NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> The reality is that the upfront cash rule
> sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
> less as there's less competition.
>

While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.

Cubit wrote:
> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>
> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>
>
Why not a lottery?

Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
resources.

The same could be done here. Prospective operators would need to meet
qualifications to enter a lottery run by a disinterested third party.

The winner would not be required to "buy" the spectrum which is really
just a disguised pre-paid tax on its future users but only a nominal
application fee to cover the cost of the lottery.

George wrote:
> Cubit wrote:
>> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>>
>> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>>
>>
> Why not a lottery?
>
> Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
> apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
> projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
> bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
> resources.

Problem there is - someone has to decide who is "responsible". In the
absence of an open process, it would degenerate to politics. Some
political appointee with no public presence would pick the shortlist.
This is how it works in construction...

At 09 Jan 2008 07:43:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from
> > bidding....same
> >as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money
> > for political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>
> Not so:
> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.


How so? One could easily argue that money taints the process. Suppose, for
example, a future cash-strapped administration decides the x# of billions
another cellular band would bring in trumps it's current "profitless" use by,

say, the military?

Secondly, the auction payment is a barrier to actually deploying a service,
since a company's resources are squandered by buying the spectrum before
the first dollar is spent on actual infrastructure. This also drives up
the cost of providing service, which utimately costs the very consumers
who, as Larry points out, actually own the spectrum in the first place.)

This can also stifle competition- it's in the best interests of, for example,

AT&T and Verizon, to buy the spectrum to lock out additional future
competitors like Google, Comcast or Echostar from upsetting their current
practical duopoly. A more consumer-friendly FCC might enforce tighter
spectrum limits to foster competition (I still can't believe they allow one
company to control both 800-band cellular licenses in some areas!)


> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.


True- as long as you're having an auction, there's nothing wrong with
requiring a "deposit" to sit at the table. ;-)

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:57:29 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote in <fm1up9$i3e$1@reader2.panix.com>:

>In <1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>[ snip ]
>
>>>This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from bidding....same
>>>as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money for
>>>political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>
>>Not so:
>>* Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>>* Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>>the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>
>or... to prevent a repeat of the debacle with NextWave,
>which bid oodles of money last time around, didn't pay up,
>and somehow got the US Supreme Court to rule that they
>still "owned" the unpaid for frequencies.

That's my 2nd point.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:57:29 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in <fm1up9$i3e$1@reader2.panix.com>:
>
>
>>In <1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>[ snip ]
>>
>>
>>>>This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from bidding....same
>>>>as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money for
>>>>political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>>
>>>Not so:
>>>* Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>>>* Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>>>the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>>
>>or... to prevent a repeat of the debacle with NextWave,
>>which bid oodles of money last time around, didn't pay up,
>>and somehow got the US Supreme Court to rule that they
>>still "owned" the unpaid for frequencies.
>
>
> That's my 2nd point.
>

A token down payment doesn't guarantee satisfaction of a higher bid.

In <yY2dncyUy7w_thjanZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> News <News@Group.name> writes:
>>>>the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>>>
>>>or... to prevent a repeat of the debacle with NextWave,
>>>which bid oodles of money last time around, didn't pay up,
>>>and somehow got the US Supreme Court to rule that they
>>>still "owned" the unpaid for frequencies.
>>
>> That's my 2nd point.

>A token down payment doesn't guarantee satisfaction of a higher bid.

It's the difference between a "no down payment mortgage"
versus a 20 percenter. It's far from a perfect determinant,
and has plenty of its own issues, but it's a realistic
first step screen.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:09:23 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A205E2A112A8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com :
>
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.

>So:
>Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
>airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's.

Commercial licenses should be free? That makes no sense.
Government sets arbitrary prices? That makes no sense either.
Auctions make sense because they are the most efficient way to set the
price and to ensure the highest value use of the spectrum.
The public gets free use of (overused) unlicensed and (underused)
amateur bands.

>They don't auction off Yellowstone National
>Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.

In fact they do solicit bids for commercial use, as in the case of
concession operators.

>This bullshit of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
>government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
>all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
>wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
>for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
>everything we have to the international bankers.

On the contrary: Past government regulation resulted in high prices and
a glacial pace of innovation. Deregulation has resulted in lower prices
and rapid innovation. The auctioning of spectrum is an essential part
of getting government out of the way and ensuring the highest value use
of the spectrum.

>Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
>consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
>since the first radio station came on the air.

On the contrary: Licensed use _is_ regulated, and to argue the
regulation is not to your liking is to undercut your own advocacy for
government control.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:30:18 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A20766A2BFE7noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>Aaron Leonard <Aaron@Cisco.COM> wrote in
>news:isp9o39apgh7icm0d2e9obl2ie6gacqcf9@4ax.com :
>
>> You lost me at "Illuminati".

>You need to come out from under that rock more often.

That we don't have government of real "illuminati" is precisely the
reason for getting government out of the way as much as possible.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:15:48 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oa3qjhub4cl06@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>
>Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
>is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
>in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....

The spectrum is reserved for future 3G use, which makes sense. What
doesn't make sense is to consume all available spectrum immediately. If
sufficient 3G use doesn't materialize in time, then the spectrum can be
reallocated.

>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>
>Thats the spin, certainly. The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>less as there's less competition.

If you can't pay, then you shouldn't have any right to play, the
NextWave debacle being an excellent case in point.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>