Study: Limiting Bidding On Spectrum Could Cost Billions 140
itwbennett writes "According to a study (PDF) by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, restricting the ability of Verizon Wireless and AT&T to bid in upcoming spectrum auctions would drive down the bidding during the auction, and could cost the U.S. treasury as much as $12 billion. Even a partial restriction of bids by Verizon and AT&T could have a significant impact on auction revenues, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a co-author of the Georgetown study. Matt Wood, policy director at digital rights group Free Press, fired back, saying 'No one is talking about completely barring AT&T and Verizon from the incentive auction. Sensible people are talking about making sure that more than two companies have a chance at obtaining spectrum. The fact that these duopolists hired economists to parrot the companies' own talking points isn't really that newsworthy.'"
Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
For a bit of money, will soon have little of either.
Letting the cash-rich companies have their way is surely a bad idea.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's worth billions more to verizon then you can be sure versizon is going to extract many ties that from the citizenry. So in the end the govt would get more revnue but the people would have less money. I'd rather have the reverse. Moreover the competition may be good.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's worth billions more to verizon then you can be sure versizon is going to extract many ties that from the citizenry. So in the end the govt would get more revnue but the people would have less money. I'd rather have the reverse. Moreover the competition may be good.
Honestly, the fact that spectrum auctioning is even being talked about in terms of its revenue value(I can see arguments being made that the 'auction' mechanism is a good one for identifying users most willing to pay, and ensuring that spectrum doesn't go unused, though such arguments need to face up to the empirical reality of examples like "Tons of crazy-useful stuff that we do in the shitty ISM band, not because it's good; but because it's available") suggests a level of conceptual failure that makes my head hurt.
If the government just wants to raise money, 'tax farming' by selling off public assets to the entities most capable of extracting monopoly rents in exchange for a slight premium over what they would otherwise sell for is pitifully inefficient. If they need money, suck it up and acknowledge that it's a tax. Accepting years of substandard and undercompetitive spectrum use in exchange for a bit of cash upfront is just nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am by no means a fan of AT&T or Verizon, but the concept of preventing a company from bidding on something in the name of competition strikes me as... anti-competitive. I'm a firm believer in a free market economy and this reeks of giving all the kids a trophy just for playing.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am by no means a fan of AT&T or Verizon, but the concept of preventing a company from bidding on something in the name of competition strikes me as... anti-competitive. I'm a firm believer in a free market economy and this reeks of giving all the kids a trophy just for playing.
Your assumption is that the sole criteria is return in dollars, and not say some other public good. When we sold land to homesteaders in the wild west we did not maximize the return but had settlement in mind. We do this with lots of resources. The public gets a greater benefit, the govt gets less revenue. We often handicap research grant scores to favor young investigators or classes of institutions. This is a case of maximizing future returns and diversifying risk rather than getting immediate return of maximum research output per dollar spent.
Not having a monopoly may be a better use of the spectrum than simply more of the same from an existing large company.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism works where the tragedy of the commons steps in. The farmer who gets a short-term bonus from ov
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but in those days the government did not spend like it does today. Today the government desperately needs money, and lots of it. This $12 billion is badly needed and will enable the government to operate for almost thirty hours. Not to mention the additional revenue available by borrowing against future revenue of this sort.
Mention something like "public good" to anyone who works in Washington DC and watch the smiles and guffaws start. You just mark yourself as a redneck and an idiot with talk li
Re: (Score:3)
Oh my. The rational hand of disciplined governance ought to guide the invisible hand of markets? You're going to get a lot of hate. You are also right.
Where you missed: "the gov't gets less revenue." You needed to put a "for now" at the end of that. As we know from Seward's Folly and the Louisiana Purchase, sometimes the people don't know the right course. Those investments are ripe now and paying huge dividends.
Sometimes the public good is not having to waste the blood of patriots for stuff that ca
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Informative)
No, my assumption is that someone other than AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile being awarded the spectrum does not automatically equal public good.
