Slashdot Log In
Sprint Nextel Vs. 41 Schools and Non-Profits
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon May 07, 2007 09:20 PM
from the rooting-for-Goliath dept.
from the rooting-for-Goliath dept.
netbuzz writes "A case of corporate bullying, or good network citizenship? Sprint Nextel has let slip the dogs of law on the FCC and 41 non-profits, most of them school systems, in an effort to get the FCC to stop granting these organizations special dispensation when they fail to renew their wireless spectrum licenses. These licenses were granted as part of the Educational Broadband Service. The school systems, many of them rural, argue that they don't have the staff or the resources to keep on top of the paperwork and shouldn't be punished for such bureaucratic lapses. (Some generate revenue by leasing unused portions of the spectrum to carriers such as Sprint Nextel.) The schools' argument may sound a bit like 'the dog ate my homework' to some, and Sprint Nextel makes a fairly compelling case that a greater good would be served if the FCC would stop enabling such tardiness."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because private "ownership" of spectrum is clearly a god-given right, and not a state-sponsored privilege. No, not at all.
By greater good... (Score:2)
So, what exactly do they mean by 'Greater Good'? So far as I can tell the greater good in this case is a larger profit for Sprint Nextel, less revenue for the school district, and higher taxes for land owners. What goodness am I suppose to be excited about?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
You're using an argument from 1964 to support your position in a technology debate? Clearly, the concept of distributed dynamic channel access (which did not exist FORTY-THREE YEARS AGO), is a successful one, and Ms. Rand's argument, while appropriate IN THE LAST CENTURY, is less poignant in this one. You know, the one where we're currently LIVING.
Are you going to follow up with an editorial extolling
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you go around posting "You're using an argument from 1791?" when people defend First Amendment rights?
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. Do first Amendment rights have any impact on the basic technological feasability of shared spectrum use?
If your answer is no, then "no".
You can go put your strawman back where you found it.
profits (Score:5, Insightful)
"the public good would be better served by selling school spectrum to us so we can have better profits. you aren't a COMMUNIST are you!?"
Re: (Score:2)
Mistake... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the footnote as well...
Any Evil Nasty that interferes with the profitability of corporations is an Economic Terrorist.
Please make note of it.
Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Insightful)
Sprint is the worst when it comes to spectrum violations and those schools should press the FCC to relieve Sprint of all Nextel's spectrum that's causing interference - without any compensation. Sprint would shut up pretty fast if that happened because one's a silly paperwork mix-up and the other's a wanton disregard for responsibility.
Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Because of political ideology trumping common sense.
The ideology is that unrestrained private sector use of a resource is automatically the most efficient use of that resource.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, Sprint hasn't been "illegally causing interference." All of the Sprint/Nextel radios meet FCC specs.
Otherwise, they never could have been put into service. They would not have been FCC Type Accepted.
Were the FCC specs not as good as they should have been? Damn straight. That's the FCC's fault, all the way.
Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Informative)
No, Sprint hasn't been "illegally causing interference." All of the Sprint/Nextel radios meet FCC specs.
Otherwise, they never could have been put into service. They would not have been FCC Type Accepted.
Were the FCC specs not as good as they should have been? Damn straight. That's the FCC's fault, all the way.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A site license granted by the FCC for a tower site has very specific limits on its transmission power so that interference does not occur. The frequency coordination is done by 3rd party engineers. So, if they are running their tower withing their license limits, there should be no interference.
Well guess what - you can go in and turn the gain up on the tranmitter so that it exceeds the license. The FCC doesn't put seals on trans
Re:Sprint Nextel shouldn't be talking (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Tutorial (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Mark date that license has to be renewed
3. Renew license when that date arrives
3. ???
4. No loss of spectrum!!!
Seriously, anyone who pays monthly bills generally figures out a simple, cheap system like this. Nothing to remember except checking the calendar.
Personally... (Score:4, Insightful)
"We do not give two shits about education for the masses. We would rather funnel all of the money that we receive from taxpaying people into bombs, missiles, tanks, warplanes, weapons of mass destruction, et cetera."
When you take thirty seconds and look up government expenditures, it is actually plain as day. Here are the figures for defense versus education in 2004:
Defense: totalled $456 billion.
Education: totalled $88 billion.
source [infoplease.com] (warning: there may be some flash nasties at this site, but the figures are likely elsewhere on the 'net as well.)
If that does not anger the average person, I honestly do not know what will. While I was perusing the figures, I thought these two were also rather telling:
Also from 2004, cumulative, the amount that our government took in from taxes:
Individual Income Taxes: totalled $809 billion.
Corporate Income Taxes: totalled $189.4 billion.
I would say that there is a bit of a disparity there. I will leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions as to why.
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to quote numbers, you should be complete. Below is a summary for 2007 [wikipedia.org]
- 586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
- $466.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
- $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
- $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
- $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
- $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
- $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
- $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
- $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
- $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
- $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
- $32.5 billion (-15.4%) - Foreign affairs
- $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
- $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
- $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
- $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
- $1.1 billion (-47.6%) - Energy
If you group it by "human services/community/education," "defense/veterans/foreign affairs" you get- $1740.7 billion - "Human Services"
- $571.1 billion - "Defense"
Thus, for every $1 spent on "defense" $3 is spent on "human services."I won't even bother getting into a discussion about tax policy--you might as well argue which religon is best. I will point out the following facts [about.com]:
- The top 5% of earners paid 53% of the income tax
- The top 1% of earners paid 33% of the income tax
- The bottom 50% of earners paid less than 5% of the income tax
Also, do not forget that individual income tax includes unincorporated businesses.Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
The people with interests in Defense tout numbers that say we spend too much on Human Services, and the people with interests in Human Services tout numbers that say we spend too much on Defense. Personally, I think they are both right. We as a nation spend too much money. If we eliminated half the bureaucrats in DC, we would get more done. When you spend more money then you take in, that causes problems down the road. If I ran my house or business the way the US is run financially, I would be doing serious jail time.
