Spectrum Auction Could Be A Game of Chicken

Ardvark writes "Google promised some time ago to bid at least the reserve price for the C block of 700Mhz spectrum if the FCC accepted its demand for an open access rule for devices using the band, which the FCC did over Verizon's objections. If the reserve price is not met the rule will be dropped and the block re-auctioned. It appears now that bidding has stalled just short of the reserve price. It's assumed that Google has no interest in becoming a cell phone company and with a recession looming the 700MHz spectrum now seems worth a whole lot less. If Google's strategy was to force the bidding above the reserve but still lose the auction, Verizon could be calling their bluff, threatening them to live up to their word and buy what to Google could be the equivalent of a $4.6 billion 'doohickey.'" Update: 01/31 16:01 GMT by Z : And just like that, the plot thickens: the C block has hit the reserve price during bidding.

when the usa purchased alaska from russia

[circletimessquare]

they called it "seward's folly"

it was a joke. why did we spend $7 million on some permafrost again?

same with anyone who doubts the value of this auction

i can't see why a monopoly on a prime band of communication spectrum can't be anything but pure gold. there's only so much spectrum, but more and more people and more need for communication tech every day

Who said anything about a recession?

[ficken]

Google has no interest in becoming a cell phone company and with a recession looming the 700MHz spectrum now seems worth a whole lot less

Who said anything about a recession? You do not know you are in a recession until after it happens. How do you know we're not spiraling into a depression?

Nothing to see here yet, move along...

[rickb928]

Lemme see. Reserve is 4.6B, bid is 4.3B. 6.5% difference, 300M. If I were buying a rusty old Duster for $600, this would be a difference of $40.

Obviously this is just gamesmanship.

Re:Short term/Long term

[jandrese]

More importantly, the Spectrum is a limited resource. Even if you can't capitalize on it, you can be sure that someone in the future will want to use it, especially these bands with favorable RF propagation.

The problem with 3G isn't the band it is in, it's the fact that the hardware is still expensive and power hungry, which makes it less than ideal for the intended purpose of being used in smartphones. Give it a few years and you'll likely see considerable growth on that chunk of the spectrum as the chipsets improve and people grow more data hungry (and they always grow more data hungry).

Re:too bad

[Brad Eleven]

There's just one problem with that data: it's based on the top 1% of wage earners . The wealthy do not earn wages. It is my opinion that wage earners define the middle class, although the notion of class distinction in a democratic Republic is open to interpretation.

For that matter, any assertion involving the term "middle class" is open to interpretation.

It's not so much that Limbaugh isn't popular with technically-minded people, it's that he is not nearly as interested in facts as he is in attention. He himself has admitted as much. He makes money by remaining popular, by inciting listeners to excitement. That's the stock in trade of talk radio: Current events plus interpretation with a clear agenda, designed to leave you feeling a certain way.

There's nothing wrong with choosing that flavor of entertainment. The problems crop up when you begin to use data from an entertainment source as fact. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Clayton [imdb.com], but if I wanted facts about corporate crime, I'd look elsewhere.

If Limbaugh inspires you, great. Inspired people move things forward. One of our biggest problems lately is that the inspired don't step out and think for themselves. My recommendation is that you maintain the distinction between entertainment and news. Get your facts from a reliable source, i.e., from a different source than your inspiration.

If you like thinking for yourself, that is. If you'd prefer to just listen without asking any questions, go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone who isn't plugged into the same source to treat you with any respect.

Check your definition

[Anonymous Coward]

The top 1% are those with incomes of more than half a million dollars a year. That's middle class to you, just because they're "wage earners"?.

Those executives with the multimillion dollar/year salaries? They're salary ... in other words, a wage earner. Are they middle class, just because they're "wage earners"?

I don't think so.

Re:too bad

[MaskedSlacker]

Because renting is money thrown away. Money spent on a mortgage is only partially thrown away.

Re:Check your definition

[Brad Eleven]

"The top 1%" is precisely the ambiguity I seek to refute. This term is often misused to refer to those with the highest net worth, whereas Limbaugh's results are based on income.

I personally distinguish wages from salary, i.e., I define wages as trading hours for money. Salaried employees, like the executives you mention, are most certainly not paid by the hour. Many of those are paid a relatively low base salary, with quarterly bonuses based on easily attainable goals. Look more closely, and recall that the media has little interest in explaining everything: it requires more of an attention span, and makes it harder to cut up the programming to fit in between the advertisements. Plus it's far more attention-getting to shout simple phrases.

No, those with multimillion dollar compensation packages are not middle class... or are they? Is class defined by income, or by lifestyle, or simply by subjective perception? To which class does the retired janitor who has saved more than a million dollars belong? How about the trust fund kid who lives in a crack house?

There are many who earn six figures who would probably be judged to be "middle class" because of their lifestyles and their investment strategies. I judge it as distraction to focus on who is paying more taxes. What I'm interested in is what is being done with the taxes.