AT&T is coming out swinging this afternoon over some material changes to Sprint's network in Oklahoma and Kansas that will see it shut down some of its own coverage in favor of roaming agreements with CDMA competitors. Specifically, AT&T cites two policy changes on the FCC's part that have enabled Sprint's move: first, the end of the Home Market Rule, which prevented carriers from establishing roaming agreements in markets where they owned their own spectrum; second, its decision last year to require carriers offer high-speed data roaming in addition to voice. It seems an odd thing for AT&T to get worked up over, save for a couple important things: one, the intent of the roaming rule was to allow rural carriers to compete on even ground, and two, it only stands to reason that a carrier holding spectrum should be required to exhaust it before turning to roaming agreements in a given market. As AT&T senior VP Bob Quinn says, "Sprint can now use other folks' networks rather than pony up its own investment dollars. Nice work if you can get it."
For its part, Sprint has been quick to reply:
It's disappointing, but not surprising, that AT&T wants to challenge a consumer's right to access email, the Internet and other mobile broadband services wherever they may travel in the U.S. Along with Verizon Wireless, AT&T is the only other wireless carrier in America which opposes the FCC's pro-consumer data roaming decision from last year.
The facts are that Sprint, as part of its Network Vision program, doubled its 2011 capital investment over 2010 to make tens of thousands of capacity upgrades, resulting in a better wireless experience for its customers. With these network investments, Sprint continues to offer consumers a better value than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.
So it pretty flatly counters AT&T's argument about scaling back infrastructure investment, but avoids the fact that the company — although a member of the Rural Cellular Association — is anything but a rural carrier, and not really the primary intended beneficiary of the FCC's expanded roaming regulations. AT&T notes that those regulations are going before the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals later this year, and it's "hopeful" that the court will "reject the FCC's market intervention." In reality, the most pro-consumer policy seems to lie somewhere between Sprint's view and AT&T's, which should come as no surprise.

There are 37 Comments. Add yours.
Sprint FTW?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not until they stop whatever deal with Google they have not to get any WP phones (arrive doesn’t count).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:05 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Or they’ll sell WP when Microsoft starts to advertise the phones, and the customer demand is there. Since they arent exactly raking in dough right now, they cant afford to have phones that arent selling just sitting there. Gotta carry what has the best chance of selling. <— The non troll perspective.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
What a load of crap man.
T-Mobile has no issues selling tons of WP phones, all the tiny European / Asian carriers who make a fraction of Spring don’t have any issues selling WP Phones.
But somehow, Sprint, a company a magnitude bigger can’t “afford it”, what a load of bull.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:42 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
And before you come with another excuse that WP somehow doesn’t sell or whatever. The HTC Radar was T-Mobile’s 3rd biggest seller 2 months in a row: http://www.neowin.net/news/radar-4g-is-t-mobiles-3rd-best-selling-device-2-months-in-a-row
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Wow..so “third best selling device” on the carrier with the smallest lineup is your idea of a runaway hit? And I’d love you to name some of these “tiny Europeon/Asian” carriers who are even carrying WP phones, let alone selling a lot of them.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
TDC
Attelia
3
Sgbest
Bee
Proximus
Base
Orange
Mobistar
there are literally hundreds smaller than Spring who have no issues selling WP
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
sprint*
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“"We have since Friday experienced the same demand, as shown by the introduction of the iPhone 4S. Lumia 800 has sold more than three times as much as number two on our sales charts, "Morten Steen Jensen, purchasing manager at TDC, Denmark’s largest telecom company”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:11 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Do you realise the Nokia Lumia was introduced in Europe? Do you live on a deserted island or something?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You want to know why the HTC Radar sells well on T-Mobile?
When I walk into my local T-Mobile store, it has a poster of the HTC Radar and a demo phone which I can actually try out.
And for those carriers, how about TDC or Telia?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you kidding me? Remember the original Motorola Droid?
The customer demand weren’t there until Verizon market the crap out of it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The original Droid had the distinction of first major iPhone competitor on the largest network. Windows Phone 7 doesn’t have that advantage. Also Nokia selling well in Europe doesn’t automatically translate to North American sales as the brand power of Nokia just isn’t isn’t what it used to be in the USA.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nuh-uh! Does count times two!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let the cat fight begin.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is the some benefit to 2 carriers building the infrastructure twice that I am missing?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Capacity and monopoly avoidance, to name a couple.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lowering the cost of creating national carriers seems like a great way to avoid a monopoly.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:52 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
That’s true, except that the rural areas where Sprint is discontinuing on-network service are areas that are already running well below capacity.
