Sprint Nextel representatives delineated the importance of conditions on cable...

AWS licenses to Verizon and commercial agreements between Verizon and the cable operators, the focus of Sprint’s concerns. “The relationships that would arise from the Commercial Agreements, assuming no mitigating regulatory action, would give the Cable Companies a financial incentive to deny WiFi access to Verizon’s competitors, to the detriment of customers of Sprint and other wireless competitors,” Sprint said (http://xrl.us/bngeeo). “When a Cable Company customer uses a smartphone in his or her home or in another location on the Cable Company’s network, the phone can automatically shift from metered licensed spectrum to unlicensed, unmetered WiFi service. The phone will detect the availability of WiFi and seamlessly use preprogrammed authentication codes, with no action required by the subscriber. An agreement between the Cable Company and Verizon could continue this easy access for Verizon customers, while disadvantaging customers of competing wireless carriers by not allowing their mobile phones to access the WiFi signal ‘network’ or by erecting access barriers such as denying automated authentication, and/or requiring the entry of a complex code every time the customer wants to use the WiFi service, even in his or her own home.” Sprint also raised backhaul concerns. “Adding large numbers of microcells requires additional backhaul connections from the two major groups of suppliers: ILECs and cable providers,” the carrier said. “The close partnerships contemplated by the Commercial Agreements would destroy even the limited backhaul competition that currently exists, replacing it with cooperation that will allow Verizon and the Cable Companies to increase profits through cooperation instead of competing on price.” Communications Workers of America, meanwhile, filed a study at the FCC warning of job losses if the deals are confirmed without conditions (http://xrl.us/bngef9). “If Verizon were to build out its network, about 72,000 new jobs would be created,” concentrated in eight Eastern states and Washington, D.C. “If done right, the proposed deal would add tens of thousands of new jobs and allow underserved communities access to high-quality broadband service,” said Debbie Goldman, CWA telecommunications policy director. “The FCC has the obligation carefully to assess this deal in terms of likely job loss. We expect regulators to reject this deal unless the parties accept conditions that would create jobs, increase network investment, and promote consumer choice.” Reuters reported that the Department of Justice is concerned about the marketing deals. Two critics of the transaction and one neutral official said they give the news report some weight. “I'm not sure where Justice goes with it -- proposing conditions on the license transfer that would be enforced at DOJ; keeping ongoing investigations into anti-competitive activity open; submitting recommendation to FCC in the record, etc.,” one of the critics said.