It still takes a fortune to build the infrastructure to support a wireless network. The argument being made here is that if one of the big providers were to acquire the spectrum, they'd take the cost out on their customers.
Surely y'all aren't naive enough to believe that whomever acquires the spectrum *isn't* going to do the same. They still need to be competitive, which means they still need to make money, and so they're still going to charge rates that are within the ballpark of AT&T and Verizon. If they're significantly lower, then yes, it may force AT&T and Verizon to adjust their prices downward, at least in certain markets (I seriously doubt that any other likely purchasers are going to become players on a national level).
Or, more likely, AT&T and Verizon adjust their prices to actually be lower, stealing the competitors customers, strangling their revenue, and eventually putting them out of business. AT&T and Verizon can afford to absorb a short term loss to deal with a competitor. Once said competitor is no longer an issue, prices go up again.
You don't think this happens? You've never witnessed what happens when a Wal-Mart moves into an area that previously had none.
In order to actually compete with AT&T and Verizon, you need to offer a superior product and superior service, at a better price. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, basically, we should give it to someone else because they might suck less.
I'm not real fond of that choice either.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically, we should give it to someone else because they might suck less.
I'm not real fond of that choice either.
No, we give it to someone else because then that someone else would have to compete with the incumbents, and the resulting competition will force prices down, as opposed to our current system of two enormous rent-seekers sitting on vast piles of spectrum, doing nothing with it, and forcing us to pay extorionate amounts for terrible service.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering how much the current oligopoly sucks, I'm quite OK with you (alt A: retraining them for useful work) (their own Option B) lining them all against a wall and executing them by firing squad.
The people who choose option B aren't worth saving anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely y'all aren't naive enough to believe that whomever acquires the spectrum *isn't* going to do the same. They still need to be competitive, which means they still need to make money, and so they're still going to charge rates that are within the ballpark of AT&T and Verizon.
Have you heard of Ting mobile? I have a plan in Illinois with two smartphones on it. My last monthly bill, with voice, text, and data, totaled $34.97. I'm not a heavy data user (only 79 megabytes), but still. You think AT&T or Verizon can beat that? I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I am refining what you are saying – but focusing on market structure and how to maximize the value to society.
Take a look at countries across the world. The top 2 providers make all of the profits, the rest are left with the scraps. Do you want a cozy duopoly or something more competitive? If you want something more competitive, you are going to need to give the underdogs a leg up.
Now, you can overpay for competition, and I have not read the details, but at first glance I am in favor.
Take a
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Interesting)
As such, the value is not only what an entity is willing to pay, but also in what benefit the public will gain for allowing their resource to be used.
A true free market attitude would be to support a spectrum commons [wikipedia.org].
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the way it should work. Unfortunately, reality is quite a bit different.
You're absolutely correct in that supply is fixed. You're also absolutely correct that there's flexibility in demand (which is presently going up and shows no signs of going the other way).
Your flaw is that entire public good thing.
Either the resource is to be allocated and managed for the public good, or it isn't. Given that AT&T and Verizon own such a large portion of spectrum already, the question becomes are they managing it for the public good or not. The sentiment seems to be that they're not, and as such, shouldn't be allowed to acquire more.
If that is true, then we're not getting good value from allowing them to use our resource. So why do we continue to allow them to use it? If we have no choice but to continue to allow them to use it, then the resource is not really a public one to be used for the public good.
If we are getting good value from allowing them to use our resource, then why is it a bad thing to allow them more?
It truly sticks in my craw to have to have to play advocate for Verizon and AT&T, I loathe them as corporate entities, and they're some of our best customers (I work for a company that provides a very large amount of cell backhaul for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint).
