@jbtaylor on tech

A few weeks ago, Kevin Fitchard, a writer with GigaOm, interviewed Sprint's CEO, Dan Hesse, to ask him about 2012 and what to expect from Sprint in the new year. Kevin's story was published today.

Dan explained a lot about our strategy and focus at Sprint, but he also shared his observation that increasingly in the wireless industry, there really isn't a "Big Four" -- AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint -- but really a "Big Two".

Dan's right. That's why during our fight to stop AT&T from swallowing up T-Mobile, we called AT&T and Verizon, "Twin Bells".

You see, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility, aren't really wireless companies at all, but arms of much larger descendants of the original Ma Bell phone system. And they are marching in lock step towards a duopoly which will harm consumers.

Take Verizon's recently proposed spectrum deal with the cable companies. The New York Times editorial board pronounced it, "worrisome".

The Times is right to be worried. Anyone who cares about competition in the wireless industry should be.

But being worried is useless.

What consumers need to do is speak up loudly and vocally. That played a huge role in defeating the T-Mobile takeover and, more recently, convincing Verizon to back off from instituting a new $2 fee.

I'm convinced that kind of consumer activism is essential to reign in the Twin Bells in 2012.

p.s. Remember, this is my personal blog and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

On Friday, Verizon Wireless, together with Comcast, Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable announced a proposed $3.6 billion transaction where Verizon Wireless would acquire advanced wireless spectrum from the cable companies and in turn, the cable companies would be able to sell Verizon Wireless products and services, while Verizon Wireless would be able to sell the cable companies' services.

Even though the companies had not made filings at the either the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission or the Justice Department, media and analysts were already pronouncing regulatory approval as a mere formality.

That's premature to do so in my view.