SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation Applications For Consent to 
Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 08-94
 Today’s item enables the creation of a new competitor in the broadband Internet 
access market. That’s good news—really good news. Of particular importance—given 
the haunting economic times in which we find ourselves—the new company will have 
access to billions of dollars of capital to build out its new WiMAX network.  This 
network will provide millions of Americans with an additional option in the market for 
high-speed fixed broadband access—which is currently a duopoly or worse between 
cable and phone companies. The new network will also provide millions of Americans 
with a new option for mobile broadband Internet access—also currently a duopoly or 
worse between incumbent providers. So this counts as very good news for American 
consumers. 
 Equally important, the new network we enable today will be contractually 
committed to important principles of openness. Device manufacturers, application 
developers and content providers will not need to seek permission to innovate from a 
centralized network operator. Companies that seek to improve their devices can simply 
install a WiMAX radio, or design their software or Website for use on a WiMAX 
handheld device, secure in the knowledge that customers of the new company will be 
able to use these products as their designers intended—and on a fast, widely-deployed 
and robust network. This evolution will continue the important work in encouraging 
openness that this Commission began in the 700 MHz auction. Indeed, the new 
company’s commitment to providing wholesale access actually goes beyond our 700 
MHz conditions. This too counts as very good news for American consumers and 
innovators.
 Finally, today’s item requires Sprint Nextel to meet important E911 location 
accuracy benchmarks and to open its books to ensure that its Universal Service Fund 
support is commensurate with its real costs of providing service. As I stated in my 
previous statement, these are two reforms that I have supported in other proceedings and 
I am glad that consumers will benefit from them here.
 Despite my enthusiasm for today’s Order, I must note one element that I would 
have preferred to handle differently. The Commission has a statutory duty to prevent 
undue consolidation in the wireless marketplace. A spectrum cap—or the far less robust 
“spectrum screen” that the Commission, over my objection, uses instead—is a critical 
tool to enforcing this policy. As I have stated before, I believe the right way to account 
for new bands that have been made available for advanced wireless services would be 
through a comprehensive, industry-wide proceeding that would establish appropriate 
rules for valuing the relative desirability of different spectrum. But we have not 
conducted such a proceeding. Instead, we simply raise the spectrum screen in an ad hoc 
fashion merger-by-merger. While I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to 
fashion a spectrum screen for this transaction that somewhat reasonably (but far from 
perfectly) reflects the current marketplace realities, I think that a general rulemaking is 
still necessary and desirable and by far the better option.
 Many thanks to the Bureau for their hard work on this item under demanding time 
constraints.