Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones The Internet

Spectrum Auction Could Be A Game of Chicken 193

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spectrum Auction Could Be A Game of Chicken

Comments Filter:
  • UK 3G (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SimonGhent ( 57578 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:07AM (#22246482)
    I'm not surprised that US companies aren't falling over themselves to bid.

    Take a look at what happened in the UK when the 3G air was up for sale - they threw money at it and ended up with next to no customers.

    With the way things are economically at the moment, people are not looking to up their monthly spend on their mobile phone bill. Companies will have a hard time recouping a huge outlay.
  • Clever (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:10AM (#22246522)
    The telecoms can take the heat for being heartless monopolies, for providing terrible service at a high price, and for leveraging their monopolies to avoid upgrading their taxpayer-financed infrastructure.

    They can't, however, be accused of not doing what will profit them the most in the short term.

    In this case, they've collectively called Google's bluff. I don't see Google having $4.6B in spare cash, to purchase the spectrum they have no idea how to make money on. This is a tough spot for Google, because not only do they stand to lose their coveted "shared spectrum" rule, but they also stand to lose much of their perceived invulnerability on the market.
  • too bad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:15AM (#22246592)
    Too bad there are no jobs, and the houses are way too expensive.

    Virtually all middle-class job fields are either stalled, or firing... and as far as the real estate market goes, here's a story.

    In 1995, about 50% of Nassau county (Long Island, NYC metro area) residents could afford to purchase the homes they were living in, given market price. In 2005, that number was down to about 5%. Yes, we have had spectacular success in destroying the middle class. At least they're scared of being poor, so they keep on working.

    As George Carlin noted (albeit a hyperbole): "The middle class pays all the taxes, and does all the work. And the poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class".
  • Game Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jwietelmann ( 1220240 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:21AM (#22246698)
    Whatever Google is maneuvering to do, they're probably more likely to employ the kind of people who know how to play the game than Verizon is. Whatever Google is trying to achieve, my money's on them. (Well, not really; I don't have any GOOG shares.)
  • Re:FIOS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:23AM (#22246736)
    FIOS isn't "good" because it's a good service. FIOS is only "good" because this is Verizon's final "fuck you" to the taxpayers that helped fund its infrastructure, and an open attempt to become a totally unregulated monopoly. You see, they HAD TO lease the copper lines, because FCC mandated it. They don't have to share the fiber optics. As a result, they've been busy building the fiber network that would cement them as a monopoly, while completely ignoring troubles with their copper... leveraging the reduction in the quality of service over the copper lines, to attract people to the fiber.
  • Re:too bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SQLGuru ( 980662 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:26AM (#22246778) Homepage Journal
    Housing is still affordable....just not where you want it to be. Go look at "rural small-town America" and you can find plenty of houses under $150k (what I consider to be the criteria for affordable to most people, but YMMV). With telecommuting becoming more popular, why would you care if your job was three cities away? Sure, there aren't any cool trendy hot spots nearby, but you can afford to live and eat.

    Layne
  • Did! Did Not! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:27AM (#22246796)

    the FCC did over Verizon's objections.

    The article summary is garbage, or should I say simply wrong?

    Google set 4 conditions it wanted to see. The FCC agreed with 2 of them, so Google is faced with half a glass. (Yes I know the Engineer's view of half a glass.) I don't recall them saying they'd bid reserve to ensure only half of their wishes.

  • Re:FIOS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bleh-of-the-huns ( 17740 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:35AM (#22246916)
    The reason they had to lease the copper, was the original copper infrastructure was gov subsidized. The fiber costs are being eaten completely by Verizon, and while I am sure there are some tax breaks involved, there is no subsidy from the gov, state or local. Surprisingly though, the service itself is great, I have had very few problems, (yes there are some that had horrible installs and could never get some things working), the only issue I have is with the billing department which I have to call every month to get the appropriate triple play discount credited to my account since their system keeps losing it, and their CS.. it is abysmal and thats me being nice to them. The install actually was pleasant, and its not subcontracted like comcasts installers, they get paid hourly, not by the number of jobs they get done, so whether they do 5 installs in a day, or spend all day at your house rewiring your internal cable infrastructure, they get paid the same.
  • by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:37AM (#22246944) Homepage
    That the bidding often stalls in the middle of the auction, and picks up like crazy near the end. This isn't ebay of course, but it's certainly an example of auction behavior to pay attention to.

    This auction will go on for months, and we're at the one week mark now?

    Anyone who says Google is "bluffing", or the price won't go up is full of it. Google may not bid as much as they say, they may, someone else might bid more, or who knows? It's just way to early to be saying much of anything about the auction, what the different strategies are, and who will win.
  • Re:Nah . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by terraformer ( 617565 ) <tpb@pervici.com> on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:56AM (#22247256) Journal
    You know, I thought the same thing (and yes, I know you were joking, but I think you are on to something). I have observed some other FCC auctions and they have a more regular pattern of bidding but I would not be surprised if the eBay sniper approach is being played here. There is a great deal of uncertainty and this may be a way to try to hedge and keep the bidding low.
  • by keithjr ( 1091829 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @12:12PM (#22247468)
    Finally some good news! Too bad it's still anonymous. I'd love to know who broke the barrier.

