700 MHz Auction Begins Tomorrow

necro81 writes "On Thursday, after much speculation and wrangling, the FCC will begin auctioning licenses to the coveted 700 MHz band that will be vacated by analog TV in 2009. The NY Times has a good summary of the players (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Google, et al.), how the auction will work, how Google has already scored an open networks victory, and what it could all mean for consumers. The auction will go on for several months, but you can keep tabs on the bids at this FCC site."

Spasebo.

[Stanistani (808333)]

I plan to buy the frequency band myself, and just endlessly broadcast a black-and-white image of myself, accompanied by Russian martial music.

So why NOT Google?

[AltGrendel (175092)]

I know the article says that their main goal was to make sure that whoever does get the license keeps the airwaves open to a "wider range of hardware", but I really don't see any reason why Google couldn't get serious and really try to bid for some air space.

Re:So why NOT Google?

[Shakrai (717556)]

but I really don't see any reason why Google couldn't get serious and really try to bid for some air space.

Because Google isn't interested in being the delivery-person, they are interested in creating the product that he is bringing to your house.

In fact, I would be terrified of Google getting into the content-delivery business. Forgot about "do no evil". Take a look at your friendly local cable provider to see what happens when you allow a media company to control the pipe that comes into your house.

Content delivery needs to be separate from content creation. Otherwise the delivery provider has a vested interest in locking you into his product and removing your freedom of choice. Can you imagine if UPS opened up their own online bookstore and tried to use their position as a shipping provider to price Amazon and Barnes & Noble out of the market?

Cynical prediction

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.

I want to be wrong, but I want credit if I'm right.

I hope Google can get enough money to outbid. Maybe sell "Gbonds" so they can pay absurdly low yields on borrowed money :-P

Re:Cynical prediction

[acvh (120205)]

A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.

From reading the article, the FCC is opening the bid at $10 billion. The previous record for spectrum licensing is $13.x billion, and SOME analysts expect this to go higher. Still, I don't think the FCC will take Google stock as payment - cash only please.

The uses for this spectrum are many. It remains to be seen if anyone will use it in such a way that it profits them, and benefits us as well.

Re:Cynical prediction

[wizkid (13692)]

There's actually a bunch of blocks up for bid here. The most expensive is something like $$$4.7B Thats the one that google wants, and the one they bludgened the FCC to put the open device requirement on. I hope google gets it, because they will do it right. The telcos will try to do everything they can to mess up the open device requirement. If google gets it, we will actually be able to use the phones without half the features turned off or mangled. GO GOOGLE

Re:

[jandrese (485)]

The problem is that Google isn't in a position to roll out radio towers all across the US. If they were to win the spectrum they would probably be forced to re-license it out to Verizon or somebody to get it to the actual consumer.

Re:Cynical prediction

[Firethorn (177587)]

A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.

One of the things I wanted to see was the creation of another unregulated band range like the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges(with similar 'play nice' rulesets).

While the spectrum sold in the auction would still be valuable, potential product producers unable to buy a chunk of the spectrum would be able to still make a product(just wouldn't be able to count on sole access).

American Gladiators

[Itninja (937614)]

That's how this bandwidth right should be determined. None of this auction crap. Just let the corporations and the FCC pick their most athletic (least nerdy?) employees, and pit them against each other on the Eliminator(tm). Of course, the FCC 'gladiators' would need catchy pseudonyms like "Mega Hurts" or "The Regulator". The first corporation to actually finish the course without crying your throwing up, wins.

Re:

[morari (1080535)]

Hehe. Mega Hurtz. :)

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I think you've been watching too much JPod.

Re:

[CodeBuster (516420)]

That reminds me of those IBM ads where the office nerds in their makeshift office armor (Japanese Kabuto style helmet made out of a binder w/chair shield if I recall) battle the "hacker" barbarians attempting to "get into" the network.

Re:

[Shakrai (717556)]

At least it would keep all of the steroid dealers in business now that MLB is cracking down ;)

When did it go from public to private

[techpawn (969834)]

or was this always private and I missed that memo? I remember setting up a TV with the ol' rabbit ears and tin foil and it worked for "free" no problems. If now we're being charged for what we as a people owned isn't that the government taking our property? I mean yeah it's not a physical thing and it's the FCC's job to regulate it, but it's there also a law about government not taking what's yours without compensation?

