well.

As a result of Sprint’s LTE deployment, their CDMA network will move to 800 MHz, which effectively means the end of its Nextel iDEN network.  They will likely sell the iDEN equipment to somewhere else in the world, but all the Nextel PTT users will either be eliminated or forced to join Sprint’s PCS network.

As for Sprint’s WiMAX network it shares with Clearwire, after 2012, Sprint will stop selling WiMAX handsets.  My hunch is that Sprint will stop supporting WiMAX at that time, leaving its WiMAX users out in the dark.  It’s ironic, considering Sprint owns 54 percent of Clear, but Sprint and Clear in recent years has mixed together about as well as oil and water.  Clear is planning to deploy LTE on it’s network, but it needs money and Sprint has no intention of supporting Clear after their current contract with Clear is over in 2012.  In fact, Sprint is hoping Clear goes bankrupt to scoop up the spectrum Clear owns.  Because without Clear’s spectrum, it’s a near guarantee Sprint would be forced to end it’s unlimited data packages, given the limited amount of spectrum they would have minus Clear.

Clear owns spectrum in the 2.6 GHz range, which isn’t ideal for deployment of LTE, but it has huge advantages.  The 2.6 GHz Spectrum was bought by Clear and Worldcom in 2001.  When Worldcom went bankrupt in 2002, Nextel picked up the spectrum for a song ($144 million) and Sprint inherited the Spectrum when they merged with Nextel.  Sprint gave the spectrum to Clearwire in 2008 as part of gaining 54% of the Craig McCaw founded company.  Now Sprint is hoping that a Clear bankruptcy would enable Sprint to reclaim their spectrum and add Clear’s spectrum.  The idea would be that Sprint would claim a huge amount of spectrum with which they could deploy an larger and faster LTE network on the cheap.

But the 2.6 GHz spectrum Clear owns has become the most prized wireless spectrum in the US, and it’s unlikely Sprint would be allowed to take it without a fight.  For one thing, the amount of Spectrum Clear owns is huge (about 120 MHz, maybe even more).  If any major Wireless Company gets a hold of that spectrum, it would alleviate any spectrum crunches those companies would have for a long time.  Second, the 2.6 GHz spectrum has seen many LTE deployments in the world already and could easily be a world LTE standard, making roaming a likely possibility.  So, it Clear goes bankrupt, expect a fight between AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint over the spectrum.  And, even if Sprint won the whole spectrum, I would expect it to pay a huge price for it (certainly above the $144 million Nextel paid for it—I estimate it would cost at least $25 billion for the whole spectrum).  And you don’t think AT&T would love to pay Sprint back for their attempts to block AT&T’s attempt to buy T-Mobile to acquire more spectrum.  With Sprint needing cash, it’s unlikely Sprint would be able to hold on to the entire spectrum without court victories.

Even if Sprint gets everything it wants, the hypocrisy they are showing over the AT&T-T-Mobile merger while they try to snuff out Clear is blatant.  Also, there is no guarantee that Sprint will be able to do anything with that spectrum due to financial issues.  And even if they do, Sprint’s reputation suggests they will deploy an inferior product.  It’s time for the FCC and the DoJ to call Sprint on their hypocrisy and tell Sprint to try and succeed on their own.  Maybe Sprint will survive and maybe they won’t.  But it’s time for Sprint to prove their value in the consumer world and not in the courts.

Liberty for all vs. Justice for all…

Our great nation has forever been divided into two camps since the moment we first declared independence with a third camp that will support the winner in the struggle.  Patriots vs. Loyalists gave way to Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans which gave away to North vs. South and later Democrats vs. Republicans.  Since the Vietnam War, we have been divided into camps of Conservatives vs. Liberals, but even now these sides have evolved into a new phase that is growing up right before our eyes.  One side is the Tea Party.  The other is a yet to named Party that is now occupying Wall Street.  There is a better way to describe the Two Sides and that description is found in the last five words of our Pledge of Allegiance:  “Liberty For All” vs. “Justice For All”.

The “Liberty for All” side is the Tea Party.  Their belief focuses on that Government is not a solution to the problem; rather, Government is the problem.  Their historical guide is the American Revolution.  They believe individuals have the right to choose their own fate and live their own lives.  Many are successful from the standpoint that they own their own homes and they may even own their own businesses.  Liberty, itself, is viewed as freedom with responsibility in their eyes.  Everyone has the ability to live their own way, and their success and failure is based on their willingness to do what it takes to succeed (usually hard work, although some choose to take short cuts to get ahead).  It is Darwinian in nature, which is ironic considering many on this side also believe in Christianity.

