NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out

John Navas wrote:
> 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.

That's a neocon argument. That you don't have a govt of real illuminati
is precisely the reason for getting better advisers, not leaving it up
to a host of vested commercial interests.

On the one hand you don't want dumb-as-bricks politicans making the
decision based on campaign funds contributions and misunderstood
articles in the Times, on the other hand you don't want sharp-as-pins
capitalists making the decision based on how much cash they can winkle
out of the dumb public before the bubble bursts.

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.

By placing a barrier to free engagement on equal terms?

Yes, thats right - the US is a free market - provided you're not trying
to import goods from China, Europe, Mexico.... :-)

John Navas wrote:
>
> Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.


So tell us, does the process you propose work in practice? Did it work
last time? Has it ever worked? By worked I mean to the public benefit.

I invite you again to look at the UK's 3G auctions.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> 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)

I'm not sure the industry agrees with you. 3G is widely regarded as a
niche market, certainly not work the several billions that were paid for
it.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:13:19 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oal8fna9nhnd3@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> 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.
>
>That's a neocon argument. That you don't have a govt of real illuminati
>is precisely the reason for getting better advisers, not leaving it up
>to a host of vested commercial interests.

It's actually a free market economics argument, backed by a great deal
of confirming evidence.

>On the one hand you don't want dumb-as-bricks politicans making the
>decision based on campaign funds contributions and misunderstood
>articles in the Times, on the other hand you don't want sharp-as-pins
>capitalists making the decision based on how much cash they can winkle
>out of the dumb public before the bubble bursts.

I actually do want companies to be motivated by profit instead of by
regulation.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:14:31 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oalannb9v2g80@corp.supernews.com>:

>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.
>
>By placing a barrier to free engagement on equal terms?

By inhibiting abuse of the system.

The terms are in fact equal. Anyone is free to raise as much capital as
they can justify.

Trying to correct for financial differences would be meddling in the
market.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:15:56 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oaldcp3k8bp53@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.
>
>So tell us, does the process you propose work in practice? Did it work
>last time? Has it ever worked? By worked I mean to the public benefit.

Spectrum actions have a good track record, a major reason their use has
been continued and expanded.

>I invite you again to look at the UK's 3G auctions.

They worked quite well, some buyers remorse notwithstanding.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:17:29 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oalgae5pf632f@corp.supernews.com>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> 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)
>
>I'm not sure the industry agrees with you. 3G is widely regarded as a
>niche market, certainly not work the several billions that were paid for
>it.

My own take is just the opposite. Otherwise they'd be shedding their 3G
spectrum instead of promoting it heavily.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:14:31 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
> <13oalannb9v2g80@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>By placing a barrier to free engagement on equal terms?
>
>
> By inhibiting abuse of the system.
>
> The terms are in fact equal. Anyone is free to raise as much capital as
> they can justify.


Up front; show your bankroll.

No mid-auction teaming to maximize the public's take.

Decidely sub-optimal.

John Navas wrote:
> 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.
>

So whats the problem? If they did the market forces would put them out
of business if they made such a choice just the same as if someone
"purchased" the spectrum and chose 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.

I have, I didn't say it should be run like a construction job but only
taking the concept of responsible bidder.

>
>> 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.
>
Sure it is, it is just a matter of semantics. If the government "sells"
spectrum it gets a prepaid lump sum that can only be recovered by the
successful bidder by charging a recurring incrementally higher fee for
their service. If it quacks like a duck...