That would be a hoot and a kick to the economy. We'll sell this then give EVERYONE part of the sale price back as compensation for the reclaimed property.

Re:When did it go from public to private

[by Anonymous Coward]

In 2009 you will be able to set up your ol' rabbit ears (and your 50$ converter box) and it will just work...still. They are just shifting from analog to digital, which frees up part of the frequency band. No on stole anything from you. You didn't own it in the first place, calm down. ... freakin commies xD

Re:

[compro01 (777531)]

you can apply for the (2) $40 coupons (usable towards the cost (prediced at about $60, so you need to pay about $20 each box) of 1 DTV converter each) here [dtv2009.gov].

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between broadcasting on a band and listening on the band. We, the people, never had the ability to broadcast on the 700MHz band all willy-nilly.

The gov isn't selling off anything that belongs to people. It was licensed to TV broadcast networks, not residents.

Public to private? almost 60 years ago.

[Vellmont (569020)]

I remember setting up a TV with the ol' rabbit ears and tin foil and it worked for "free" no problems.

It was still private. 60 or so years ago when television first appeared, the spectrum was licensed to various TV stations (though with some restrictions on that license of course). It "belonged" to them in the same sense as the spectrum will "belong" to whoever wins the auctions. The fact that broadcast TV is "free as in beer" to you doesn't mean it was "public" in the sense that you're talking about.

but it's there also a law about government not taking what's yours without compensation?

Hmm.. that's kind of a strange distinction. "The Government" is supposed to be "the people" in a democracy. I'm not sure what you're really driving at here.. who's the "you" in this sentence, and why isn't "the you" represented by "the government"?

Re:

[techpawn (969834)]

I may be thinking of Eminent domain (United States) [wikipedia.org]

The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

But, I highly doubt that that would work in this case because it's not physical property and as so many have pointed out, we never owned it to begin with

It's always been private

[mstahl (701501)]

I think you're confusing transmitting and receiving. You can receive on whatever frequencies you care to. Swap out a few parts to an old ham radio receiver and it will totally pick up 700MHz band and you can listen to your heart's content.

Transmitting is a different story though. Even public radio stations have to pay (albeit less than commercial radio stations) in order to broadcast and they are assigned a unique frequency on which to do so.

Same thing as rest areas...

[coolmoose25 (1057210)]

The government builds a highway, and then opens a rest area. They sell restaurant/gas/convenience store space to the highest bidder. Then the company that leases the space charges more for a Big Mac or a gallon of gas than in the city. Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.

They should take that spectrum, and award it based on the public good that will come of it. How low a price will you charge for the services you provide for that spectrum... not how much can we, the government, make off of it.

Re:Same thing as rest areas...

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

The government builds a highway, and then opens a rest area. They sell restaurant/gas/convenience store space to the highest bidder. Then the company that leases the space charges more for a Big Mac or a gallon of gas than in the city. Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.

Yes and no. The desires of drivers determine the demand curve for restaurants/gas at that area. The fact that the sellers can get higher prices there is just the manifestation of this. Yes, you could try to circumvent this and heroically deliver the lower prices, but it will just mean that the goods are allocated in a more haphazard, corruption-driven manner. The lease will be awarded to the person with the best connections rather than ability to make use of the land; or the stores will be forever packed and "rationed" by long queues, since the prices are artificially low.

What should be done in cases like that is not "fight the demand curve" and make prices lower there, but accept that the equilibrium prices will be higher, auction the leases to the highest bidder, and then use that money (driven higher by the demand curve for goods at that location) to replace other taxes, effectively rebating the value created by the highway, to the general public (who paid for it in the first place).

That is, of course, also what should be done in auctioning airwaves. Chance of politicians genuinely using the money to cut other taxes, rather than seeing it as extra free money: ZERO :-(

(Note my meticulous avoidance of the word "consumer".)

Re:

[The Cisco Kid (31490)]

Ya, except for toll roads where there is either no exit, or you have to pay extra toll to exit and then re-enter the road. Tollway plaza = captive customer.

Good Luck With That

[asphaltjesus (978804)]

Don't pin your hopes for lower-cost, widely available internet access on this auction.

