Slashdot Log In
FCC Ends 700 MHz Auction
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 19, 2008 07:53 AM
from the they-aren't-making-any-more dept.
from the they-aren't-making-any-more dept.
Apu writes "Having received bids totaling $19.5 billion over 260 rounds of bidding, the FCC has announced the closing of Auction 73. The Chairman's statement notes that the auction has "raised more money than any [FCC] auction has ever raised" besting the 2006 Advanced Wireless Service-1 auction that raised $13.9 billion and topping the $10.6 billion Congress estimated it would receive for the 700 MHz spectrum. The New York Times reports that "the last bid in the auction was $91,000 for frequencies around Vieques, Puerto Rico." According to the FCC, "eight unsold licenses [...] remain held by the FCC and will again be made available [...] in a future auction." This includes the "D block" which was to be shared by commercial and public safety users and only received a single $472 million bid, below the $1.3 billion reserve price. However, as previously reported, the open access provisions will apply to one-third of the auctioned spectrum as the minimum $4.6 billion bid for the "C" block was received. The names of the winning bidders have not yet been made public."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: FCC Puts 4.6 Billion Minimum Bid on Spectrum Auction 165 comments
ChainedFei writes "Wired News notes that the Spectrum auction is moving forward, with the FCC placing a minimum bid for the C-block spectrum being offered at $4.6 billion. That, coincidentally, was the amount that Google fronted as a minimum bid to endorse certain open standards for the spectrum being sold. This is essentially a move to shut out smaller possible competitors while also maximizing the money the auction will generate for the grade-A areas of the spectrum. In addition, any single bidder wishing to purchase the entirety of the spectrum must front a minimum of $10 billion. 'According to the FCC, nearly all of that C block aggregate reserve price will go toward a package of U.S. national licenses. This portion of the spectrum also happens to be the one with two open access conditions attached to its sale mandating that all devices be allowed to access the band and that all applications can be able to run across the network. If the reserve price isn't met, the auction will be rerun without these two conditions in place, according to the FCC.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Government "may" release the names of the winners? (Score:2)
The government has yet to release the names of the winning bidders, but it may do so in the next few weeks.
"may" do so? Did the New York Times misspell "must"? Or is it that there is a lack of clarity in the FCC's administrative law as to how long it can go before it makes public the detailed results of the auction?
Re:Government "may" release the names of the winne (Score:5, Informative)
"may" do so? Did the New York Times misspell "must"? Or is it that there is a lack of clarity in the FCC's administrative law as to how long it can go before it makes public the detailed results of the auction?
When the D Block gets resolved, the FCC will be allowed to reveal who won the other blocks. [washingtonpost.com]
Parent
Re:Government "may" release the names of the winne (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government "may" release the names of the winne (Score:4, Funny)
I'm planning to use that part of the frequency spectrum to broadcast round the clock demo tapes from '80s cover bands, the piano works of Conlon Nancarrow and the speeches of Everett Dirksen.
And if you're wondering, yes, I've got the idea protected legally, so don't try to beat me out of the gate.
Parent
Re:Government "may" release the names of the winne (Score:2)
I agree, this was bad sentence structure, but "may" in this case means "will be allowed to".
--Rob
I will be more curious... (Score:4, Interesting)
And regarding the C-Block (?) for shared public/private usage, I am not surprised. As competitive as the telecomms are in wanting to keep their networks just to themselves, who would want to spend billions developing a nationwide network that would have to give free access to public service? Sure, it would be a boon to firefighters and police, but the telecomms don't seem to worry about good or bad PR.
A better solution (Score:2)
Doing that would automatically add two major competitors to the broadband market for most states, and it would make this band of spectrum more useful to the public.
But then again, the FCC was not created to serve the public, now was it? It was des
Re:A better solution (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What incentive would a nationwide private owner of a spectrum have to provide service to the Dakotan's when they can focus on the East and West Coasts? This is what happens to many rural communities when you have major companies like Verizon or Comcast with land line service so the same thing would most likley apply to wireless
The shutdown of future learning (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The shutdown of future learning (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the unlicensed bands are still unlicensed, and they're still analog. So hack away.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You just might [nytimes.com] if Hillary gets elected!
Re: (Score:2)
As a kid, I made my own home AM radios, an incredibly useful tool for the budding EE's in the world. the loss of such profound examples will cut off the joy of home electronic projects to another generation.
This just means the opportunity for learning has tripled!
;}
Now kids can learn how to make an AM radio,
followed by an AM transmitter,
followed by 'daddy why are you making me do this?'