Seems to make sense. Lease capacity in areas where utilization is low, and redirect those resources to upgrading network infrastructure in areas where utilization is high.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ll admit, Sprint did upgrade my area a few months ago. It went from pathetic to halfway decent. My 3G used to be around 80kbps but now I’ve seen it consistently over 600 to 1000 kbps.
Let’s just hope their LTE can be competitive with the other carriers.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Mudslinging…However, if Sprint could ever forge another roaming agreement with Verizon (and pay (dearly) for it), they would stand a chance…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think people need to see this. Just east of downtown Greensboro, NC. This is the average data speeds I get with sprint.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:48 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Exactly! I was getting similar speeds (100 kbps, 30 kbps) throughout the Ft Meade, MD area — between DC and Baltimore. I like the Sprint price and the unlimited data — but unlimited is no good if you can’t even stream Pandora consistently. I just killed my contract and moved to AT&T, bought two iPhone 4S — now consistently getting 4-5 Mbps in the same places, better penetration into buildings… Sprint here is ridiculous.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yup, Sprint is just non existent on the BW parkway in that area. They never put new towers there.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s the reason it’s unlimited, because it’s crap.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“The facts are that Sprint, as part of its Network Vision program, doubled its 2011 capital investment over 2010 to make tens of thousands of capacity upgrades, resulting in a better wireless experience for its customers”
And just how does this relate to the people who will see their service drop from 3G to roaming at 1X speed levels once Sprint abandons this territory?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can it actually get slower? I get faster than that while on 1X on Verizon. (referring the thebasedgod’s speedtest.net post)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not good at reading are you? They specifically say that one of the factors in this is that carriers have to allow 3G roaming now. Reading comprehension ftw.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I LIVE in the affected area, and received a notice from Sprint that said my data speed will DECREASE as a result of this change. So I CAN read, thank you very much. Also I anticipate Sprint threatening to cancel my contract as I will now be on roaming 100% of the time.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Once Sprint has a roaming agreement with a local CDMA carrier in those areas, the updated PRL on the phone will allow it to use that carriers system, without it showing up as roaming. While it’s not the “Sprint Network”, your phone doesn’t care. Sprint is basically not saturated in those areas, and rather than maintain their own towers, they can “lease” the other companies towers, giving that local carrier a revenue stream, and saving Sprint money to put into other more saturated areas.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Beginning March 1, according to the notice I received from Sprint, our phones will begin showing Sprint service as roaming, and data speeds will drop to 1X speeds in the affected areas.
The REAL reason Sprint is making these changes was not mentioned by AT&T in their statement.
A little background: Since 2005 Sprint has had a joint operation and roaming agreement in western Oklahoma and part of Kansas with Pioneer Cellular, wherein they shared construction and operation of 180 towers and had a fully reciprocal roaming agreement with each other. Verizon has no system in that area at all, they have licenses but have never built anything.
In 2010, Pioneer Cellular joined Verizon’s LTE in Rural America program, where a local carrier builds an LTE system, using Verizon’s licenses, and in exchange for allowing Verizon customers to roam on Pioneer’s LTE system, Pioneer’s customers are allowed to use Verizon’s nationwide LTE network.
Sprint has no LTE network and no plans for one, so in essence, Pioneer has dumped Sprint for Verizon, and has built an LTE system which will launch in “Spring”. AT&T has no LTE network here either, and probably never will have, as this area is part of what they are giving up to T-Mobile. AT&T has other coverage, pretty good, actually, so they are basically moaning over the fact they will never have LTE, while Pioneer/Verizon will be launching it in a few months. They are taking out their frustrations on Sprint instead of Pioneer/Verizon.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sprint sucks. Unlimited data at under 1m is pretty much useless to me.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:56 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Sprint rules. Hands d
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:12 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sigh. Where’s the edit button?!
As I was saying, Sprint is hands-down the best carrier.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:13 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If AT&T is smart, it should rent out its UMTS/HSPA+ network to T-Mobile and use the money to buy spectrum and build its LTE network.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The death star AT$T is out to kill Sprint.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Kansas and Oklahoma? That’s where Sprint had built its WiMax network for testing purposes. Sprint has been shutting down its WiMax for a while as it moves to over to LTE. I bet this is what AT&T is complaining about.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.