Sprint Nextel Vs. 41 Schools and Non-Profits

netbuzz writes "A case of corporate bullying, or good network citizenship? Sprint Nextel has let slip the dogs of law on the FCC and 41 non-profits, most of them school systems, in an effort to get the FCC to stop granting these organizations special dispensation when they fail to renew their wireless spectrum licenses. These licenses were granted as part of the Educational Broadband Service. The school systems, many of them rural, argue that they don't have the staff or the resources to keep on top of the paperwork and shouldn't be punished for such bureaucratic lapses. (Some generate revenue by leasing unused portions of the spectrum to carriers such as Sprint Nextel.) The schools' argument may sound a bit like 'the dog ate my homework' to some, and Sprint Nextel makes a fairly compelling case that a greater good would be served if the FCC would stop enabling such tardiness."

Well, of course

[User 956 (568564)]

Sprint Nextel makes a fairly compelling case that a greater good would be served if the FCC would stop enabling such tardiness.

Yes, because private "ownership" of spectrum is clearly a god-given right, and not a state-sponsored privilege. No, not at all.

Re:

[User 956 (568564)]

However, the spectrum ought to be private property. This is an old, but easy to understand, argument

You're using an argument from 1964 to support your position in a technology debate? Clearly, the concept of distributed dynamic channel access (which did not exist FORTY-THREE YEARS AGO), is a successful one, and Ms. Rand's argument, while appropriate IN THE LAST CENTURY, is less poignant in this one. You know, the one where we're currently LIVING.

Are you going to follow up with an editorial extolling

Re:

[Knytefall (7348)]

"Ms. Rand's argument?" Does anything further need to be said to invalidate whatever that argument is?

Re:

[J'raxis (248192)]

Do you go around posting "You're using an argument from 1791?" when people defend First Amendment rights?

profits

[Lehk228 (705449)]

i think sprint means

"the public good would be better served by selling school spectrum to us so we can have better profits. you aren't a COMMUNIST are you!?"

Re:

[FunWithKnives (775464)]

Your comment is definitely funny, but insightful moreso. I hope someone gives you a proper karma-affecting moderation for that.

Mistake...

[Belial6 (794905)]

You have made a mistake. The proper term for an evil nasty has been officially changed from 'Communist' to 'Terrorist'. I am really surprised that you missed the memo. Please correct the verbiage in any future correspondence.

Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking

[saterdaies (842986)]

Sprint Nextel is one of the worst offenders when it comes to spectrum violations. The Nextel network has been illegally causing interference with public-safety radios for years now - and they have missed every deadline that has been set to clean it up. It started off because they were too cheap to filter their signals so that they wouldn't cause interference. Then they convinced the FCC to swap their scattered spectrum for much more valuable contiguous spectrum.

Sprint is the worst when it comes to spectrum violations and those schools should press the FCC to relieve Sprint of all Nextel's spectrum that's causing interference - without any compensation. Sprint would shut up pretty fast if that happened because one's a silly paperwork mix-up and the other's a wanton disregard for responsibility.

Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking

[grapeape (137008)]

Sprint also has a nasty habit of buying up spectrum in rural areas and then doing nothing with it primarily to keep competition out.

Re:

[CallFinalClass (801589)]

Do you always post lies, or is this new for you?

No, Sprint hasn't been "illegally causing interference." All of the Sprint/Nextel radios meet FCC specs.

Otherwise, they never could have been put into service. They would not have been FCC Type Accepted.

Were the FCC specs not as good as they should have been? Damn straight. That's the FCC's fault, all the way.

Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking

[sub67 (979309)]

Do you always post lies, or is this new for you?

No, Sprint hasn't been "illegally causing interference." All of the Sprint/Nextel radios meet FCC specs.

Otherwise, they never could have been put into service. They would not have been FCC Type Accepted.

Were the FCC specs not as good as they should have been? Damn straight. That's the FCC's fault, all the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextel#Nextel_U.S._op erations_interfere_with_police_and_fire_radios [wikipedia.org] *shrug*..

Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking

[tech10171968 (955149)]

The parent seems to have some very harsh words for Sprint-Nextel, but I'm not about to argue with him. I work for a small radio dealer in the Southeast and we operate three 800-Mhz radio tranmsitter sites covering a 10-county fooprint; in fact, we hold the *only* privately-owned 800Mhz spectrum in that part of the state (everyone else there sold out to - you guessed it - Sprint/Nextel). About a couple of years ago we (along with Sprint/Nextel) started our FCC-mandated rebanding; this involved Sprint/Nextel lending us the repeaters to keep our networks on line while we tuned our own repeaters to the new frequencies. Earlier this year the rebanding process was completed and we were due at least a $40,000 payment from Sprint/Nextel for fees and expenses incurred during the rebanding process. This payment was actually due months ago, but Sprint/Nextel has been using various tactics to delay this payment. They seem to know that this company is operating at a razor-thin margin and are hoping for us to go out of business. My guess is that they want to obtain these frequencies and hold them to eliminate any potential competition in the area. As it stands now, our shop is more or less a thorn in Sprint/Nextel's side as far as this particular mid-state market is concerned. I say that because few people I know actually buy Nextel cellphones because of the phone service (their service area sucks outside of interstate and urban areas); they buy these phones because of the radio feature. The problem for Sprint/Nextel is that we can provide similar midstate coverage for nowhere near what they charge customers in the same area - in other words, we are a direct threat to their local business model and they'd love to see us close up shop. The two-way radio industry is a small world and (from what I've heard from other shops) Sprint/Nextel has been sued several times before for using similar tactics against other entities. Apparently we weren't the only victims of Sprint/Nextel's tendency to play fast and loose with the rules, and that fact is the reason we 've had a Washington, D.C. communications attorney on retainer for the past few months (BTW the attorney's fees are also included in that payment due to us, so they've also managed to piss off a couple of D.C. lawyers as well). We'll see if we can avoid having to sue them ourselves, as our attorneys seem to have made some headway in the case. As of this writing we should be receiving payment within the next couple of days (I can hardly wait - Sprint/Nextel owes a few thousand dollars in rebanding fees alone). Otherwise, I guess we'll be seeing them in court.

Tutorial

[noidentity (188756)]

1. Buy calendar
2. Mark date that license has to be renewed
3. Renew license when that date arrives
3. ???
4. No loss of spectrum!!!

Seriously, anyone who pays monthly bills generally figures out a simple, cheap system like this. Nothing to remember except checking the calendar.

Personally...

[FunWithKnives (775464)]

I do not believe that the school system's repeated failure to renew on time is the most important issue here. The disturbing thing is that these educational systems have been forced to generate revenue by leasing portions of the spectrum to corporations. When educational departments are driven to things like this, what message does it send - scream, even - to the people? Right now, I am thinking it is along the lines of:

"We do not give two shits about education for the masses. We would rather funnel all of the money that we receive from taxpaying people into bombs, missiles, tanks, warplanes, weapons of mass destruction, et cetera."

When you take thirty seconds and look up government expenditures, it is actually plain as day. Here are the figures for defense versus education in 2004:

Defense: totalled $456 billion.

Education: totalled $88 billion.

source [infoplease.com] (warning: there may be some flash nasties at this site, but the figures are likely elsewhere on the 'net as well.)

If that does not anger the average person, I honestly do not know what will. While I was perusing the figures, I thought these two were also rather telling:

Also from 2004, cumulative, the amount that our government took in from taxes:

Individual Income Taxes: totalled $809 billion.

Corporate Income Taxes: totalled $189.4 billion.

I would say that there is a bit of a disparity there. I will leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions as to why.

Re:Personally...

[TuballoyThunder (534063)]

If you want to quote numbers, you should be complete. Below is a summary for 2007 [wikipedia.org]

• 586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
• $466.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
• $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
• $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
• $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
• $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
• $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
• $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
• $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
• $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
• $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
• $32.5 billion (-15.4%) - Foreign affairs
• $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
• $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
• $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
• $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
• $1.1 billion (-47.6%) - Energy

If you group it by "human services/community/education," "defense/veterans/foreign affairs" you get

• $1740.7 billion - "Human Services"
• $571.1 billion - "Defense"

Thus, for every $1 spent on "defense" $3 is spent on "human services."

I won't even bother getting into a discussion about tax policy--you might as well argue which religon is best. I will point out the following facts [about.com]:

• The top 5% of earners paid 53% of the income tax
• The top 1% of earners paid 33% of the income tax
• The bottom 50% of earners paid less than 5% of the income tax

Also, do not forget that individual income tax includes unincorporated businesses.

