Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Education Hardware

Sprint Nextel Vs. 41 Schools and Non-Profits 93

Posted by kdawson from the rooting-for-Goliath dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sprint Nextel Vs. 41 Schools and Non-Profits More

Sprint Nextel Vs. 41 Schools and Non-Profits

Comments Filter:

  • Well, of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday May 07, 2007 @10:28PM (#19031067) Homepage
    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.
    • "Sprint Nextel makes a fairly compelling case that a greater good would be served if the FCC would stop enabling such tardiness."

      So, what exactly do they mean by 'Greater Good'? So far as I can tell the greater good in this case is a larger profit for Sprint Nextel, less revenue for the school district, and higher taxes for land owners. What goodness am I suppose to be excited about?

      -Rick

  • profits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Monday May 07, 2007 @10:36PM (#19031149) Journal
    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!?"
    • Your comment is definitely funny, but insightful moreso. I hope someone gives you a proper karma-affecting moderation for that.

    • Mistake... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @12:28AM (#19032045)
      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.

      • Please read the footnote as well...

        Any Evil Nasty that interferes with the profitability of corporations is an Economic Terrorist.

        Please make note of it.

  • Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saterdaies ( 842986 ) on Monday May 07, 2007 @10:38PM (#19031181)
    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.
    • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by sub67 ( 979309 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @12:54AM (#19032189)

        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by R2.0 ( 532027 )
        Of course Nextels equipment is legal - it's how they use it that is illegal.

        A site license granted by the FCC for a tower site has very specific limits on its transmission power so that interference does not occur. The frequency coordination is done by 3rd party engineers. So, if they are running their tower withing their license limits, there should be no interference.

        Well guess what - you can go in and turn the gain up on the tranmitter so that it exceeds the license. The FCC doesn't put seals on trans

    • Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tech10171968 ( 955149 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @01:30AM (#19032401)
      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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rec9140 ( 732463 )
      If I had the mod points you would get them as +5.

      You hit the nail on the head. Nexhell is THE WORST POLLUTER of the spectrum out there.

      SouthernLinc uses the same iDEN system and when ever there is a problem with adajacent systems THEY FIX IT.

  • but what sorts of things are the schools using this spectrum for exactly anyhow? Are we talking high schools here? Or universities? TFA doesn't really say much other than that the schools have allowed their licenses to expire. Also, I don't believe that Sprint/Nextel are just doing this to police the FCC laws, there has GOT to be an angle. Companies that big aren't stupid (okay, some are) they wouldn't just dump a bunch of money worth of lawyers on this unless there was a chance for positive return.
    • I know nothing about what is going on except what I learned from the summary, but it sounds like schools and NPOs get spectrum by pleading public good. The FCC grants (without charge? reduced charge? prefered status?) this spectrum for educational purposes etc.. Sprint wants cheaper access to spectrum, so they file suit against people whose rights to spectrum have lapsed but who continue to hold it to try to move them off (one less competitor means cheaper access). If it happens to then cost more for these
    • That is the "funniest" thing indeed... Schools are supposed to use this spectrum for educational purposes. Churches also get some. It was supposed to be "for Instructional and Educational purposes", distance learning, etc.

      But every school or church can't have a full TV production studio, so they can't be broadcasting permanently... And when they are not broadcasting, wouldn't it be a shame to let this good spectrum sit unused?

      So the FCC allowed these licensees to lease out up to 95% of their capacity to thi

  • Tutorial (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FunWithKnives ( 775464 ) <<ten.tsirorret> <ta> <tcefrePxodaraP>> on Monday May 07, 2007 @11:29PM (#19031621) Journal
    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: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by FunWithKnives ( 775464 )
      Looks like a moderator has a difference of opinion. Instead of skewing the moderation system even more by modding based on that opinion, I would suggest foregoing the privileges for this discussion in order to reply and make your case.
      • Slashdot's moderation is based entirely on opinion. Half the time, people just use it as +1 Agree or -1 Disagree (like, oh, a certain site that starts with "D").

        What I'd like to see is new moderation options: +1 Right, -1 Wrong, and -5 Stupid.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doctor High ( 36371 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @01:23AM (#19032355) Homepage

        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.

    • Re:Personally... (Score:5, Informative)

      by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @12:00AM (#19031845)

      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.
      • I very am glad to see there are some sane people here. Thanks for straightening that out.

      • Re:Personally... (Score:4, Informative)

        by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @02:08AM (#19032651)
        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... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GlL ( 618007 ) <gil AT net-venture DOT com> on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @02:20AM (#19032707)
        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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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: (Score:1)

          by maxume ( 22995 )
          Yes, but those numbers make you come up with a more hilarious definition of 'fair' if you want to call current tax apportionment 'unfair'. I saw a thing on CNBC(so take it with a truck of salt) that said that the bottom bracket receives $8 in government services for every dollar they pay in taxes. That's a pretty good deal(and $2 or $4 would still be a good deal).
          • It's not so funny when you realize that bottom bracket is only making about $8,000 per year, now is it? Would you like to try to live on $8,000 a year without any government services?