Defense:
We spend too much money on development of technologies that will NEVER be used. Missile defense is irrelevant when you take into account the fact that you can do more damage with a guy with a suitcase then with a missile. And those figures DON'T include the "Emergency Spending" bills that have been passed.
Education:
We spend too much money on mid-level patronage jobs. And we have done nothing to teach our children how to think critically. The kids that I have seen are taught to parrot information and conform. We wonder why our kids aren't that creative? We need to spend our money on programs that teach kids how to access, analyze and implement information as opposed to barfing it back up on tests.
I am a cynic, but how could I look at politics and not be?
Parent
Well, maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
The top 1% of earners paid 33% of the income tax
The bottom 50% of earners paid less than 5% of the income tax
Don't believe for a second that the tax code leans too heavilly on wealthy people, or that wealthy people are generous with their taxes. The truth is that the top 5% of "earners" are so fantastically wealthy that even with cooking books, taking every deduction, and accounting tricks, the tax% of a #hugenumber still fairly large.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone who's nhad a firly privileged life.
Simply working more? What, like there is such an excess of jobs that someone can simply find one when they want to work more hours? And that they'll automatically get hired, even though they may not even be qualified for a lot of miimum wage jobs?
They can acquire some sort of skill? How, exactly? Can they a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible for some people to do that, not all. You act like opportunity is universal (even if inequitable), but it's not. Do you think every little town in rural areas has a library? Do you think that every poor person has the spare cash for gas to get to the library, even if they have a car? Or the money for a bicycle? Or the time away from taking care of a family or taking care of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might find, with a little bit of research, that there are far fewer people "milking the system" than you've been led to believe.
I know you didn't mention them, but the old "welfare mom" boogeymen (bogeywomen?) in particular account for a vanishingly small portion of the budget, even if you assume that an enormous percentage of the people collecting those benefits are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, war monger is a better word for it. The name of the department was far more accurate when it was the "war department" and not the "defense department". The US has been waging war on people all over the world eve
Re: (Score:2)
No one hates us because we're free. People hate us because of what we do to other people, and our support for genocidal regimes that are okay with killing people. People hate us because we won't mind our own goddamn business. yes, now it might be too late since we already garnered enough antipathy globally to be screwed for generations, but if we actu
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, these schools aren't 'forced' to lease the spectrum; they simply find that it is more productive to their educational program to rent it out and invest the money in a more effective curriculum. Giving these schools ownership of spectrum is effectively giving them free money, very similar to giving them an apartment
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, There's more money per student in the U.S. k-12 system than in any other country (or near to it). Might not be the money provided, perhaps we should be looking more at their spending.
More importantly, I'm currently working at the Housing Dept. of my college to make ends meet. Perhaps we're atypical, but part of my responsibility is keeping an up to date calendar, along with deadlines, etc. There's a very nice scheduling system in use as we
hidden taxes, except in Kansas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quoted for truth. One of the US Federal Government's primary responsibilities is to "provide for the common defense." Public education is the responsibility of individual states and municipalities.
That's not to say that I think it's a bad idea for the Feds to help out the states with public education, but it's certainly not where the bulk of federal spending should be apportioned. In an ideal, balanced budget world, Congress would eliminate al
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say you're on the right track with this, but it's even simpler. If corporate income taxes are raised, a business will compensate for the potential loss of profits via:
1) Raise prices
2) Lower costs of production (fewer workers, cheaper parts, etc.)
3) Both of the above
The really sad thing about Americans and taxes is that most of us don't realize that an increase in corporate taxes might as well be an increase in individual taxes. The consumers pay for all corporate taxes. It might be in the form of higher prices, or lower quality goods for the same price, lost jobs, or some combination of those three. We just feel better about instituting higher taxes on corporations, because we feel like they're the ones making all the money. Nobody feels good about increasing taxes on individuals.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to see is new moderation options: +1 Right, -1 Wrong, and -5 Stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a bit odd... (Score:2, Interesting)
as a general rule.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)
A corporation, doing what it's designed to do, never ever ever serves the greater good unless "the profitable thing" happens to line up with "the greater good".
And seriously, licensing of radio frequencies has come up a number of times on this site previously. I'm always inclined to say that frequency licensing is really stupid and can be solved in another manner these days.
What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Informative)
If you leaf through the FCC's list of enforcements for failing to renew licenses, some of it reads like the NYSE 100 Telecoms Hall of Fame - with companies like Sprint et al. featuring with reasonable freqency (and others, such as DirecTV). The interesting thing is if an individual or a small firm forgets to renew their license, they get slapped with the same fine as a multibillion dollar multinational telecoms company that should know better. A $10,000 fine for an individual or small firm can be devastating, but for a big multinational, it's probably cheaper to only bother to renew when the enforcement notice comes than employ someone to keep track of the paperwork.
Re:Loose. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/105600.html [phrases.org.uk]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry to nitpick, but:
~ William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene 1)
"Let slip" is an interesting phrase; while "slip" is usually unintentional, "let slip"
Re:Loose. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's so, so, sad when things.. slip.
Yours Truly,
The RIAA, representatives of The Baha Men
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to correct people, check that you're not talking out of your ass first.
Re: (Score:2)
But every school or church can't have a full TV production studio, so they can't be broadcasting permanently... And when they are not broadcasting, wouldn't it be a shame to let this good spectrum sit unused?
So the FCC allowed these licensees to lease out up to 95% of their capacity to thi