Re:Personally...

[SQL Error (16383)]

It's also important to note than education is not primarily funded at the federal level. These figures are a few years old [policyalmanac.org], but they show that only 7% of elementary and secondary education expenditure is federally funded.

Re:Personally...

[GlL (618007)]

Spending FUD!

The people with interests in Defense tout numbers that say we spend too much on Human Services, and the people with interests in Human Services tout numbers that say we spend too much on Defense. Personally, I think they are both right. We as a nation spend too much money. If we eliminated half the bureaucrats in DC, we would get more done. When you spend more money then you take in, that causes problems down the road. If I ran my house or business the way the US is run financially, I would be doing serious jail time.

Defense:
We spend too much money on development of technologies that will NEVER be used. Missile defense is irrelevant when you take into account the fact that you can do more damage with a guy with a suitcase then with a missile. And those figures DON'T include the "Emergency Spending" bills that have been passed.

Education:
We spend too much money on mid-level patronage jobs. And we have done nothing to teach our children how to think critically. The kids that I have seen are taught to parrot information and conform. We wonder why our kids aren't that creative? We need to spend our money on programs that teach kids how to access, analyze and implement information as opposed to barfing it back up on tests.

I am a cynic, but how could I look at politics and not be?

Well, maybe

[dj245 (732906)]

The top 5% of earners paid 53% of the income tax
The top 1% of earners paid 33% of the income tax
The bottom 50% of earners paid less than 5% of the income tax

Don't believe for a second that the tax code leans too heavilly on wealthy people, or that wealthy people are generous with their taxes. The truth is that the top 5% of "earners" are so fantastically wealthy that even with cooking books, taking every deduction, and accounting tricks, the tax% of a #hugenumber still fairly large.

Re:Personally...

[Doctor High (36371)]

As far as I know, a hike in corporate tax is partly internalized by downsizing workers and eating some of the tax by taking a lower profit margin. They make up for the rest by raising prices. This is a bit simplistic, as taxation is sticky business, but higher inflation and unemployment are not the targets of fiscal policy.

I'd say you're on the right track with this, but it's even simpler. If corporate income taxes are raised, a business will compensate for the potential loss of profits via:

1) Raise prices
2) Lower costs of production (fewer workers, cheaper parts, etc.)
3) Both of the above

The really sad thing about Americans and taxes is that most of us don't realize that an increase in corporate taxes might as well be an increase in individual taxes. The consumers pay for all corporate taxes. It might be in the form of higher prices, or lower quality goods for the same price, lost jobs, or some combination of those three. We just feel better about instituting higher taxes on corporations, because we feel like they're the ones making all the money. Nobody feels good about increasing taxes on individuals.

Seems a bit odd...

[Sledgy (133446)]

The article claims that some school districts are making money from on-leasing their unused spectrum. I would have thought that keeping your licenses up to date for something that provides you with income is just good sense.

What's good for the goose...

[Alioth (221270)]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you leaf through the FCC's list of enforcements for failing to renew licenses, some of it reads like the NYSE 100 Telecoms Hall of Fame - with companies like Sprint et al. featuring with reasonable freqency (and others, such as DirecTV). The interesting thing is if an individual or a small firm forgets to renew their license, they get slapped with the same fine as a multibillion dollar multinational telecoms company that should know better. A $10,000 fine for an individual or small firm can be devastating, but for a big multinational, it's probably cheaper to only bother to renew when the enforcement notice comes than employ someone to keep track of the paperwork.

Re:Loose.

[ManicGiraffe (558896)]

The line is indeed "let slip the dogs of war". From Julius Caesar.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/105600.html [phrases.org.uk]

Re:

[StikyPad (445176)]

Oops.. I stand corrected!

Re:

[ManConley (1085415)]

Sorry to nitpick, but the quote is "let loose the dogs of war."

Sorry to nitpick, but:

ANTONY:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

~ William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene 1)

"Let slip" is an interesting phrase; while "slip" is usually unintentional, "let slip"

Re:Loose.

[proxy318 (944196)]

Well I guess that finally answers the perennial question "Who let the dogs out?"