Jump to content

Comcast Sues Sprint


legion125
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just to show you the carriers can do it to and its not all about the OEM's. Sprint took Comcast to court about several months ago on a couple of patent issues. Now Comcast is returning the favor. Anyone else besides be think this is getting stale? Too bad they can't sit down and come to an agreement.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/comcast-sues-sprint/

 

 

Comcast sues Sprint with patent infringement, says two can play that game

 

Pro tip: when suing the pants off another company for patent infringement, it's a good idea to make sure you're not violating any of that same company's intellectual property. That's the lesson we imagine Sprint is learning at this very moment. Just two months after it filed a lawsuit against Comcast for getting all up in its VoIP business, the digital services company is now ready to go Comcastic on the Now Network's derriere, as it has filed a lawsuit of its own in a Pennsylvania court. While it's not directly tied into December's case, it seems oddly coincidental that this new suit came into existence so soon after Sprint fired the first shot.

 

Comcast and subsidiary TVWorks, LLC allege that Sprint is guilty of violating four wireless patents: its wireless broadband cards, Vision Pack and other SMS services, MMS transfers and voice and data using IP / MPLS backhaul. That's a pretty hefty portion of the carrier's basic operations, it seems, and we're assuming that a settlement or licensing agreement will be the end result here. Regardless, as the adage says, what goes around comes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • That's actually really useful information when trying to locate/map these. On CellMapper, if I look for B46 it cuts through a lot of th noise.
    • Crunching the numbers a bit more, covering the full MSA would result in slightly under 80% population coverage. But they'd have to deploy on essentially every micro/macro cell in the area.   Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend like I know how either negotiations with squatters or Auction 108 will pan out. That said, I can't see 3.45GHz being *that* valuable to squatters considering the strict buildout requirements.  Another interesting thought I had was a possible spectrum trade with Dish. Dish is still leasing 600MHz to T-Mobile in quite a few metro areas, and I'm sure T-Mobile is looking ahead to what their lowband spectrum situation will be once those leases expire. If T-Mobile is truly going to rely on n71+n41 CA as much as they say they will, it sure would be nice to be working with more than 5MHz-10MHz of n71 uplink capacity. Don't go quoting me on that, though, total (pipedream) speculation haha.
    • Great job on your analysis of small cells versus the 3.45GHZ and the population coverage requirements. I wonder if the fcc is stalling because they may address the key limitation of of 2.5: the convoluted frequencies. Not sure how they would get there, but it would be better public policy if you could actually use a single license in current times, ie 5, 10 or 20MHz. Of course they could also go in more of a nonprofit or small business direction. But most likely they will keep it as planned given how messy the transition would be. In many/most metro areas BRS/EBS is fully licensed. Would be nice if they put pressure on the squatters.
    • I didn't actually look at the buildout requirements before making that comment - they're definitely going to have to deploy on macro sites if they want to hit the buildout requirements. PEA001 has a population of 25,237,061, of which they will have to hit 45% in 4 years (11,356,677) and 80% in 8 years (20,189,649). If they were to cover the entirely, all five boroughs, of NYC using only small cells (something I'd say is impossible considering their current small cell density), they'd only be covering 32% of the population in the PEA. And this is with spectrum that only adds 300Mb/s per sector and will likely have only 50% the range of their current n41 equipment. Doesn't really seem worth it to me. I'm of the opinion that they're looking to hedge their bets in further EBS/BRS acquisition. 
    • These strand mounts also are deployed with Band 46 (LAA), in my experience. I have yet to encounter a strand mount with exclusively 2/66. 
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...