In the current political/business climate in the U.S. the chances that nothing good for the consumer will come from this auction are excellent.

It's not just about the auction itself. Imagine for a moment a telco doesn't win the spectrum. The telcos still have the experience and access to the senate and congress to write regulations that increase the cost of doing business with the spectrum. Recent history is filled with examples.

-VOIP regulations, patent litigation parties
-Limited consumer access to bandwidth.
-Limited throughput.
-NSA shenanigans. The get out of jail free cards have already been issued.
 

Anti-News

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

This has got to be anti-news by now. There have been how many articles leading up to this.

Real news will be hearing who wins, or continues the next round.

Auctions are a bad idea

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

Auctions of bandwidth are a terrible idea, and shows how biased towards big money interests the government has become, rather than what is in the best public interest. Radio spectrum, considering it is a limited resource, should be given out based on what is the best public interests, and what most promotes free speech, free expression and diversity, not to who has the most money. The auctions basically play perfectly into the hands of telecommunications monopolies who have the resources to win them, and thus control telecommunications infrastructure, with an impact on the ability of the public to freely express itself. I would rather see the FCC require a completely open network and much more choice and competition, especially in the case where the construction of the network would be best coordinated or is capital intensive, the developer of the network perhaps should be a chartered non profit corporation which then sells access at cost to anyone who wants to utilise the network. This would provide a interconnected completely compatable nationwide, seamless network which can be accessed anywhere, and would asusre anyone could use it to innovate with new interesting and novel services. One company would not be able to limit and control what can be done with it. This would assure a diversity of choice and allow many different small service providers who do not have massive resources to get involved with providing services, promoting innovation and a rich and diverse assortment of services.

If the government was not so corrupt and beholden to large corporate interests who want to monopolise and control all assetts and resources for its own gain, basically creating a monopoly which serves a few private interests rather than the public interest and promotes diversity and innovation, we would probably have more choice, diversity and competition. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, for instance in electric utilities, since it is so capital intensive, but in this case they should be regulated and chartered by the government to work in the best public interest rather than in the best interest of corporate profits. What is interesting about the wireless plan, although a publicly owned non profit corporation would build the physical network, it would allow a vast range of competition and services to be offered over it, enabling a diverse marketplace.

Never Before

[Paranatural (661514)]

Has an auction by the FCC been so closely watched by the general public, I believe.

Of course, by 'General Public' I mean 'A lot of geeks', but I can still see this as one of the most important auctions of our lifetimes.

Auction 73

[lart2150 (724284)]

for those who are looking for the auction it's number 73 on the fcc website.

Re:

[markov_chain (202465)]

Here is also a more direct link: Auction 73 [fcc.gov]

Where does the money go?

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

(I'm Canadian, so this doesn't affect me beyond the influence factor, but I'm curious none-the-less.)

Where does the money go? The FCC will raise the money, but where does that substantial bankroll go? Does it just roll into the federal budget to be dished out as the government sees fit with the rest of the money or is it earmarked for a specific use (debt repayment, for example)?

(And, heck, with the Canadian government about to do a similar auction, if anyone has the answer in regards to Canada, feel free to share it as well.)

Re:Where does the money go?

[Ironsides (739422)]

The money will go into the general fund. A.K.A. the same place income taxes go to.

Re:Where does the money go?

[Detritus (11846)]

It goes into the General Fund, just like all taxes, duties, fines, etc. Only Congress has the power to appropriate money from the General Fund. Federal agencies and departments don't get to keep any of the money that they receive from external sources. It all goes into the General Fund.

I'll be the winner

[by Anonymous Coward]

I've got auctionsniper all ready to go....

Impact on wireless audio gear in UHF 66-69 range?

[JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508)]

I use several wireless microphones that operate in the UHF 66 to 69 range, high 700 Mhz to low 800s. Is that part of the spectrum that's going to be "vacated" next year? Any other audio guys who know more about the impact, what gear I should be buying to replace the old stuff?

Re:

[JesseMcDonald (536341)]

You're assuming the systems are symmetric. It's more likely that the official licensees will have a far stronger transmitters than the ones in wireless microphones. The microphones won't interfere significantly with the licensees, but any licensee operating in that part of the spectrum will probably drown out wireless microphones over a fairly large area. Moreover, transmitters based on the "white space" detection that's been discussed recently would probably fail to detect such low-power signals and transm

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Ed Avis (5917)]

Our public land and airwaves for sale to the highest bidder.

