A Wall Street analyst says Sprint has a 50/50 chance of being forced into bankruptcy, either pulling through a difficult upgrade to LTE 4G and stabilizing its partnership with Clearwire, or sinking under a load of debt incurred by Apple’s iPhone and network upgrade expenses.

Sanford Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett downgraded Sprint this morning from “market perform” to “underperform,” noting Sprint’s complicated five year credit default swap financing deal already prices in a 50/50 chance Sprint will be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

Moffett told investors he believes Sprint’s near term future can be described in one of two ways:

“In the first, the company successfully navigates its complicated Network Vision upgrade, stabilizes Clearwire‘s financial position, and delivers a compelling 4G product. In the second, some combination of its gargantuan take-or-pay contract with Apple, a hobbled 4G offering, and a stupendous debt burden bring the company to its knees.”

Moffett says Sprint’s biggest risk may come from Apple’s forthcoming 4G LTE iPhone, which he does not believe will work well on Sprint’s network.

“The problem is 4G. Sprint doesn’t have enough free-and-clear spectrum on which to launch a competitive LTE network, and it doesn’t have the money to clear spectrum that’s already in use,” Moffett said. “We expect Sprint’s competitiveness to begin to backslide when LTE becomes the nation’s de facto standard.”

Sprint continues to rely primarily on its troubled partner Clearwire for 4G service, which uses the aging WiMAX standard other carriers abroad are decommissioning.

With the iPhone 5 due later this year, should it provide access to 4G LTE service, Sprint could be in real trouble.  By fall, Sprint’s LTE network is expected to only provide limited coverage in a handful of cities, and on PCS spectrum less suitable for penetrating buildings.  Sprint would be forced to compete against Verizon’s nearly-completed LTE network as well as AT&T’s mixture of LTE and HSPA+ 4G services.  Verizon and AT&T will operate their 4G networks on 700MHz spectrum which can deliver robust signals indoors and out.

“Unfortunately, at this point we simply don’t believe there is any analytical framework that provides strong conviction as to whether Sprint can or cannot avoid bankruptcy over the next four years or so,” Moffett says. “Instead, one is left with this; are the perceived risks rising, or are they falling? We conclude … that risks of bankruptcy are rising, and that perceived risks will rise still further with the release of the first 4G iPhone.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint to Go Bankrupt 3-19-12.flv[/flv]

CNBC speaks with Craig Moffett about the challenges afflicting Sprint’s effort to build a 4G LTE network and how a bankruptcy might affect customers.  (4 minutes)

In the era of today’s “triple play” package of voice, data, and phone service, satellite television providers have been left at a competitive disadvantage.  Both Dish Network and DirecTV can sell you all the television signals you want, but their satellite-based distribution limits the options to include broadband and telephone service in the package.  Now Dish wants to convert some of their satellite spectrum to sell voice and data service over a network of land based wireless towers that will put the company in direct competition with AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen hopes to avoid making the same mistakes that threaten to kill a similar venture — LightSquared, because of interference concerns.

Dish’s spectrum is way, way up the radio dial, above 2,000MHz.  Other spectrum users in the neighborhood are primarily low-powered, line of sight communications, often satellite-based.  LightSquared’s service would have operated at around 1,500MHz, had it not obliterated reception of global positioning satellite services (GPS) in certain instances.  Whenever new spectrum users begin to move into a neighborhood, those already there feel threatened, primarily from the fear of interference problems.

Both LightSquared and Dish’s proposed services operate at considerably higher power than other incumbent users, and interference to existing services is a proven problem when sensitive reception equipment is unprepared to deal with signal overload.  The Federal Communications Commission found just cause to deny LightSquared operating permission for precisely that reason.  Ergen hopes to sell the FCC on a plan he says will avoid those interference problems.

Ergen

Ergen’s spectrum doesn’t sit immediately next door to other, existing users.  His frequencies are comparable to living the next block over, and there is a protective fence keeping the neighbors apart.

“It’s not as close to GPS, so it’s unlikely to interfere,” Matthew Desch, chief executive officer of Iridium Communications Inc., which operates more than 60 satellites, told Bloomberg News. “But the approval is going to take some time. The FCC is going to make sure they don’t have another LightSquared problem on their hands.”

Mike Marcus, director of Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC adds Dish has some space between its frequencies — known as a guard band — and other users.  Marcus believes Dish won’t have an interference problem unless existing wireless carriers market handsets and other equipment insufficiently selective to reject interference from higher powered users nearby.

But whether Dish will ultimately spend the billions required to build a nationwide satellite and land-based broadband and phone network to accompany its existing satellite service remains unknown.

Bloomberg reports Wall Street analysts may prefer Dish sell its spectrum assets for a quick profit.  Barclays Capital estimates Dish’s spectrum could net the company about $7.3 billion.  If AT&T or Verizon Wireless were buyers, it would also protect them from new competition in the wireless market.

Regulators may be prepared to limit any such sale, however.  Industry analysts note a similar license for LightSquared required government approval before leasing capacity (or selling the network outright) to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.  The government may seek the same limits on Dish Network’s spectrum.

Ergen may have the final word however.

Vijay Jayant, an analyst at ISI Group in New York:

If the government sets rules that limit how Dish can use the spectrum, Ergen may choose to hoard it, said Jayant, which could be antithetical to the government’s mission of promoting wireless competition.

“Dish isn’t a patsy for the government,” Jayant said. “Dish’s attitude is, ‘Make the rules fair and we’ll do the right thing. Make them unfair and we’ll sit on the spectrum,’ and it will be another black eye for the government.”

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

Last week’s shocking development that Cablevision, a major cable operator in greater New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut is not going to raise rates in 2012 is bad news for other cable operators itching to raise rates once again this year.

Cablevision’s decision was made as the company continues to battle Verizon FiOS, the phone company’s fiber-to-home-service across its service area.  Verizon has been playing hardball with Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Cablevision in its metro New York service area, offering up to $500 in rebates to sign new customers.  That level of vicious competition has been great for consumers, but lousy for Wall Street.

Investors were not pleased with Cablevision’s pass on rate hikes and its intention to invest a lot more in system upgrades than originally planned.  Wall Street loves increased revenue and hates it when companies spend it on their customers.

With all of this competition breaking out, Comcast and Time Warner Cable may be more than a little uncomfortable sitting down at an antitrust hearing later this month to discuss their new agreement with Verizon to cross-market cable and mobile service.  In return for the cable industry signaling they will never compete with Verizon’s mobile phone offering, Verizon has generously purchased the cable industry’s leftover spectrum and agreed to pitch cable TV subscriptions to Verizon Wireless customers.  With this new “non-aggression treaty,” will there still be a need to offer $500 gift cards and cut-rate prices to attract new customers?  Consumer groups think not.

A greater percentage of Cablevision’s service area is served by Verizon’s fiber network than either Time Warner Cable or Comcast.  Competition is forcing Cablevision to rethink the usual cable industry plan for financial success — force channels customers don’t want and raise rates up to 5% a year to pay for the “increased costs of doing business.”  Consumers are fed up with $150 monthly cable bills and will take Verizon up on an offer than cuts rates $50 a month and hands over up to $500 just for saying “yes” to FiOS.