But this entire public good argument is horseshit. The reality, whether you care to admit it or not, is that wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other. The only thing the fixed supply does is drive prices up when demand increases. Whether or not it should be that way is an entirely separate argument.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is it good for the public to let Verizon and/or AT&T bid on this spectrum considering they already own quite a bit of the spectrum? The more spectrum that they own, the less spectrum available for competitors. Hell, they could buy up spectrum they have no intention of using just to prevent competitors from offering comparable services and risk losing customers. And since Verizon and AT&T have more assets than most of their existing competi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But could you do it as a private company?
If not, could you do it while making enough profit to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility and keep your shareholders from rioting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to do TWO things to get this under control again. First, modify the 14th amendment and insert an exception that excludes a corporate entity from rights granted an animate entity.
Then change the FCC - take out the corporate insiders who make up it's
Re: Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:1)
This has to be one of the dumbest comments you can make in regards to wireless spectrum. You do realize that a "completely free" market would not have spectrum to government auction in the first place right? The whole point of allocating spectrum blocks is to maximize their use without unnecessary interference for the greatest benefit to the public. The government and corporate interests are only necessary where they contribute to that goal. If an institution is going to just grab the spectrum almost solely
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not paying attention to what I said? I understand completely that this can't be a situation where you just open the floodgates and whomever can bring you the most cash wins.
I have a problem with restricting the bidders in the name of 'competition'. Excluding viable competitors just to let other folks have a shot has absolutely nothing to do with the public good.
If AT&T and Verizon are capable of managing additional spectrum in a responsible manner that is consistent with the public good, they sh
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds good in theory, but in practice it's a lot harder to take it away once it's been handed out than it is to keep them from getting it in the first place.
Which pretty much hamstrings the argument that wireless spectrum is a public resource to be allocated for the public good, doesn't it?
Here's reality - the wireless spectrum is a commodity like any other, and once in the hands of a private entity, the public good has little, if anything, to do with it. Said private entity is going to attempt to exploit the resource in the name of revenue and profit just like AT&T and Verizon would.
But wait, I thought revenue and profit were bad for the public good?
I stro
Re: (Score:2)
All depends on how they go about doing it. If they can increase profit without upping revenue by getting more efficient and better at what they do, then I have no problem with that.
If they go the other way and degrade service to bring down overhead, obviously, not so good.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that argument, I don't have a problem with (and I actually agree with). Proving yourself effective at managing the resources you already have before being granted more of the same is a much better argument for kicking Verizon and AT&T out of the auction than the argument of 'other people should have a chance just cuz'.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but what they're bidding on is not merchandise but a government-enforced monopoly. Normal free-market rules are already out the window; you may call what you propose a free market solution but really it's a mercantilist solution. Selling letters of patent to whoever brings the most into the Crown treasury is precisely the kind of thing Adam Smith was writing to oppose in the first place.
Normally the solution is to get rid of the government-granted monopoly. But that doesn't work out so well here. We license spectrum because leaving it to the free market to figure it out would result in horrible interference and transmit power arms races -- a classical tragedy of the commons market failure.
In many market failures government won't actually manage to improve the situation. But the spectrum really is a clear case where intervention can improve social welfare-- as long as we don't get confused about the purpose of spectrum regulation and start treating it like it's a free market designed for increasing government revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the old Ma Bell - when she was a fully integrate and heavily regulated entity she made tons of money and innovated like all hell. Granted, a lot of the innovation was to maximize profit but it was the research done by them that kind of kicked off all we have today.
Now the game is extracting maximum REVENUE. Not cute.
Re: (Score:2)
One little detail you left out. "Ma Bell" may have innovated but had no reason to pass the innovations to their customers (eg. ISDN was very very slow to roll out and was prohibitively expensive). Deregulation and the subsequent breakup o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how ATT's monopoly position influenced the creation of the transistor. In fact let me piece together a bunch of google searches (admittedly dominated by wikipedia) to create a "Connections (I miss that show) type
Re: (Score:2)
I am by no means a fan of AT&T or Verizon, but the concept of preventing a company from bidding on something in the name of competition strikes me as... anti-competitive. I'm a firm believer in a free market economy and this reeks of giving all the kids a trophy just for playing.