How else do you propose to allocate it? By handing it out to political cronies? By giving it to whichever special interest group squeals the loudest? By letting wireless spectrum be another kind of pork that representatives can fight over? Or you could just leave it unregulated, and give the spectrum to whoever wins the war to have the most powerful transmitter.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just leave it unregulated, and give the spectrum to whoever wins the war to have the most powerful transmitter.

I'd love to see this actually tried for once. With todays technology, power isn't the only way to get past noise.

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[jandrese (485)]

It's called the 2.4Ghz ISM band. One can argue that leaving it partially unregulated (there are power caps to avoid the problem described in the grandfather post) has been the biggest boon to personal radio use since the invention of the CB radio. Wireless internet as we know it today is all thanks to the FCC leaving a tiny sliver of spectrum open to whoever wants to use it (within reason).

Re:

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

It could be given out to, in the case of broadcasters, to strictly locally owners assuring a decentralised media that is not controlled by large corporations. Remember the FCCs ownership rules? They prevented a company from owning more than a handful of radio stations and more than one or two stations in a particular market, assuring a broad diversity of sources of information, news,etc. Now the FCC has pretty much gutted these rules, and a few large corporations now control most radio outlets (clear channe

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[gandhi_2 (1108023)]

WTF??

Let big business pay for the privilege of using our spectrum. This is a good way to raise revenue without raising taxes. I would argue that we don't charge enough for spectrum. It's our most renewable resource.

This isn't the ANWR drilling we are talking about dude. What do you want, lowest bidder? Seriously, you are king of the world...how would you handle this?

What exactly did you lose?

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[phobos13013 (813040)]

Ask the Ramones

"We Want The Airwaves"

9 to 5 and 5 to 9
Ain't gonna take it
It's our time
We want the world
and we want it know
We're gonna take it anyhow

We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves, baby
If rock is gonna stay alive

Oh yeah-well all right
Let's rock-tonite
All night

Where's your guts
And will to survive
And don't you wanna
Keep rock n' roll music alive
Mr. Programmer
I got my hammer
and I'm gonna
Smash my
Smash my
Radio

We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves, baby
If rock is gonna stay alive

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[dattaway (3088)]

This isn't the ANWR drilling we are talking about dude. What do you want, lowest bidder? Seriously, you are king of the world...how would you handle this?

DHSS. Use the same technology in our wireless cards. Make this a truely public spectrum. There's always a technological solution to a government problem. Why sell what we can use for free?

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

The problem with your argument is these auctions basically give control to the wealthiest corporate interests, which do not at all correspond with what is the best interest of the population or which promotes individual self expression and free speech most. It allows these wealthy interests to control channels of information and communication and hinder innovation and free speech. We are best making sure as many independant voices can be heard and making sure as many people can innovate and use the radio waves how they see fit rather than having a few large corporations controlling them. You can do this while also assuring that the radio stations do not transmit over each other and chaos does not result. The purpose of licencing is to prevent chaos, not to give exclusive control to large corporations, which it has become. The airwaves should not even be owned but licenced, the public should own the airwaves and determine how they are utilised, since they are a limited resource. AS for how we choose how they should be utilised, why not let the people choose through an election how they are run, and why not require, for instance, some public access stations to be provided which would give airtime slots to local groups, organisations, individuals etc. Quite frankly having a lottery is a better way of determining who should have access to broadcast resources, then giving it to whoever has the most money. With the wireless networks we could charter a non profit corporation which would construct the physical network, and then sell access at cost to service providers and consumers. This would assure the great innovation and diversity in services and greatest choice and freedom for consumers. You assume the only ones who want to use the airwaves or have the right to are corporations, when instead they should be used for and by the greater population for the best public interest. We should not have a situation where you have to be a millionaire to have a voice, and the more money you have, the more control you have over the news and information that flows through the airwaves. Wealth should not give a person a greater right to free speech.

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Buelldozer (713671)]

Quoth Gandhi_2 "Let big business pay for the privilege of using our spectrum. This is a good way to raise revenue without raising taxes."

