Sprint PCS is attempting to change the way the industry does business with affiliate companies, but 
the task has not been without its difficulties as some affiliate companies struggle to obtain financing.
To date, Sprint 
PCS has signed on 16 affiliate companies that will work to quickly expand the carrier’s Code Division Multiple Access 
service nationwide in smaller markets using the Sprint PCS brand name and adhering to company and network 
performance standards. Many of these affiliates will use Sprint PCS’ wireless licenses to construct their own networks. 
And to keep its business structure simple, Sprint PCS has maintained it does not want an equity interest in these 
companies. That has scared investors.
“The structure is different, and that has taken some time for the capital 
community to get used to,” said Tom Mateer, vice president of affiliations with Sprint PCS. “We’ve been 
making steady progress, but have not announced any official financing. We are supporting our affiliates in every way, 
including raising money.”
Nationwide player AT&T Wireless Services Inc.’s personal communications 
services affiliates have had little trouble raising financing, say analysts, since AT&T Wireless owns a stake in each 
company and the affiliate owns part of the license. Earlier this month, TeleCorp PCS Inc. rolled out service from New 
Orleans to Baton Rouge, La., and later in the quarter the affiliate plans to roll out service in Memphis, Tenn., and Little 
Rock, Ark. Other affiliates include Triton PCS and Tritel Communications.
“AT&T affiliate agreements have 
been easier to stomach than the first round of Sprint affiliate agreements,” said one analyst who declined to be 
named. “Part of the deal that makes it difficult is the fact that Sprint owns the license, and the affiliate leases the 
license from Sprint for 20 years. A key concern is that if the entity has issues financially down the road, what do 
creditors have to go against? And if Sprint owns the license, the answer is the network, but the network doesn’t have a 
license to go with it.”
Sprint PCS’ Mateer said his company is working out deals to help investors’ comfort 
levels by making spectrum a secured asset for creditors. He declined to provide details, but analysts say Sprint is 
developing deals that would require the carrier to sell part of its spectrum to the affiliate if the business relationship 
goes sour.
“Sprint has come a long way,” said one affiliate. “It has made certain agreements to 
obligate itself to sell spectrum if the deal were to go bad. That has given lenders some comfort level.”
And in 
most cases, Sprint would have the first right to purchase the entire entity if the company goes under. The risk, say 
analysts, is a credibility problem for Sprint PCS if companies fold.
“There are pluses and minuses,” said 
one analyst. “From an investor’s point of view, you have to look at these case by case.”
“We feel 
like we’re breaking the paradigm of wireless relationships and transactions by doing something the industry has not 
seen,” said Mateer. “Over time, this will be a better approach.”
The financing, complexity, 
expense and risk of affiliate agreements is likely why regional personal communications services carriers have not 
aggressively pursued these agreements. Regional player PrimeCo Personal Communications Services L.P. once had 
planned to sign on affiliates to fill out its footprint in various markets, but now has scrapped the plan. Its co-branding 
agreement with Chase Telecommunications Inc., a C-block PCS operator in Tennessee, ended when Leap Wireless 
International Inc. agreed to purchase the company, and a deal it was working on with a company to fill out its footprint 
in Texas folded when the affiliate could not find financing. The affiliate was to use PrimeCo’s licensed 
spectrum.
Regional players also could have difficulty operating with the amount of revenue they would receive 
from affiliates. Analysts say Sprint PCS and AT&T Wireless will receive about 8 percent of affiliate revenues. These 
nationwide operators have better economies of scale and make up for lowered revenues in their larger markets. Having 
affiliates build out their footprints also reduces the heavy capital expenditures both companies are carrying. The biggest 
value for them is getting digital coverage in place to provide seamless nationwide service. Sprint PCS says it is looking 
to sign on as many affiliate companies as possible.
“We don’t have to get some large cash flow from the 
affiliates,” said Mateer. “Our main interest is to get expanded coverage so we have customers in expanded 
markets … We’ve been very honest with the affiliates that this allows us to focus our capital dollars and management 
time and talent to be as successful as we can.”
For the affiliates, many of whom own basic-trading-area 
licenses or have returned spectrum to the Federal Communications Commission, such arrangements with larger 
companies will give them a chance to become operators. The financing markets have been brutal with smaller players, 
and all realize the wireless business is moving toward a national scale.
“We shed $55 million in debt to the 
FCC, and we gained access to [Sprint’s] infrastructure and handset pricing, which was better than what we were paying. 
We could have been a strong regional player, but we at some point would have gone to a nationwide network. We 
would have had to compete with Sprint PCS and PrimeCo,” said Bill Coker, vice president and general manager 
of U.S. Unwired, which earlier this month became Sprint PCS’ largest affiliate. The carrier already had its own 
financing and was operating in some markets and now has changed its name to Sprint PCS and is offering the same 
pricing plans. Coker estimates the company is saving on average $40,000 per base station now that it has access to 
Sprint PCS’s pricing for infrastructure.
Though these companies must give up part of their revenues, most do it in 
exchange for hooking into the company’s customer service operations and back-office solutions as well as gaining 
access to nationwide advertising, distribution networks and roaming agreements.
