Sprint sells Nextel towers

http://www.uberphones.com/


Sprint may not have had a lot of fun after it acquired Nextel in 2005,
and their latest move might seem like another bad move to most people. It
seems that they=3Fve sold off nearly all (about 3,300) of their wireless
communications tower to TowerCo in return for about $670 million in cash.
According to Nextel=3Fs Bob Azzi, this move, which would see them lease,
rather than own these network facilities would enable them to better
focus on their core business, which is providing communications services
to consumers, businesses and government customers. He added that it will
also provide Sprint Nextel with additional liquidity for greater
flexibility in managing the company. Now it=3Fs up to the public as to
whether they want to believe what he says, not that it matters.

Mr. Frostee <mr.frostee@gmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:MPG.22f4d093d6917357989682@newsgroups.comcast .net:

> http://www.uberphones.com/
>
>
> Sprint may not have had a lot of fun after it acquired Nextel in 2005,
> and their latest move might seem like another bad move to most people.
> It seems that they=3Fve sold off nearly all (about 3,300) of their
> wireless communications tower to TowerCo in return for about $670
> million in cash. According to Nextel=3Fs Bob Azzi, this move, which
> would see them lease, rather than own these network facilities would
> enable them to better focus on their core business, which is providing
> communications services to consumers, businesses and government
> customers. He added that it will also provide Sprint Nextel with
> additional liquidity for greater flexibility in managing the company.
> Now it=3Fs up to the public as to whether they want to believe what he
> says, not that it matters.
>

It's hardly a bad move. The great majority of towers used by all US
carriers are not owned by them.

The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in news:Xns9AE7BBFBA63D6bob@216.196.97.136:

> It's hardly a bad move. The great majority of towers used by all US
> carriers are not owned by them.
>
>

Hell, most of them don't even own the distribution system they're on.
Verizon, where I live, runs on a system FCC has licensed to Cellphone
Partners or something like that. Look up the FCC licenses in your town on
the FCC wireless license databases to see who owns yours, probably Smiley's
Tire and Storm Door, LLC.

It's all a bunch of shell companies so if someone sues their sorry ass they
can't get at the core equipment because it doesn't belong to the carrier,
it belongs to Smiley's.

At 27 Jul 2008 02:16:53 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Hell, most of them don't even own the distribution system they're on.
> Verizon, where I live, runs on a system FCC has licensed to Cellphone
> Partners or something like that. Look up the FCC licenses in your town
on
> the FCC wireless license databases to see who owns yours, probably
Smiley's
> Tire and Storm Door, LLC.
>
> It's all a bunch of shell companies so if someone sues their sorry ass
they
> can't get at the core equipment because it doesn't belong to the carrier,
> it belongs to Smiley's.

Not to poke a hole in an otherwise solid conspiracy theory, those "shell
companies" are generally the name of the original licensor of those
frequencies. The AT&T Mobility licenses in Kansas City still belonged to
"Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems" last time I looked. I just assume
there's either no good reason (or it takes an act of Congress) to change
them.