            What is funny is we allow people to make $billions per year, and other people only make $8,000 a year.

            And I don't mean funny in the ha-ha way.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by maxume ( 22995 )
              Are you talking about the US with those numbers? I actually don't feel all that bad for someone working 1500 hours a year at minimum wage. They can make more money by simply working more. They can make more money by acquiring some sort of skill. There is opportunity for the taking.

              • They can make more money by simply working more. They can make more money by acquiring some sort of skill. There is opportunity for the taking.

                Sounds like someone who's nhad a firly privileged life.

                Simply working more? What, like there is such an excess of jobs that someone can simply find one when they want to work more hours? And that they'll automatically get hired, even though they may not even be qualified for a lot of miimum wage jobs?

                They can acquire some sort of skill? How, exactly? Can they a

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by maxume ( 22995 )
                  Sure I've had a fairly privileged life, but so have 99.99% of the people in the US. Some people have the attitude that any and all inequality should be addressed by the government; I don't, and I don't have a whole lot of problems with the inequality that exists in the US. Sorry if you think I'm a bastard for that.
                  • I don't think you're a bastard, though I disagree with your position -- what I have a problem with is that you make blatantly false statements to support your positions.

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by maxume ( 22995 )
                      My statements were not blatantly false. It might not be easy as biscuits, but it actually is simply possible for someone working 30 hours a week to go to the library and get a book and read it. This is a simple way for them to acquire new skills. And it seems like the vast majority of people working 30 hours a week can at least make finding more work to do their second job. I'm not saying that they can easily add 5 hours of work a week, but it really is a simple matter for them to put effort towards things

                    • but it actually is simply possible for someone working 30 hours a week to go to the library and get a book and read it

                      It's possible for some people to do that, not all. You act like opportunity is universal (even if inequitable), but it's not. Do you think every little town in rural areas has a library? Do you think that every poor person has the spare cash for gas to get to the library, even if they have a car? Or the money for a bicycle? Or the time away from taking care of a family or taking care of

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by maxume ( 22995 )
                      I live in one of the poorest rural counties in Michigan. Michigan!

                      Po' people thunder by in their V8 pickups all day long, they have plenty of gas money to drive the 4 miles to the nice library in the local village.
                    • Ah, yes, obviously the ones you observe are the only ones in existence. Your sampling is way off, since by default it eliminates those without the resources to get to a library.

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by maxume ( 22995 )
                      My thought was more that they aren't universally disadvantaged either. I don't pretend to know how the worst off people live, but I see plenty of people that are pretty close to the bottom that are doing fine.

                      To clarify, I don't have any problems with a progressive tax code, but I do have a problem when people make statements to the effect that it isn't progressive, or that it abuses poor people, because it doesn't.
                    • Well, the flip side of it is that a lot of people have no understanding of the plight of the poor in the US. To be sure, it's nothing like the plight of the poor in say, Somalia, or even in India. It's mistaken to believe that equitable opportunity exists for all, because it doesn't. As for whether the tax system abuses the poor, that's ancillary to the non-tax-related hardships of the poor, IMO.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by PJ1216 ( 1063738 )
        We can create any sort of categories we want to try and show defense costs aren't that high. Why not just create the categories as "defense" and "not defense" then it's closer to like 1 dollar of defense for every 5 dollars on something not defense related. The person was comparing EDUCATION to DEFENSE. Not Human services to defense. EDUCATION. Don't redefine the person's argument. How someone can say it's justified to spend more on war then on the education of the FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY, they have to

      • The top 5% of earners paid 53% of the income tax
        That's nice. Now tell me what percentage of the actual wealth those top 5% control and we'll have maybe some actually USEFUL numbers. Last I checked, those top 5% control more than 53% of the wealth, meaning they're paying LESS than their fair share by my book.
    • I'm assuming the numbers you are quoting are for spending by the FEDERAL government. The vast majority of money for K-12 education in this country comes from either the individual states or property taxes at the level of individual school districts. In my home state, education makes up more than half the annual budget, and practically nothing on national defense. So while I agree there is an argument to be made about how much money to spend on the military vs education, quoting numbers solely from the fede
    • Were those numbers reversed - $456 billion on education and $88 on military - all the money on education might just become moot. It's no use being well educated if you're dead. Yeah yeah I know - the left will scream back, "YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE! YOU FEAR MONGER!" Facing reality != trying to scare people. There are people out there that hate us for no better reason than we are a wealthy, free society. I'd love to see the defense/education numbers reversed, but I'd hate to imagine just how fast

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hazem ( 472289 )
        It's no use being well educated if you're dead. Yeah yeah I know - the left will scream back, "YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE! YOU FEAR MONGER!" Facing reality != trying to scare people. There are people out there that hate us for no better reason than we are a wealthy, free society.

        Actually, war monger is a better word for it. The name of the department was far more accurate when it was the "war department" and not the "defense department". The US has been waging war on people all over the world eve

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Omestes ( 471991 )
        And WHO actually is out to get us? And out of that how many of them are out to get us because we are out to get them (or at least this is how they see it)?

