{PJ Louis LLC} Sprint Lobbying Efforts – Outspent by AT&T – Does it Matter?
PJ:
I think the CLWR deal, which got the FCC’s blessing despite exceeding any
and all spectrum caps was a Sprint issue.
Not to mention the FINALLY completed 800/900 MHz public safety rebanding
nightmare it inherited from Nextel.
I like your thought process overall.  $15.3MM is pocket change for Sprint
BTW:  Do you think ATT/TMO opens a window for VZ to bid for Sprint?  I
suspect our government would have to approve or deny both.  Looks like a
win-win for Verizon.
G
*From:* PJ Louis LLC [mailto:PJLouisLLC@tabup.com] *On Behalf Of *PJLouis
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:46 PM
*To:* gerard@jrpg.com
*Subject:* {PJ Louis LLC} Sprint Lobbying Efforts – Outspent by AT&T – Does
it Matter?
PJLouis wrote:
URL link  problem with regulatory budgets is that they are massive and unless you
have a specific set of short term and long term objectives in mind, it is
important not to spend the money without a speciifc goal. In short, Sprint
did not need to spend that kind of money on lobbying in the last few years
for good reason.
If I were Vonya McCann, I would not be losing any sleep over this. Right
now, Sprint’s regulatory efforts have to be focused. Regulatory actions
always need to be focused. If Sprint had spent that kind of cash on
regulatory actions, it would not have been able to stop AT&T from making a
bid on T-Mobile. Any lobbying before the bid would have been a waste of
money. AT&T and T-Mobile have made their move; this means that opponent
carriers can deal with what is real rather than what would have been a rumor
prior to the announcement.
The fact that Sprint has been outspent by AT&T on the lobbying front is a
meaningless statement.  There has not been a single major AT&T event in the
last 2 years that required a preemptive regulatory strike.
As for the current situation, there are a zillion regulatory and lobbying
attorneys in Washington, DC that can easily step in to help Sprint.
Washington, DC is the capital of attorneys.
Further, in order for Sprint to slow down or stop AT&T, it will require a
big picture point of view. In other words, Sprint needs a lot of people on
their side. Vonya McCann’s comment about working with other carriers is how
a proper regulatory counter strike needs to be carried out.
As for AT&T’s Mr. Cicconi, good answer. AT&T needs to focus on making sure
it develops and presents a set of arguments that the FCC and possibly the
courts can live with. In other words, AT&T needs to let opponents chase
them. AT&T might be able to make a guess by defending its merger from a
market-by-market perspective; make it a local issue. In the old days, before
the divestiture of AT&T, we used to say that the telecommunications business
is a local business. I have said the same thing in my books as well. Guess
what? I still believe that. No matter how much people communicate with
people in other countries via the Internet, at the end of the day the most
important interactions are the one that occur in their everyday personal
lives. If AT&T drives the argument down to the local level they may have a
chance at convincing the FCC to agree to the merger without trouble.
However, AT&T’s position that there are as many as 5 different carriers in a
single local market, completely ignores the fact that carriers like Metro
PCS and Leap cater to a low to low-middle income and mostly prepaid crowd.
Not exactly the same as AT&T’s business. So for AT&T to say that there are
up to 5 different carriers in 18 out of 20 consumer markets ignores the fact
that we are not referring to carriers that serve the same customer types in
the markets.  I guess AT&T is telling the FCC that Leap and AT&T serve the
same customers.  The FCC needs to look at the carrier market plans before it
starts buying AT&T's argume

	Gerard6656
	4/5/2011