Kidding aside, I too remember building similar things, AM radios powered from the airwaves, followed by better amped receivers, moving on to FM and learning how stereo sound is sent.
While it is sad such projects will eventually be no more, and the new technologies that are replacing them are either locked up in corporate paten
Re:The shutdown of future learning (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The shutdown of future learning (Score:5, Informative)
There are still tons of operators that run full double sideband, full carrier AM - although their signals are not the most spectrum-efficient on the air, their audio is usually great-sounding.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
$19.5 billion Pffft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The government (i.e. the taxpayers) put up $30 billion to bail out Bear Stearns and allow JP Morgan to start buying them out. The $19.5 billion is then 2/3 of the price of the bail out.
Granted, moral hazard has all but been abandoned by the supposed experts at the Fed but hey, it's not their money they're using. Besides, couldn't let their buddies have to suffer the slings and arrows of the free market, now could we?
Re: (Score:2)
All the economists I've heard talk about it (about 4 different ones between All Things Considered [npr.org] and Marketplace [marketplace.org]) have said that the risk to the market of a failing major investment bank is worse than the risk of moral hazard, in this case. And you can't say that the owners of Bear Stearns haven't suffered. The stock went from $95 to $2.
I do agree with you that, generally speaking, bail-outs suck.
-l
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
They were saying "no bailouts".
I figure they wanted stuff to go bust so they could buy it all up cheap and thus gain more power and wealth.
Hypocracy - the rule or power through hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I too have heard the same tripe sounded about why Bear Stearns could not fail and why they had to be bailed out (even if they are being bought out). The problem is, as we have now seen, someone would have stepped in to buy them and their assets anyway, so the government shoveling more money down the drain wouldn't have mattered.
Yes, there would have been some constern
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And before going all populist with the "Good - serves them right" bit, remember that as it sprea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Cheap (Score:2)
Germany netted a total of 111 billion euros.
Great Brittain 85 billion.
The Netherlands 5.9 billion.
All that means... (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's really paying for this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I the only one that has a fundamental problem with the fact that the FCC is even allowed to do this? Admittedly, I don't understand the ins and outs of the entire spectrum business, but how does a federal agency have the right to charge anyone anything for use of the airwaves? The cost of this is going to go right back to the users of the spectrum, not the company. And what does the FCC do with the 19 Billion dollars they raised?
I have a hard time believing that US citizens come out better for this, i
Re:Who's really paying for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having established that ownership rights need to be allocated, the question becomes how to allocate them. Economically, the most sensible solution is an auction of this type, for the reason that the auction winners will be the enterprises who are able to pay the most, under the principle that the reason they are able to pay the most because their goods and/or services provide or are likely to provide the greatest value to the market, and ultimately, society. Thus, you end up with the most economically efficient allocation of the spectrum.
Other alternatives for allocation also have problems. A lottery could easily result in relatively useless owners possessing the rights while those with a product much more highly valued by the public are denied. A political determination would result in the usual pork-barelling and outright corruption.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, now that I come to think of it, you may just get that check. $600 x 143M = $85B, so you can just figure that 1/4 of your "rebate" check from Dubya came from this auction. See how efficient government is? (excuse my while I go throw up)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 3G auctions in Europe raised a fortune for exchequers but the huge burden the placed on operators has crippled 3G roll-out for the best part of a decade.
Is it wrong to question how the money raised is spent?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure? Are you suggesting that 3G roll-out has been quicker in other countries where the governemnt gave away valuable rights to private companies for free instead of selling them?
Whatever an operator payed for a license is sunk cost [wikipedia.org]. The subsequent roll-out will be at whatever pace is economically feasible and will not be affected by th
Re:Just as well (Score:4, Insightful)
In Japan, 3G licenses were free. Looking at the state of the mobile market there, and comparing it with that in Europe, then yes, I'd say that huge cost delayed roll out and by increasing user costs slowed uptake.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. Whatever investments a company chooses to make in 3G roll-out is only based on what they can expect each investment to return. Are you suggesting that an investment with an expected ROI of x% will be made if the debt is below $y, but will not be made if it is above $y?
Also, why compare to Japan? Compare to Sweden, where the Social Democrats gave the licenses away. It turned out that ma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why not compare to the original GSM licenses in the UK for Vodafone and Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio? They had coverage obligations. Those coverage obligations were absent from the 3G auctions because with no obligations, carriers would bid more for the license to prevent others gaining a license, and then deploy at a slower pace as funds allowed.
I don't think a great deal of thought was paid to the
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)