Were you sick the day they discussed 'market power' and 'rent seeking' in EC101?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think a duopoly propped up by government restrictions on spectrum is a free market then you obviously should have failed econ 101/high school civics. Because the government has created the current situation and it can be demonstrated that it is causing harm (significantly higher prices than the rest of the world) a statesman would say that the government has a responsibility to use reasonable remedies to correct the situation. Keeping the abusive duopolists from gaining further market advantage by no
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Restricting AT&T/Verizon from bidding on it reduces freedom and reduces the free market more than letting all interested firms bid on it. We need a truly free market to reduce abuses, not more regulation.
Freedom to make money is at odds with public good.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That is a very stupidly naive statement.
You know all groups who have formed movements off of that premise have ultimately fallen, without even any outside interference from those ideologically opposed. Take the Icarians for example, who literally had an entire city pre-built just handed to them for basically nothing (Nauvoo, IL.) Even with those nice things just handed to you, in order to keep them nice you have to work. When there is no freedom to make money, people get lazy and shit falls apart, just like
Re: (Score:2)
Not always.
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
Free market is a concept that resides in the realm of fantasy, together with communism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Those who would trade a bit of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need a truly free market to reduce abuses
A truly free market (more importantly, a truly competitive market) is one where new suppliers can enter the market. Unfortunately spectrum is a strictly limited resource. Therefore allowing currently entrenched companies to buy big chunks of spectrum and block future entrants into the market is highly anti-competitive.
Re: (Score:3)
All the data towers are doing the same shit. They could be standardized, funded by tax money directly (instead of a 100 billion handout that just disappears). If the spectrum belongs to the people then let us just have it completely. Dedicate a bandwidth for cellular use according to the people's demand, then saturate it with capability to provide service. The access could be leased to the carriers, and our devices could frequency hop to whatever chanel was noise free. New competitors could lease the
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much what I've been preaching now for years. Infrastructure that is vital to the public good and that requires the use of a physically limited resource, such as roads or power lines, is already expected to be government owned. Why is radio spectrum not treated the same way at this point?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then all the rules about sharing, etc. apply. It's why for example in France they pay about $40 a mont
Dear Reporters (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time the government doesn't get every penny and ounce of blood it can out of everyone doesn't mean it's "costing" the government anything.
Re:Dear Reporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time the government doesn't get every penny and ounce of blood it can out of everyone doesn't mean it's "costing" the government anything.
Exactly - sky high spectrum auctions amount to a tax on the consumers that are forced to pay back the billions that the company spent to buy the spectrum. Encouraging more competition from smaller carriers by banning the big boys will likely save consumers many more billions than the government would have "earned".
From TFA:
But a policy to restrict the ability of Verizon Wireless and AT&T to bid on the spectrum would drive down the bidding during the auction and leave less money for a nationwide public safety network and the U.S. treasury
Why should spectrum auctions (i.e. my cell phone bill) pay for a public safety network?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because you are a member of that public. Go ahead and say that line the next time you need 911. Keep that line in your head the next severe weather outbreak happens and you need to take shelter. Keep that in mind after the disaster when you are trying to piece back together the remnants of your life....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
General revenue is also a tax. I fail to see the point of what pot of gold it is plucked from. It makes far more sense to me to have the users of that safety network support it.
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see the point of what pot of gold it is plucked from.
Fairness. I see no reason to impose a tax specifically on how much one uses a cell phone (this from someone who rarely uses his dumb phone). You're the one who pointed out everyone potentially needs the public safety network, and I don't think that potential need is proportional to how much you use your cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point fails because even on hardwired lines there are charges for the safety network (911 fees they are generally called). If you want to talk fairness then what you are proposing is the landline users pay for it when you don't have to. Doesn't sound very fair to me. And taking it out of the general revenue means those who don't use it (for whatever reason) are subsidizing those that do. Again, it doesn't sound fair to me.
The point is, there are inequities all over the topic of taxes. Whether it comes
Re: (Score:2)
Your point fails because even on hardwired lines there are charges for the safety network (911 fees they are generally called). If you want to talk fairness then what you are proposing is the landline users pay for it when you don't have to. Doesn't sound very fair to me. And taking it out of the general revenue means those who don't use it (for whatever reason) are subsidizing those that do.
Your argument fails because the Public Safety Network [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with 911 service (other than the fact that when the 911 operator calls a firetruck, the firetuck will use the public safety network to say he's on the way). The public safety network is a tool used by EMS responders, just like a firetruck or police car, and I certainly don't see why a hidden fee buried in cell phone costs should pay for firetrucks.
If a nationwide coordinated public safety network is something that the federal governmen
Re: (Score:2)
General revenue is also a tax. I fail to see the point of what pot of gold it is plucked from. It makes far more sense to me to have the users of that safety network support it.
Right, general revenue is a tax, which is how infrastructure that benefits everyone should be paid (or through use taxes, like gas taxes). Not buried in a spectrum sale that will lead to higher cell phone prices for consumer with the revenue used for something that benefits everyone whether they use a cell phone or not. What if all agencies decided that they should earn revenue - maybe the FDA should charge meat packing plants $10M/annually for their required inspections and then use the revenue to pay for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is cellular allocation done elsewhere? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is cellular allocation done elsewhere? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I would not say Orange [wikipedia.org] is insignificant and there are others [wikipedia.org], some national or operating in a small area [wikipedia.org] with a large market share and grand plans for expansion (the Sonera part of the last company I linked is the former Finnish national post & telecom office, which was split up as a several private companies in 1990s - the "Telecom" part then became Tele and further Sonera which spent billions of euros on auctions for an example in Germany for 3G licenses, which never did anything and both Sonera and T
Re: (Score:3)
There are two basic models, auction and beauty contest. Those who favor auctions usually point out that for "common good" auction is better, because even if it yields huge sums of money to the government which may be seen as a tax prices are (when the money is a lump sum, not percent of revenue or profit) always going to be as high as the consumer is willing to pay for a service. The advocates of beauty contest say that it gives a better chance to newcomers and favors large scale adoption of new technologie
Not really interested in what it costs government. (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it cost society?
Re:Not really interested in what it costs governme (Score:4, Insightful)
What does it cost society?
Well... you know how our mobile phone networks are utter shit compared to the rest of the world? Plan on that continuing. You know the limited range and speed of wifi? Expect more of the same. In short, the cost to society is that the status quo remains.
Now, what happens if we don't get more of the same? Well, there's a chance, mind you I don't know how much of one, that the above-referenced problems would get better, or go away entirely, and even do so affordably.
But let's be honest; there's $12 billion here that the government can put in its coffers, and everyone who agrees with this gets a fat contribution to their re-election campaign. Who the fuck cares about the cost to society? It's just there to serve the rich anyway... Keep eating your dog food, Citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I would think the only thing at&t and Verizon care about is the cost to society.
money begats money... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See my sig? It applies to archaic forms of English too.
Well, that makes it easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it worth 12 billion dollars to keep AT&T and Verizon from controlling the airwaves?
About that $12 billion figure (Score:2)
That's cheap (Score:3)
Is it just me (Score:3)
Does it build value? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question to ask is: which way will build value?
If Verizon and AT&T will just sit on the spectrum doing nothing, then the government gets 12 billion extra and it will be wasted. The government doesn't do anything that's useful or valuable to the people any more - it only generates pointless bureaucracy and sweetheart deals. It's the aristocracy of "pull".
If players other than Verizon and AT&T will use the spectrum for new and innovative products, generate intellectual property (ugh! that word...) and add value to the economy, then the government gets 12 billion less which will go unnoticed (a minor drop in the bucket), but it will enrich America and perhaps generate tax revenue over time.
Let's give Verizon and AT&T a chance at the new spectrum. They kept the 200 billion [newnetworks.com] we gave them to bring broadband to 86 million homes in America and did nothing, but that was a long time ago.
They wouldn't do that to us again, right?
Re: (Score:3)
They kept the 200 billion we gave them
Are you sure it's 200 billion? The author you cite seems to have thought it was $30 billion [amazon.com]. Wait, no, it was $200 billion [isen.com]. Ah, sorry, now it's $300 billion [newnetworks.com]. Maybe it's inflation?
Not saying that the American public wasn't shortchanged by the Baby Bells - back in the day when they actually existed, I never encountered a more anticompetitive group of oligarchists in all my career. But let's not necessarily keep repeating this "OMG telcos stole $200 billion" meme without a little more quantification and justif
Telecoms Have Little To Do With the Free Market (Score:2)
First, I believe in a free market. However, the teleco industry is generally a creature of government created and sanctioned monopolies. To claim that the free market has any position in this (either allowing government supported monopolies to extend their influence and power by bidding on the spectrum or by denying them the ability to bid on the spectrum) is wishful thinking at best.
Re:Telecoms Have Little To Do With the Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just wishful thinking, it's a gambit in an assault against our ideas. Anything that is done based on the idea that the free market is involved here is done on false premises and bound to fail. For which the nonexistent free market will be blamed.
The spectrum auction is a scam from beginning to end. The idea that anyone can own spectrum betrays a complete misunderstand of "own" and/or of "spectrum."
The best one could do is establish a customary right of occupation. By using the spectrum in question for something of value. If they dont use it they should lose it. If we ignore spectrum which is reserved but unused, there is suddenly a considerably greater supply.
The telecoms in this country are monopoly capitalists, not free marketeers, and this has been true longer than I have been alive. And I am a bit older than the average slashbot. This has only gotten worse over time. Their idea of competition is competing with other telecoms to see who can sway more congresscritters to their side. Just look at how many times the taxpayers (and ratepayers in monopolised/privileged districts, same thing) have paid for fibre coverage in the US. Enough to provide it border to border, sea to sea, several times over. What's the current percentage of us that have it? 10, 15%? And how many telecoms are still actively expanding coverage? Trick question, the answer appears to be 0.
Immediate versus long term (Score:2)
I think they are absolutely right that limiting their ability to bid on this spectrum will cause the price to be lower. That only makes sense since you are limiting the 2 biggest and best funded companies from going all out for it. But in the long term, I think it will be better and bring in more money to have more than just 2 strong competitors in the cell phone business. Revenue comes from more than just the money from selling the spectrum. If we can help open up the market so there are more successful
Make leases non-permanent (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a simple way to make telecoms move on the spectrum they are sitting on: make the lease non-permanent.
If each lease lasted, say, 15 years, and had to be rebid, say, 5 years before the lease expires, the incentive to sit on spectrum would diminish greatly. The prices that companies are willing to pay for spectrum might diminish somewhat, but not utilizing spectrum would start costing real money, and new competition would have a chance to enter the market every now and then.
The problem with the current system is that obtaining a lease to spectrum gives companies a permanent monopoly on the spectrum forever, which decreases the incentive for competition. The spectrum is a sunk cost and delaying utilization of it is merely a loss of revenue, but not a direct cost.
m
Re:Make leases non-permanent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those frequencies are used in 'sell and forget' devices like cordless phones, cell phones, High-speed modems, wi-fi equipment.
Cell phones use different spectrum than the other things you list, which use the ISM bands.
If the allotted frequencies change then all those devices needed to change their firmware to the new permissions list. All spectrum buyers will need to obey the allocation decisions, so they all need some means to inform their online devices.
No cell phone firmware changes needed. The base stations already tell the cell phones what frequencies to transmit on (and time slot and code as needed).
In the grand scheme of things... (Score:1)
$12 billion is a drop in the bucket. If it gives smaller competitors the ability to actually compete in the wireless space, then I'm all for it. The fact that VZW and AT&T have much fatter wallets and a bunch of spectrum (in fact, VZW specifically has more spectrum than they really likely need at this point) should be all reason needed to throw them out of the game.
In other news (Score:1)
Reserachers from MathLogic deparement of Land of ZoggyPoos discover that
a COULD CAUSE b
does not mean the same thing as
a DOES CAUSE b
despite much confusingness.
Duopoly Profitable, Says Expert (Score:5, Insightful)
could cost the U.S. treasury as much as $12 billion.
It's all in how you spin it, isn't it?
Flash: Duopolists willing to pay government $12 billion to extend duopoly. "Duopoly rents sure are nice!" says duopolist CEO, "We'd be happy to give the government a taste of the action." Film at eleven.
Scrap it. (Score:2)
I don't get it. Sure if you think of spectrum as gold veins and you are selling mining rights.
But it is artificial. The government pays these companies to develop something, then charges them for spectrum.
It becomes a billions of dollars business for the government, and for the carriers who only have to pay a bit less than they receive.
The point IIRC was to deliver low-cost, high quality applications. That has nothing to do with paying for spectrum and the phone companies have shown they don't put the money
If only ... (Score:2)
Given the way taxes play I have to earn $10 to pay about $6.
The phone company has to pay taxes on their $6.....
The result is a very retrograde tax on the almost poor where the fee gained from auction get paid for by a whole tax chain.
This issue/ game has little impact on the proverbial 1% most of which have the company pay for their phones (all ten of them).
Sadly the restrictions on tower location and handset radio technology further complicate
Just fix the price (Score:2)
The ghost of of an evil monopoly (Score:2)
I have no problem keeping Ma Bell Part A (Verizon and every baby bell they bought) and Ma Bell Part B (at&t and every baby bell that verizon didn't already own) from cheating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by running a duopoly instead of their original monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T didn't buy up baby bells. SBC bought up other baby bells and then also bought what was left of AT&T and took the name over. AT&T itself was withering away after the breakup. Both Verizon and what is now AT&T have their origins in local carriers, not long distance. Anyway, they're not evil. They're just fat and lazy and that makes everything more expensive for them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said at&t bought the baby bells, just that the company currently known as at&t consists of all the baby bells that don't already belong to Verizon.
My point was that, despite the many changes in names over the years, both companies still posses the same "we own the network, we own the phones, we own you" mentality that people hated so much about the old AT&T.
The kind of mentality where changing your plan (to a plan with more or less minutes) automatically extended your contract to a mini
Re: (Score:2)
the company currently known as at&t consists of all the baby bells that don't already belong to Verizon
Ah, well that's also not really true. Centurylink, Frontier, TDS, Windstream, Sprint, and others I'm probably forgetting are all still out there running ILEC markets. Not that I disagree with your conclusion, from a wholesale perspective I can assure you AT&T is even more disfunctional and apathetic than they are at the retail level.
no, it saves billions (Score:3)
AT&T and Verizon are operating as near monopolies right now. Not letting them bid may lose a bit of revenue to the government, but it saves people a lot more money in charges and contracts by making the market more competitive.
of course... (Score:2)
get real (Score:2)
Come on. This headline reads like something that will save consumers billions - limiting the power of a duopoly- will actually COST them billions.
I mean, nice try.
Re:What's in the best interest of the population? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
Mod parent up! It is interesting and adds to the discussion, despite being like my position: open a ultra wide bandwidth next-gen internet wifi network with emphasis on broadcasting to replace TV, cell phone, and radio (except UHF, ham.) We are stuck with bandwidth monopolies as long as we limit ourselves to the link layer - move to a packet layer and suddenly it can be shared by more AND way more flexible.