If in fact the FCC decision is to not require a spectrum sale....The way I would view this situation is as follows. Sprint as a strong competitor in the face of two giants can be construed as a "see we care about competition and you the consumer having real choice for the best wireless service without being gouged by a duopoly." Just like the timing of the Affordable Care Act and Obama's environmental plan. Think it's a coincidence? There is another presidential election coming along and Obama would like the next Democrat running to get elected.
The problem you jackos have with trying to paint FCC M&A decisions as politically aligned to a single party is that the attempt to reign in the degree of power over markets and spectrum goes well back into the Bush Jr. administration. You fools love the blame game.. there are times when favoritism for a particular company, CTIA advocacy or other group may occur, however, you do not make the case... just banal innuendos. That is in keeping with much of the brain-dead, short-shift thinking.. grab onto some piece of information and blow it up or make up connections. If you did a little bit of WORK, (Ugh!), you might occassionaly find real connections you can pin down.. that's not to say I'd necessarily agree with your conclussions, but at least the argument would be cohesive.
Noooo.. sharezombies have no brains to think.. adding 1+1 always equals 3 or something.
They just followed the ruling of the Bush Admin FCC. The spectrum had already been attributed to Sprint when Clearwire was created. They could have made changes, but it is in the public interest to help SB-Sprint by not hindering the process, plus who would buy the spectrum? ATT/VZ? so now we force them to divest to strengthen the duopoly? That is not in the public interest. The lesser of the two evils was let Sprint hoard the spectrum, which they do not even own.
Lets not forget that things can change. Those EBS holders could refuse to resign with Sprint or they could demand too much, which would allow another carrier to come in and sign a deal. Just because they have the spectrum now, does not mean they will have it forever.
I doubt this has anything to do with politics. This has more to do with promoting competition. No one can just jump into the wireless game. Look at the Canadian networks that tried( Wind Mobilicity), the cost is too great. Dish even mentioned that if they could not partner up, they would sell the spectrum. Networks can be shut down in months, but to build them up takes years. If we lose a national carrier, it will never come back.
Sprint was not at risk of being lost as a carrier. Of course it should have told Hesse to get lost and brought in someone competent. Also the government could have blocked the TMobile PCS merger which would have meant more competition. Notice how the Globalstar decision is dragging on while Softbank gets served first.
As for Canada it has a much smaller population with a proportionally smaller number of large urban areas thus it is hard to compare the two markets.