Sprint acting more like a regional carrier

Sprint and AT&T are at it again. AT&T is calling out Sprint on the Kansas City-based carrier’s use of roaming agreements versus building out a network to provide consumers with real facility-based services. Sprint alleges this is good for consumers because the practice allows the company to provide its nationwide service..

Sprint calls this good for consumers? When a consumer purchases the service of a national carrier, the consumer wants the certainty of knowing that her service is being provided point to point by the network of the wireless carrier to whom the consumer forks over its money. What Sprint is doing inefficiently pricing its services if that is the case.

Worse yet, this may also be indicative of Sprint’s continuous poor management; buying 30 million iPhones it apparently can’t build a network out to service the phones on. Hard to believe the FCC considers what Sprint is doing as optimal use of a scarce resource.

Is it really good for consumers and investors that a wireless carrier of Sprint’s size and stature is mismanaging itself into becoming a regional carrier?

David Honig, executive director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council recently wrote a piece for The Huffington Post discussing how mobile broadband access is contributing toward closing the digital divide between minority groups and white Americans. His piece was written in response to a piece written by Professor Susan Crawford in The New York Times.

Professor Crawford’s position was that the emphasis should be on getting wired broadband services in the home because wireless mobile devices such as smartphones are not practical for citizens needing to write resumes or producers of content.

Overall I agree with Mr. Honig that wireless broadband access is better than no access at all. Yes, wireless networks allow us to produce content that can be sold to generate income and revenue. I think the emphasis, however, should be on production versus just connectivity and consumption of digital content, which is where Professor Crawford may have been going in her piece.

My mom got her first computer a few weeks ago. She sent her first e-mail a couple days ago. Yes, at 68 she is now a pedestrian in cyberspace.

I descend from a line of merchants, with my very first memory having been in my great aunt’s store in the Irishtown section of Basseterre, St. Kitts. My mother worked in that store as well. From time to time the old merchant in her will spring an idea as to how best to put her capital to work. I have no doubt that she will eventually go through the same thought process as she learns how to use her lap top.

My nine-year old son is following his ancestors’ footsteps. The word “career” flows out of his mouth easily and probably more often than most teenage and twenty-something knuckleheads I see running around these days. With a “low on minutes” cell phone to their ear and pants low on their waists, young people today appear to be carrying on the same silly, consumer centric behavior of their parents and grandparents, only this time in digital form.

When I think about the level of unemployment we minorities face in this country and the poor performance of our gross domestic product, all I can conclude is that we have to pursue a different mindset. We are, in the words of my sister, addicted to a narrative that we just can’t seem to shake.

Writing for the MMTC’s Broadband and Social Justice blog, Ava Parker posted a piece that highlights the fork in the road consumers of digital technology now face. Do we continue with a mindset focused primarily on consuming communications and entertainment, or do we start turning our mobile information access terminals into productive capital and use this capital to create another source of equity; equity that allows us to weather the next financial or economic crisis.

Jamilah King posted an in-depth article addressing how carriers such as AT&T and Verizon have created cyber-ghettos via their wireless service offerings. Unfortunately this admittedly in-depth article is a poorly veiled attempt to argue for net neutrality; a concept that has never considered how best to promote broadband adoption in minority communities much less increase economic activity. Net neutrality will only drive up the cost minorities pay for access to the Internet as higher compliance costs are passed through in the prices for mobile devices and wireless broadband access.

The article started off well, giving an ample description of the downside of access to the Internet via mobile versus fixed
wire connections. I was hoping that the article would focus on how the disproportionate reliance on handheld wireless
devices hinders our ability to produce content and create other ideas that could be sold for income, especially in a challenging economy such as ours. All I got was more whining about AT&T’s alleged bogey-man status.

It raises the question, however. Is the digital divide being compounded by the marketing of wireless devices toward blacks and Latinos thus giving the market the false sense that minorities are only interested in entertainment?

Just when opponents to the AT&T, T-Mobile merger are beginning to get comfortable with their argument that the merger would mean the end of competition, along comes Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner to shake things up a bit.

According to an article in Politic365.com, Verizon is purchasing 122 wireless licenses from Spectrum Co., a partnership that includes Comcast, Time Warner, and Brighthouse Networks.

This partnership definitely offers access to more broadband capacity. The last thing consumers need is dropped calls or interrupted data flow.

It also puts pressure on the FCC to reassess its position that the deal bewteen AT&T and T-Mobile will somehow lessen competition when you have transactions like these that increase capacity, increase the number of potential wireless carriers, and keeps prices in check.