    Why is Verizon so against the concept of a 700MHz open network when they've stated that they're going to open up their own network [arstechnica.com] some time this year?
  • Re:too bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @12:40PM (#22247870) Journal
    My company has tripled in size over the last 2 years.

    Yeah. People throw their hands in the air over this incoming recession, and sure the stock market is having some problems, but so many areas of this country are still doing well. The company I'm working for is hiring like mad (any aerospace engineers looking for work? let me know). Within my house, which used to be out in the country surrounded by fields, there are no less than five new housing developments that sprung up in the last year ... and yes, they are still being constructed. For all the doom and gloom, business is booming in my world.

    (and "recessions" aren't all bad ... the corrections that are made often empower people to get lower interest loans, refinance debt to pay it off quicker, and often provide incentives to allow for businesses to grow)
  • by EvilNTUser ( 573674 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @12:42PM (#22247906)

    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

    The auction is a gigantic tax and nothing more. If the markets are efficient, the winning company will be rewarded only related to the risks it is taking. Everything else will be going to the government, and out of the pockets of consumers.

    It's laughable how the auctions are being sold as a good way to raise funds for the government without impacting the taxpayer. Who doesn't use communications technology if not the taxpayer? This is the perfect way to cripple a single industry, because a) the winning company will have less immediate funding available for infrastructure b) consumer prices will be much higher, lowering the adoption rate significantly.

    Just look at what happened in Europe. A lot of countries did the smart thing and gave the spectrum to the companies that were willing to guarantee the best service levels for the cheapest consumer prices, but then a few large countries ruined it for everyone by suckering companies into auctions. (To be viewed as a serious competitor, you had to take part in the largest markets.) The end result was what I described above, and we are only now starting to recover.

    If you think that the beauty contest model will result in excessive profits for the winner, keep in mind the guarantees, and the fact that one winner wasn't awarded all the spectrum.

  • by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @01:43PM (#22248756) Homepage Journal
    they can rent it out if they win it. as in beer. they could throw it open to all carriers using an open GSM platform using whatever flavor of G3 data they like so it's fully world-compatible.

    there's an idea that should have "it's MY network, and all these guys behind me will beat you if you disagree" shivering.

    yes, bring your BT, NTT, Korean phone over here with you. it will work. every time you hit send, two cents to Google for use of the C block airwaves. one cent if the home phoneco had built the network in that regional area.

    profit per click. no investment in the backbone. that's something they know about.

    it can work.
  • Re:too bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JustASlashDotGuy ( 905444 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @02:34PM (#22249520)

    So the rich 1% pay 34.27% the middle class pay ~96.54% - 34.27% = 62.27% of income taxes and the middle class also pays 500 billion for Social Security and most property, excise and sales taxes.
    I love this example. So, you are basically saying that "Rich" only includes the top 1% of wage earners, everyone else is middle class? Exactly where are you placing the "Rich" income cap at?

    Also, I love how you complain that the top 1% ONLY pay 34% of income takes. I suppose you would think it's more fair is the top 1% paid something close to 50%? Where does it end? Heck, why not just cap all income at 100k, and say anything over that goes to the gov't? That'll stick it to 'em!

    I'm still scratching my head over how the middle class pay more sales tax. The last time I went Walmart, the didn't ask me what my income level was and tax accordingly. Property tax is more malarkey.

    So yes if you look at all the numbers the middle class is paying most of the taxes.
    What a shocking revelation that that the sum of individuations that make up 94% (or whatever) of the US population pay the majority of the taxes. If it were the other way around, we'd be a welfare county. Thankfully we aren't there... yet. We should all get very nervous if we get to a position where 50+% of income taxes are paid by 1% of the population and that's deemed acceptable.

  • by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) * on Thursday January 31, 2008 @03:16PM (#22250212)
    Google can't talk about the auction until it's all over so anybody without insider information only knows that Google might or might not get the spectrum which we've known for months. Really, the only new information available is how much the spectrum cost and that the open access rules are a certainty--but this was widely expected any way. So I don't see any reason why Google's stock should move right now because of the auction.
  • Re:too bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SQLGuru ( 980662 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @04:03PM (#22251050) Homepage Journal
    The obsession with home ownership is several-fold.

    1. It's a way to collect your savings into something (equity in your house builds over time, there is no equity in renting).
    2. In most states, it is one of the few things most creditors can't touch should you go bankrupt (except of course people with leins).
    3. Tax deductible interest helps defray some of the cost and in some years makes the house cheaper than renting.
    4. Over time, the value of the house will actually surpass the amount you've paid for it (assuming 6% note, 2.5% appreciation, 95% borrowed, and a 30% tax rate, it looks like some time between year 20 and 25 of owning the house for most borrowers) [based it off of IPMT function in Excel to estimate interest paid annually]

    Layne

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...