Leap Wireless, MetroPCS enter roaming agreement posted by Joe on September 29th, 2008 - 10:00 am | Consumer Issues
Hey, did you know that Metro PCS and Leap Wireless were tangled up in litigation? I’m not surprised, but I didn’t know. This morning, via MarketWatch, we get word that the cases have been settled. That’s not all, though. The companies have gone from fisticuffs to pals, as they entered into a national roaming agreement which will benefit subscribers of both carriers. As if that wasn’t enough, they also exchanged a bit of spectrum.
The roaming agreement carries a term of 10 years. Full details were not available, though I’d presume that subscribers wouldn’t incur roaming costs when in either a Leap or a Metro coverage area. Once again, don’t consider that official, but it seems to make sense.
On the exchange, Leap picked up spectrum in San Diego, Fresno, and Seattle, plus other little bits in Washington and Oregon. Metro now has a bit in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Shreveport-Bossier City, Lakeland-Winter Haven (Florida), and a few other licenses in North Texas.
“We appreciate the manner in which both companies seized the opportunity to work together to achieve these mutually positive results,” said Doug Hutcheson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Leap. “Both companies are pleased to have enhanced their spectrum portfolio in several key markets as we seek to provide our customers with the best wireless products and services. These agreements provide opportunities for both MetroPCS and Leap to deliver greater value to our customers across the country.”
“We are very pleased to have entered into the nationwide roaming agreement with Leap. The expanded coverage which MetroPCS and Leap can offer as a result of this agreement will be a major benefit to our customers,” said Roger Linquist, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MetroPCS. “These agreements benefit both parties and allow each of us to focus on the growth of our respective businesses.”
Good job by both companies to not only exit costly litigation, but to agree on measures that will help subscribers of both services.