Your logic train has derailed. The more you charge business of any kind, regardless of size, for their raw material the more they charge for their finished product. This is how business works.

So while your sentiment of "Charge those big business bastards out the wazooo!" *sounds* good all it means in reality is that the finished good will be more expensive for you to buy!

Presto! The Government has just created a hidden tax ON YOU and you were cheer leading them all the way!

Doh!

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Shakrai (717556)]

Let big business pay for the privilege of using our spectrum

That's all well and good and you won't find too many people on my side of the fence that disagree with that concept.

What bothers me is that outfits like AT&T and Verizon that already own large swaths of the cellular (850mhz) band are going to be allowed to gobble up large swaths of the 700mhz band. Nobody has asked them to justify why they need this much spectrum. One would think that with the pending shutdown of AMPS that they'd have lots of free spectrum in 850mhz to do whatever they'd like with.

Why the hell are we allowing AT&T and Verizon to further cement their stranglehold on the wireless industry in the United States? If you believe that the airwaves should be used for the public benefit then you should want to see a more competitive market for wireless services emerge. This isn't going to happen as long as we allow two large [att.com] companies [verizon.com] (combined with two smaller [sprintnextel.com] ones [t-mobile.com]) to completely dominate an industry. We should be taking steps to bring more companies into this market, not further cementing the position of the existing ones.

What would I do differently? At the very least I would require a justification of the existing use of the spectrum that they have and detailed roll-out plans. I'd also exclude AT&T and Verizon from the 700mhz band in any market where they already have cellular (850mhz) licenses. Let the carriers stuck with the poorer-performing PCS (1900mhz) band have the first shot at this valuable space. I'd also mandate stricter rules on what they can do with these bands, including a full adoption of carterfone rules and the elimination of their practice of locking people up into long term contracts with hefty termination fees.

Did you know that in some markets AT&T owns more then 50% of the available wireless (cellular, PCS and AWS) licenses? If you combine them with Verizon in those markets the two manage to own 75-80% of the available spectrum. What's wrong with that picture? AT&T previously justified by it by saying they needed to run three (AMPS/TDMA/GSM) networks. What's the excuse now?

Public land != radio spectrum

[mstahl (701501)]

The radio spectrum is NOT public. Even the citizen's band has transmitting power limits (4w for AM and 12w for SSB)[reference] [wikipedia.org], and amateur radio bands are the same way.

Think of it this way. Public forests being sold so that oil can be drilled wrecks those forests, right? The oil isn't there anymore afterwards and all the pollution from the oil drilling and construction processes damages the land so that it is no longer as valuable. Unused spectrum meanwhile is completely empty until someone is permitted t

Re:

[dattaway (3088)]

Above all, what would you do with it and, in all fairness, how do you know your purpose is more noble or better for the common good than what the big businesses have come up with?

Never heard of the shortwave band? DHSS? 802.11? Technology always has an answer. Government regulations always have questions.

Re:

[mstahl (701501)]

Yeah. All of those are regulated by the FCC here and their counterparts in other countries. Technology's answers still have to fit into the spectrum along with all the other answers. You think 802.11 can just work on any frequency, willy-nilly, any time it wants? No. It has to stay in that same band because otherwise there'd just be pandaemonium on the airwaves. The way we have it, tightly regulated like this, you can operate all your devices with a reasonable expectation that you will encounter no interfer

Re:

[mstahl (701501)]

Agreed. Perhaps it was my own misinterpretation of dattaway's post but that seemed to be what he was implying. That somehow because we can't use whatever frequencies we want for whatever we want we've somehow "lost" to big corporations. I don't think this is true because as I brought up and then you did just now, you really can do pretty much whatever you want as long as those RF waves don't stray too far. The main concern with spectrum is that there has to be room for everybody, but that's easier than it m

Re:

[evilviper (135110)]

Never heard of the shortwave band?

Clearly, he hasn't. That "amateur radio band" he mentioned in his second sentence is something else... But certainly not shortwave...

DHSS? 802.11?

802.11 works reasonably well because it's is on a nearly line-of-sight frequency, and required to stay very low power. Requiring users of the 700MHz spectrum to only broadcast at low power would eliminate any benefits it has over the existing unregulated frequencies.

Technology always has an answer. Government regulations always