Forcing Verizon to sell its own AWS holdings, at least in areas where they don't overlap with SPectrumCo, seems like a stupid idea. What Verizon is trying to do is get as close to nationwide on their AWS license (at 20MHz or so) as possible so they have economies of scale when building out their network. They can't be faulted for this...Sprint's got it with the G Block and ESMR, and Verizon's doing quite well with upper C block.
OTOH the conditions that Sprint wants imposed on Verizon with the SpectrumCo purchase are actually pretty reasonable.
The first big condition in the LR article is that Sprint (or anyone else) is able to WiFi offload to CableWifi at a cost that is reasonable on the wholesale side, and with an experience that's easy for customers. Put a different way, Sprint wants to make sure that cable companies don't give Verizon what amounts to a free WiFi-offloading ride that they would normally reserve only for other cable company customers...and leave any other carrier hanging when that carrier asks for access to the network. With everyone talking about spectrum and efficient use thereof, this seems like a perfectly reasonable request, since these WiFi networks have tons of capacity behind them and would make for an excellend offloading experience in areas (like NYC) that do actually need it.
Sprint's backhaul request is also reasonable, though I'm not quite sure how much they're asking for there. The gist I'm getting is that SPrint wants to be able to get comparable rates on backhaul to Verizon or anyone else, given of course quantity discounts, comparable speeds and similar endpoints. Again, the temptation here for the cablecos is to bend over backwards to give Verizon a good deal, since Verizon just bought a few billion in spectrum from them, and the money they save VZW on backhaul would probably come right back to them n the form of either lower wholesale rates on bundled services or better customer experiences due to a quicker LTE rollout. Not that these are bad things, but giving VZW a sweetheart deal on backhaul while inflating prices to Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. (perhaps to make up for lower VZW pricing) puts Verizon at an unfair advantage in a time where they're the most expensive wireless carrier anyway.
As a VZW customer paying $20-$50 per month for LTE iPad access, I understand why VZW and cable companies might want to work out something advantageous for both parties, but there comes a point (like with the AT&T&T failed merger) where antitrust is the bigger issue. I certainly don't want to be stuck paying $8-$20 per GB on this iPad for the next five years, and those rates are just as much, if not more so, about competition as they are about Verizon's own costs. I love me some Verizon LTE coverage (300+ markets now!) but if they are in cahoots with cable companies to make sure that they're the only provider that can get the pieces needed to ensure a fast LTE rollout, that's just a little too fishy.