Verizon calls Sprint a deadbeat, takes it to court
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Apr 16th 2008 8:16PM
posted Apr 16th 2008 8:16PM
Sprint is allegedly pulling the old "aw shucks, I must've left my wallet at home" trick with Verizon, which claims that the former is failing to pay up about $10 million in back interconnection fees. The Delaware federal court filing says that Big Red "repeatedly attempted to resolve this dispute short of litigation," but hey, every so often these megacorporations run into a dispute that only the gavel can solve -- particularly when it involves eight figures worth of cold, hard cash. Sprint seems almost flippant about the whole thing, saying that the lawsuit doesn't surprise them since Verizon's running up against a statute of limitations and that they "remain hopeful" that the whole deal can be put to bed without those nasty court proceedings getting in the way. 'Course, if it was a simple matter of cutting a $10 million check, Sprint probably would've done it by now, so there must be some haggling going on behind the scenes.
Wow...chalk it up to either Sprint having capital issues (not good) or just being a bad corporate citizen (not good, either).
However you spin it, it'd stink for Sprint customers if they suddenly found themselves unable to roam on big red.
Yeah.... Really... What coverage would that actually leave???
This is for "interconnection fees". I'm sure if it was for roaming they would use that word.
Somehow this doesn't surprise me. It's not looking very good for the big yellow, considering its customer base numbers are dropping like flies as it is. Something tells me that big yellow will be dying out, just like Nextel did when Sprint took over. It'll be interesting to see what the new name will be in the next few years, unless it goes out like amp'd did.
sigh......
"Sir Charge" wants money here and there to pay up the 700!
they didn't pay up because i'm raping sprint so hard on my contract.
on a side note: in my area sprint has more customers than verizon, at least among my friends. they used to be the biggest, but att has snagged a lot of my friends lately.
This is between Verizon and Sprint, not Verizon Wireless (a seperate company) and Sprint. More than likely it is the interconnect between the Sprint Towers and the regular phone system or for traversing Verizon's internet backbone (maybe having to do with Embarq, that causing the reason why they don't just cut a check). It could still deal with Verizon Wireless, but because Verizon is mentioned not Verizon Wireless, it is more likely to have to do with the connection between Wireless Services and Wired Telephone.
TEG
Lawsuit's sting's most corporation, i advice sprint to pay verizon with stocks or share depend's on the real amount! if Im verizon, much ablige! for what I given you as a service you'll do the same in fact this is good for both parties, instead of lawsuit's be partner's, this actually strengten ties to both parties and neither of them will loose, in fact i can use that tie up in the future or the coming day's, not that the business world is changing more or less the telecom business as much as I can see will benifit from such tie up's especially if the whole portfolio is one, then one is to many and one has tripled and as the market widens so does the business! I might not share same Ideas with you gentlemen but a common trust is a common fund and common fund is is the one we trust! giant to giant none will survive for neither one of you hold's that height! seem's fair to me that two of you share the same interest and none of you dont want to lose! So do what I ask and do what we can trust! take it to next level now both of you!!!
This is what happens when financial planning takes place in the bar and not the board room.
And by "bar" I mean "strip club."
and by "in the" I mean "after the".
Either way it's the customer who really wins.....Right?
In telecommunications, interconnection is the physical linking of a carrier's network with equipment or facilities not belonging to that network. The term may refer to a connection between a carrier's facilities and the equipment belonging to its customer, or to a connection between two (or more) carriers.
In United States regulatory law, interconnection is specifically defined (47 C.F.R. 51.5) as "the linking of two networks for the mutual exchange of traffic."
One of the primary tools used by regulators to introduce competition in telecommunications markets has been to impose interconnection requirements on dominant carriers. The FCC's Carterfone decision in 1968 required the Bell System companies to permit interconnection by radio-telephone operators, and was the first in a series of landmark cases that led to the transformation of the long distance telephone industry from a monopoly to a competitive business.