        No one hates us because we're free. People hate us because of what we do to other people, and our support for genocidal regimes that are okay with killing people. People hate us because we won't mind our own goddamn business. yes, now it might be too late since we already garnered enough antipathy globally to be screwed for generations, but if we actu
    • We tax both wages and earnings, however they are one and the same. Any wages paid are from corporate earnings; whichever side of the paycheck you tax it on the same amount comes out.

      In any case, these schools aren't 'forced' to lease the spectrum; they simply find that it is more productive to their educational program to rent it out and invest the money in a more effective curriculum. Giving these schools ownership of spectrum is effectively giving them free money, very similar to giving them an apartment
    • Not that I agree with the money distribution in the US, but...

      AFAIK, There's more money per student in the U.S. k-12 system than in any other country (or near to it). Might not be the money provided, perhaps we should be looking more at their spending.

      More importantly, I'm currently working at the Housing Dept. of my college to make ends meet. Perhaps we're atypical, but part of my responsibility is keeping an up to date calendar, along with deadlines, etc. There's a very nice scheduling system in use as we

    • 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:

      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.

      If that does not anger the average person, I honestly do not know what will.

      You make a good point, though more money != better education. Since I am originally from Georgia, I'll pick on my own state as an example. Georgia schools have one of the highest per-student education spending ratios in the nation, but the Georgia students are consistently one of the lowest ranked of the nation in educational abilities testing.

      I imagine that educating children is a very complicated matter, and quoting one statistic alone does not prove a point. However, throwing more money at a broken syst

      • (Education majors have lowest SAT scores amongst their college cohorts)
        What other groups were they compared with?
        • According to the articles I read about this, they were judged against 22 other possible majors. The education majors, who averaged 961 out of a possible 1600, were not the lowest though! Education majors beat out the home economics majors, "technical & vocational education" majors, and public affairs & services majors.

          So teachers are smarter than auto mechanics, professional housewives/husbands, and social workers (I presume that this is part of the "public affairs & services" classification).

          Th
    • Schools are generating revenue through a variety of, uh, clever means. They lease vending machine space to junk food vendors. This amounts to a hidden tax on the society because schools are now promoting obesity, which results in taxpayers and parents forking over more money for health care down the line. Similarly, the schools are not exactly going to be market efficient spectrum brokers. Public schools should receive their funding from the same source that they receive their mandate. Except in Kansas

    • 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

      Given that national individual income is more than thirty times national corporate income, I'd say you're right. The corporations are paying taxes you and I would never dream of. (I can tell, because you wouldn't have said something that ill-informed nor made a comparison so obviously bereft of the appropriate numbers, if you had dreamt of it.)

      There's a reason

  • Seems a bit odd... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 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.
  • ...having just missed their first quarter profit numbers [blogs.com]. But their revenue is still fine, 10B a quarter...
  • Sprint / Nextel wants those spectrum allocations for itself. If there wasn't a dollar in it for Sprint, they wouldn't be interested.

    And don't be surprised if after they get these frequencies allocated to themselves they do nothing with them - just to make sure a competitor doesn't have a chance to use them.

    These guys have a long history of bad actions - assume the worst and they won't disappoint you.

  • If they aren't going to renew a license to spectrum they just want to lease out rather than use, they should lose the spectrum. Giving the school spectrum most likely was not done so they could make money off of it. It was most likely done so they could use it for networking.

  • as a general rule.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by azakem ( 924479 )
    Just as a baseline rule, I would be highly suspicous of a private corporation's arguments that strictly enforcing a regulation against non-profits and public entities somehow benefits the public good. Corporations are obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders, not for the public good. There is almost always some matter of consequence that will benefit the corporation that the corporation is not disclosing; in this particular situation, it is not difficult to speculate as to Sprint Nextel's les

    • Just as a baseline rule, I would be highly suspicous of a private corporation's arguments that strictly enforcing a regulation against non-profits and public entities somehow benefits the public good.

      Y'know, that's exactly the same thing that the telemarketer industry nonprofits say when places like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting steps up and says "you know, there are regulations preventing them from doing this, you guys should step in."

      Anyone who would assume that because one side is a corporation

  • Nextel is the bully (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In my area, Nextel moved in (several years ago), and "bought" rights to the 800 MHz spectrum. The funny thing was, they came to my business, and said "We see you're using the (currently free) 800MHz spectrum for your truck to HQ communications... How would you like to buy our nifty phones that do what you're doing for free?"

    Obvious answer - hell no.

    Shortly thereafter, Nextel serves us with a notice, telling us that the 800MHz spectrum we're using has been bought by them, and that we are no longer legally a

  • Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

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

    A corporation, doing what it's designed to do, never ever ever serves the greater good unless "the profitable thing" happens to line up with "the greater good".

    And seriously, licensing of radio frequencies has come up a number of times on this site previously. I'm always inclined to say that frequency licensing is really stupid and can be solved in another manner these days.

  • What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Tuesday May 08, 2007 @06:16AM (#19033739) Journal
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close