The “Justice for All” side is manifested in the form of those currently occupying Wall Street.  Their belief focuses on that humanity’s elite is corrupt and only a strong force (not necessarily Government, but if Government is the only way to accomplish the goals, that they will push the Government to act) can bring the elite to Justice.  Their historical guide is the French Revolution.  Many in the movement have been hurt by those who they feel have committed crimes or taken short cuts to get ahead at their expense.  Justice doesn’t necessarily focus only on resolving legal conflicts to their satisfaction, but it can also extend to social causes (equal rights, providing for the needs of all, caring for the environment, and making everyone more equal).  Everyone is protected to some degree from humanity’s worst instincts, aka, The “Seven Deadly Sins”, but it is most often at the cost of higher achievement.  These people use the early Christian church as a guide, which is ironic since many on this side shun the Christian faith.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages.  The Liberty for All’s weak spot is apparent lack of compassion (see a recent GOP debate about health care), while the Justice for All’s weak spot is that they are susceptible to a small group of powerful leaders among them that would corrupt the justice into their favor (i.e. Robespierre).  Both sides are genuine in their beliefs and the fact that the media chooses to belittle or ignore many parts of their causes only strengths each group’s passion.

The third side in this debate are those who believe in a little of both.  They realize both sides’ strengths and weaknesses, but are leery of either side gaining too much control in the nation.  In case one side gets too powerful, they throw their weight to the other side to prevent a further erosion of either liberty or justice.  This side faces extraordinary pressure from both sides to make a choice.  Both sides' argue “You’re either with us or against us”, and this third side is beginning to erode away in the face of the withering assaults.

All people need to understand, however, the closing words of the Pledge of Allegiance are “Liberty AND Justice for all”, not emphasis on one or the other.  The Liberty side needs to understand that without a EQUAL balance of Justice, Liberty becomes corrupted.  And the Justice side needs to understand without a EQUAL balance of Liberty, Justice itself becomes vulnerable to those who can corrupt the power of Justice.  And the third side needs to remind both sides of the balance as well as learn the lessons of that balance itself.  Without both an equal amount of Liberty and Justice, this nation will not be the Shining Beacon on a Hill we always have strived for.

Michael Moore Stereotyping Hypocrisy…

Normally, I try to steer away from people making political statements.  It is everyone’s right to state their opinions, even if I don’t agree with them.  But when you call for a boycott of my home state and, in the process, paint the entire state as racist when your home area has had a poor record on race, I’m going to say something about it.

In case you missed it (and given the lack of attention about it, a lot of people probably missed the story), filmmaker Michael Moore called for “all Americans with a conscience to shun anything and everything to do with the murderous state of Georgia”—a response to the execution of Troy Davis.  He has even gone so far as to demand his publisher pull his book, “Here Comes Trouble”, from every bookstore in the state.  If not, then he will “donate every dime of every royalty my book makes in Georgia to help defeat the racists and killers who run that state.”  Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s office has responded with the following statement:  “We think it is cute he thinks anyone in Georgia would buy his book, but if any Georgian does, I'm happy to double the royalties and buy a pack of gum for a charity of Michael Moore's choice.”  Ouch!

First of all, Mr. Moore might be confused about whether he is talking about Georgia or his hometown of Flint, MI.  Yes, Georgia has a bad history of racism, but Flint, in case you didn’t know, also has a long history of racism in it as well—like many areas north of the Mason-Dixon line which you never hear about (and anyone who challenges my assumption about that, maybe they should recall Indiana’s history with the Klan or that Boston, MA is still today considered a largely segregated city).  And Flint’s crime rate makes Detroit look like paradise.  Sounds like the pot calling the kettle…never mind.  But painting the entire state of Georgia as racist… do you have any clue, Mr. Moore?  How many of my friends who herald from the Peach State are progressive in their views?  This state brought the nation Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner, and John Lewis—none of them I would consider conservatives.  It also was the adult home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—the man most responsible for leading the Civil Rights movement.  What has Flint produced to help the cause of civil rights?

Oh, and I would suggest to keep an eye out on Mr. Moore.  If he donates any money to the Carter Center or King Memorial, he’s a hypocrite.  Also, if you see him drinking a Coke product, eating at Chick-Fil-A, flying Delta, or shopping at Home Depot, that’s showing he doesn’t practice what he preaches.  It’s easy to call for a boycott on South Carolina, which happened many years ago.  But Georgia?  Shows me Mr. Moore wasn’t thinking at all when he opened his mouth to stereotype an entire state while ignoring his problems at home.