ATLANTA – Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure added a bit of “big carrier” luster to the CEO panel at this week’s Competitive Carriers Association Global Expo event, as well as taking the stage for the first time in front of mobile operators increasingly reliant on Sprint to remain competitive against the industry’s two largest operators.
Noting the impact made last year when Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Son was the head keynote attraction at the CCA event in San Antonio, Claure began by stating he had dinner the night before with Son, who told him to make sure he was on time for his CCA debut and that he followed through with all the commitments Son made at last year’s event.
Sprint appeared to have come through on many of those commitments if previous panels at this year’s event were any indication, including support for CCA’s data and device roaming hubs. Claure reiterated the carrier’s stance on the roaming aspect, stating he did not like cutting checks to its larger rivals for roaming coverage and would instead rather right those checks to the rural carriers in the room.
“We would love to be able to eventually put up a Sprint map that did not rely on our larger competitors for coverage,” Claure said.
Claure also looked to build on the device partnership by saying there should be a way to expand such a coalition to include network equipment, dealings with content providers and opportunities in mobile advertising.
600 MHz auction participation, lessons learned from AWS-3
Claure said Sprint was “to be determined” when questioned about its participation in the Federal Communications Commission’s planned 600 MHz inventive auction, which is currently scheduled for early 2016. Claure stated that the carrier would need to look at final rule making before making a decision, and that the record haul of the recent Auction 97 proceeding, which Sprint decided to sit out, had caused some concern regarding the potential investment needed to procure what is seen as even more valuable spectrum.
That sentiment was shared by fellow panel members, as Bluegrass Cellular CEO Ron Smith expressed concern that bidding activity may have inflated the true value of the AWS-3 spectrum. Smith referred to published reports questioning the bidding activity of Dish Network in the auction, which ultimately saw the satellite television provider score a $3 billion designated entity discount on the more than $13 billion in total gross bids.
Looking ahead to the incentive auction, Claure took a page from Son in stating it might make sense for smaller carriers to partner with Sprint in the proceedings, noting that there were rural markets where Sprint had no interest in building out a network just as there were urban markets where CCA members had no interest in.
While Dish Network drew a negative response in terms of its Auction 97 activity, panel members seemed more than willing to help the company put its vast spectrum portfolio to work. Rodney Dir, president and COO at Ntelos Wireless, said he “would like to build out that spectrum” for Dish Network, potentially building off a current fixed wireless broadband partnership already underway between the two companies.
“I would just like to see it put to use,” added Jonathan Foxman, president and CEO of Cellular One. “Building that out is a big challenge and a lot of people in this room would like to help with that.”
Net neutrality
One topic that drew an even more heated reaction than Dish Network was that on the FCC’s recent net neutrality Report & Order.
Smith came out strongly against the move to include wireless telecommunications under the FCC’s Title II designation, stating it was a move towards service regulation. Smith argued that the decision came down as one of politics and not of policy and that it was now in the hands of the FCC to determine what was a fair business model and how mobile operators choose to provide their services.
“This may not be pricing regulation, but it’s service regulation,” Smith stated. “There will be a cooling hand on our industry.”
Smith added that the FCC seemed to be on track for a policy decision until President Barak Obama came out late last year in support of a Title II designation for Internet services, including mobile access, which provides the government with the ability to oversee the market as a public utility.
Foxman and Dir were not as adamant in their opposition as Smith, but both agreed that there needed to be more clarity on the issue.
“I agree partially with Ron in that there is a potential for problems with Title II if there is not clarity,” Foxman said. “There are some good parts [to the order], but need to get to the point of clarity and working through the issues. This can’t be an isolated political decision.”
Perhaps in hinting to its more direct competitive position with the domestic markets largest players, Claure reiterated Sprint’s stance that it remained in favor of some “light” legislation regarding the telecom market. He noted that Verizon Communications and AT&T both had significant control over special access services, which needed to be kept in check by regulators as well as again touched on the significant roaming expenses Sprint is paying to its larger rivals.
Claure did note that greater clarity on the issue would also be helpful and that he was in support of the need for flexibility in managing network services to ensure a quality experience for all customers.
Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter
