A Case Against Further Government Spectrum Auctions 66
dkatana points out an article arguing that the governments should stop further auctions of 4G spectrum because it reduces infrastructure investment from carriers and makes net neutrality more difficult to regulate. Quoting:
The FCC recently raised more than $34 billion for six blocks of airwaves, totaling 65 megahertz of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is good news for the treasury coffers, but government auctions threaten the ability of the FCC and similar agencies to manage the spectrum, impose net neutrality rules, and allow new businesses to compete.
Carriers and internet companies who won the auction might believe the spectrum is theirs to do as they please, blocking access or charging huge fees to others. Issues such as speed throttling and preferential access come to mind. If governments insist in auctions of the newly available frequencies, it could hurt the industry and potentially destroy any possibility of negotiating universal access and net neutrality.
Carriers and internet companies who won the auction might believe the spectrum is theirs to do as they please, blocking access or charging huge fees to others. Issues such as speed throttling and preferential access come to mind. If governments insist in auctions of the newly available frequencies, it could hurt the industry and potentially destroy any possibility of negotiating universal access and net neutrality.
Read More (Score:1, Flamebait)
I tried. But somehow I got dumped here. Soulskill, can you at least check the links on your own goddamned web site?
Back on track - so the government is just selling the spectrum without any preconditions, rules, regulations? The FCC? Whose regulations on simple things spans tens of pages of dense type?
Really?
Re:Read More (Score:5, Interesting)
so the government is just selling the spectrum without any preconditions, rules, regulations?
No, of course not. Frequency auctions may, or may not, be a good idea, but they have nothing to do with "net neutrality", and TFA is just a bunch of assertions with no explanation. I have seen better analysis from Bennett Haselton.
sell all our natural resources? (Score:1)
Should the government sell all our natural resources in exchange for some cash now? Sure, our spectrum is finite, but so are all our other resources...if we just sell them all to companies, we'll be better off, right? Right?
Maybe not. Maybe we shouldn't sell natural resources, maybe we should RENT them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure, our spectrum is finite,"
Theoretically the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite.
Of course there are practical limits to what works in the earths atmosphere...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I don't see anybody stopping them, so I have to assume this power was given to them to do what they please.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the part (Score:1)
"but government auctions threaten the ability of the FCC and similar agencies to manage the spectrum, impose net neutrality rules, and allow new businesses to compete."
Where I mention the ongoing government/corporate conspiracy and get modded down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Dedicated vs. unlicensed shared use like WiFi (Score:3)
The biggest gains in wireless spectrum use for the public have been the open-access unlicensed uses like Wifi and Bluetooth at 2.4GHz, and to a lesser extent 5.8 GHz, plus 900 MHz (typically cordless phones), 433/etc. (telemetry stuff), and other low-power apps. Yes, mobile phones running on dedicated frequencies have also been important, but we'd get more public value by letting the public have access to the spectrum for shared access, even though the FCC wouldn't get a bunch of cash from selling it off.
A
Re:Dedicated vs. unlicensed shared use like WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the wild west. Device in that category still have power and other requirements and must be type-certified by the FCC. The low power (really low propagation...) requirement is precisely what allows an "unlicensed" band to be able to exist, but is a hindrance to things like cell-phones or broadcast anything if you want to have good coverage without having to put stations literally everywhere.
I agree that for those purposes the spectrum should be leased rather than sold, though. It both provides a mechanism for us to evaluate whether a use continues to be valuable and to sunset particular uses (through choosing not to continue the lease after the term is up.) The leases should be auctioned, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Circular logic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same silly logic FCC chief Wheeler used to in his blog post back when he advocated the T-Mobile + AT&T merger. It basically sums up as this:
"It we just give them some stuff then they will be ok with us regulating them"
How about the FCC just do it's fucking job? Regulation should not require give and take with the industry, that's exactly how regulation can go wrong.
Where will Wheeler will be working in 2 years? (Score:1)
His current acts are nothing more than a demonstration of where his loyalties are.
He'll expect to be handsomely rewarded when he returns to corporate America.
Ain't crony capitalism grand?
Re: (Score:2)
I would also suggest that the spectrum has to be used and sold to the public as a competitive product. If not the lease has to be forfeited and the firm or it subsidiaries cannot big on it again for one cycle.
Given the way the Aero case went, where the public was not allowed to access the public airwaves through leased equipment, I would like
Re: (Score:1)
I would say a lease, say 10 years, that would long enough for infrastructure investment, but closed ended so if that others can have a regular opportunity to bid.
Actually 10 years is probably not long enough. You might think so, but I think a creful study of US Tax Law related to "depreciation of assets" would be required beofre making such a rash statement.
In the telecom company that I work in, some assets have a "depreciation life" that is measured in decades...because the tax law allows it.
Re: (Score:2)
Optimizing one law to aid abuse of a different law does not sound like a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is not enough bandwidth for analogue tv AND lots of shopping channels.
Spectrum auctions are anti-capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
The same needs to happen with spectrum. The government shouldn't be selling it. It should be leasing it. Every 5-10 years, it should reappraise how much revenue all spectrum is generating, and the annual lease amount raised to something commensurate with that revenue potential. Companies which are doing a thriving business with that spectrum will be able to pay the increased lease. Companies sitting on the spectrum just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors will indirectly be paying their competitors (via the government, which should use the funds for enforcement and to encourage development of technologies that use spectrum). And companies struggling will be forced to adopt newer (hopefully better) business models to use the spectrum, or be forced to sell to someone else who can. If they can't make it work, someone else should be given the chance.
You can even get fancy to thwart corner cases. e.g. To discourage sitting on spectrum to block competitors, tie the annual lease to the amount that the spectrum is used. If it's utilized 75% or more, you get the normal lease. If it's 50%-75% utilization, you pay 1.5x the rate. If it's 25%-50% utilization you pay 2x the rate. Less than 25% utilization and you pay 5x the rate. To discourage monopolization of large amounts of spectrum by a few companies, increase the annual lease depending on how many blocks you're leasing. But it all hinges on leasing spectrum instead of auctioning it off.
Re: (Score:2)
(that's what zoning is for).
No, that is NOT what zoning is for. Zoning exists to ...
You and GP said the same thing. The government uses zoning to regulate how the land can be used. You might not agree with the government's decision to require or exclude certain uses, but that's a different topic.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a small city where the average house hold income is about $40k/year, and you can buy a pretty nice house for $80k. I've had apartment neigh
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a private party ownership in perpetuity of a natural monopoly breaks capitalism.
How? No "natural monopoly" is an actual monopoly. There's always other ways to provide the service. Here, competitors can offer services on different spectrum or via other means.
The government shouldn't be selling it. It should be leasing it.
It is leasing it. Price is determined via auction. It's very straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one "Best" spectrum for a given problem.
I can't tell, if you're serious or not. But almost nothing actually runs at the "best" choice due to all the frequency conflicts (there's no global frequency allotment standard, for example, for most would-be applications).
How about a socialist solution (Score:4, Insightful)
How about having the government properly regulate the peoples' bandwidth instead of just acting as an auction house and industry lobbyist. (Wheeler was and the last guy now has his job! tag team!)
Government should digitize and drive everything as packets. Become the infrastructure like the highway system. Charge rates for bandwidth use so anybody could be a cell company - since it just costs for packets over the network. Same with TV as well-- in fact, TV should have been done in a similar way. Sure it would have delayed the transition.... perhaps this is the next generation transition we should be designing today! Wide band devices which can use all the TV and cell bandwidth to send IPv6 packets or something similar. At least we could have physics and science manage the system instead of whatever the owners can hack together in their purchased space.
Note: I realize with the use of the loaded word "socialist" I've just lost most American readers.
Re:Spectrum auctions are anti-capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason our phones can't talk to each other directly is because of a bad network design
And here I thought battery lifetime was an issue. I guess recharging your phone every hour is acceptable because someone is using your phone to repeat signals.
A reason (Score:1)
It's the money, stupid.
so who gets them? (Score:3)
in the last decade a bunch of companies bought frequencies and sat on them and never used them only to resell them at a profit
Highesr Bidder gets them if they're auctioned (Score:2)
The auction process led to extremely high prices paid to the European and US governments by cellular companies, who turned them into high-priced mobile phone services to the public (nobody sat on them, except maybe a few companies who bought them for resale, and they quickly turned them around for a profit.)
But unlicensed use means that everybody gets to use them, like you with your wifi at home, at work, and at the coffee shop where you hang out, or your car radio talking to your phone over Bluetooth, or
We're sorry, but "airwaves," ... (Score:2)
... puts the spectrum under the FAA.
Who cares what they believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Carriers and internet companies who won the auction might believe the spectrum is theirs to do as they please
They might believe that regardless of how much they pay for the spectrum. Or they might not believe it but still act like they do. Both of which are irrelevant, because as long as there are rules, enforcement will be necessary, so just be prepared to enforce them and to hell with companies who are claiming they bought more than they paid for..
Devil's Advocate response--sort of (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the carriers for the obvious reasons, but I have to play Devil's Advocate here and remind you all of how much money it costs to deploy equipment in all that spectrum. This is the reason why coverage is great in cities and poor in the countryside. Look how much spectrum T-Mobile and Sprint have over a huge geographical area and yet deploy over only a tiny percentage of it; supposedly T-Mobile will deploy more in rural areas where they can get 700 MHz spectrum, but I'll believe that when I see it. Likewise, in lesser (ranked 101+ or so?) metro areas, their network is a mess of technologies with 2, 3, and 4G all in the same city, and only barely-working 2G in some areas, including one (Kingman, Arizona) where T-Mobile is severely oversubscribed yet they won't put a dime into improvement.
So here's an idea I've had for years: pay less money for spectrum in exchange for current-technology coverage over your ENTIRE license area rather than just the big cities. I can't count how many people would love decent internet access and can't get it because the spectrum is all owned by companies who refuse to actually install equipment there: this practice should be illegal.
Sure, the leasing idea is probably the better one, but the roll-out cost of keeping up with the technology is far in excess of that. Also note that this argument isn't just about the cell/mobile bands but also all the other bands, especially as the phone companies continue to gobble up everyone else's spectrum--even us ham radio operators, where I expect the 9cm band (and possibly the 23cm band) will disappear within the next decade or two.
Oh, also, have any of you read how hard it will be coordinating with government stations on the AWS-3 band? There are numerous places where the band will likely never be able to be used by a carrier even though they're licensed for it.
Finally, remember that any price increase will ALWAYS be passed on to the customer--even phantom charges when they can get away with it ("Government Regulatory Recovery" charges, anyone?).
They can do (Score:2)
Digital engineers know almost nothing about RF. That's why BPL failed, that's why that asshat plan for broadband phones right next to the GPS frequencies failed. Not just that it failed, but non one who was remotely competent thought it would ever work.
Faith based and "hope for the best" engineering have never worked.
There's not a lot of spare spectrum left, kids. A
It shouldn't be a sale, but a long-term lease (Score:1)
Lease it to them for 20 years with an ability to renew at higher costs for 20 more. If they're using it effectively and still making money, they can keep it, otherwise it goes back to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Hah! Now tax it. (Score:1)
Not buying it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
silliest fucking shit I've ever read (Score:2)
This is good news for the treasury coffers, but government auctions threaten the ability of the FCC and similar agencies to manage the spectrum, impose net neutrality rules, and allow new businesses to compete.
Right. Because as soon as the FCC deposits the checks, they automatically waive their ability to enforce regulations on the use of the spectrum. Or, on the other hand, you know, maybe not.
Carriers and internet companies who won the auction might believe the spectrum is theirs to do as they please...
Right. Because their lawyers are illiterate buffoons who have no idea what the regulations are governing the use of the spectrum on which they are bidding billions of dollars. Or, on the other hand, you know, maybe not.
Seriously, are dkatana and soulskill really this fucking retarded??? (Not to mention the author of the ac
Open up the spectrum to everyone (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK there is nothing in physics that for a practical purpose puts a limit on information density in space.
Please educate yourself more. This is categorically false.
There's no reason we couldn't use these long range phone frequencies so that every device could form an ipv6 semi non centrailzed meshed network that costs next to nothing to run. Why are we still doing it the old fashioned way? Let's open up the spectrum. It's not finite like the FCC says it is.
Damn, if you had used the word "synergy" it would have been BINGO.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree: auctioning is the wrong approach (Score:4, Interesting)
Spectrum Auctions = Another form of tax (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not a tax.
the cost is passed on whether they buy it or lease it.
the case for leasing it comes from the fact that spectrum is limited. its effectively a finite resource, sbuject to natural monpoly economic rules.
it should be treated a public resource, in the sense that the public, through its agents in the government, owns it.
So selling it off to private interests is bad, cause they then turn around and sell it back to us.
No different than if we allowed private interests to siphon all the oxygen out of the a
Bare minimum (Score:3)
At a bare minimum small blocks of the sold spectrum should be opened up for non/minimally regulated open uses, much like what has happened with the frequencies used by routers, wireless cameras/microphones, etc. Most of the frequencies that have been opened up for such uses are the crap that no one else wants or are limited to such low power levels as to be useless for decent applications. I recently had a local fixed wireless ISP check my house for connectivity, despite being surrounded by towers they couldn't get a signal since the frequencies they use can't go through a few leafs. At the same time I have fine mobile communications, including 3G internet connectivity despite the nearest tower being considerably more distant than the wireless ISP towers.
Auction Amiga instead !! (Score:2)
Yeah, why Spectrum?