NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>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.

In fact it does conform to free market economics.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:38:16 GMT, "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in
<sw8hj.83807$Um6.63036@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> :

>Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.

It's not taxed -- it's licensed. There's a big difference.

>That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.

And that's the point.

In the future, please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in
mid-thread -- it makes the thread confusing and hard to follow. Thanks.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:24:21 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A1FD0109695Dnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>news:np48o35ke3p14ritsq3jv4pbha4uo8p17f@4ax.com :
>>>
>>>> bidders were required to fork over an
>>>> "upfront payment" prior to the actual auction, and you have to wonder
>>>> if Frontline was able to pay up.
>>
>>>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.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:22:10 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <dsqdnT36fYx_gxjanZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>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?

Because it would fail to ensure the highest value use of a limited
resource. You could easily have some idiot win that wanted to run
wide-band morse code.

>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.

You must not have much experience in construction -- that kind of
government involvement is rife with abuse, waste, and outright fraud.
No thanks.

>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.

A one-time license fee is not a tax.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>


No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
later form teams.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>> <x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>
>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>later form teams.

Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
all the time.

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

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Not so:
>> * 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....

That's not right. Not only do at least 4 of the 5 wireless operators
in the UK now provide 3G services (and one of those operators, Three, only
has 3G spectrum) but data service seems downright reasonably priced compared
to the US, let alone compared to the price of anything else in the UK. One
of the UK prepaid SIMs I have gets 3.6 Mbps HSDPA service with charges
capped at $2 per day, with the other you can buy a week of HSDPA for $5;
I've used both of these with my laptop. You can't get 3G service on a
prepaid account in the US at any price, and even the postpaid contract
service you can buy in the US if you commit to pay for it for a year or
two isn't any cheaper than that.

It is the case that the UK operators were thought to have overpaid for
the spectrum, but they seem to be over that now and these days are
competing on price.

Dennis Ferguson

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>
>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>later form teams.
>
>
> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
> all the time.
>


Note use of the word "later".

Timing is part of the game.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<4KGdnYw9lsjxpRjanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>> <kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>
>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>later form teams.
>>
>> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>> all the time.
>
>Note use of the word "later".
>
>Timing is part of the game.

Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <4KGdnYw9lsjxpRjanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>><kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net >:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>>
>>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>>later form teams.
>>>
>>>Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>>>all the time.
>>
>>Note use of the word "later".
>>
>>Timing is part of the game.
>
>
> Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.
>


Nonsense yourself, for poo-poo'ing a major bidding process flaw.

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.

I don't think it was entirely valid. What *would* validate it is if the
bidders had to produce proof of the ability to pay, before their bid was
accepted. On the one hand, an upfront payment deters smaller firms from
entering the fray; on the other hand it allows more reckless firms a
foot in the door to a smaller marketplace.