Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Official 700MHz Bidder List

Comments Filter:
  • Why do the rest even bother? Eventually it all boils down the the few big boys anyway,
    • by lb746 (721699) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @09:46AM (#21763742)
      It's not that they are bidding one 1 thing. This bidding/auction includes multiple licenses and different chunks of spectrum's. The 700mhz one we keep discussing is just the biggest and most coveted item at the auction. There's still going to be that small company going home with the autographed T-Shirt signed by the FCC staff.
      • by stonefry (968479)
        Also, just being on the list makes stock holders happy. They like to see that their company is making an effort.
    • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:03AM (#21763868) Homepage Journal
      Ego trips, publicity stunts, and a desire to get one's name in the history books with the big boys. Big Roy's Internet Service and Gerbil Grooming may not have an honest chance at actually winning an auction, but it'll get him into the Google rankings alongside the likes of AT&T for a bit.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by suggsjc (726146)
        Gerbil Grooming owner (...I've got a great idea...)

        Next day:
        Gerbil Grooming owner: Hello, FCC. What are the requirements for bidding in the wireless auction?
        FCC: Fill out this paperwork...and the minimum bid is $4.6B...
        Gerbil Grooming owner: Great, send over that paperwork!

        Two weeks later:
        FCC: We are going to start the bidding at $4.6B.
        Gerbil Grooming owner: (raises hand and snickers).
        FCC: Ok, do I hear 4.8B?
        Google: (raises hand and snickers).
        FCC: Do I hear $5B?
        Gerbil Grooming owner: (raises hand and laug
        • I bet grooming those gerbils produces a lot of static electricity. If he gathered it then surely that would amass him a small fortune. And then just imagine adding in the power the gerbils generate on their little wheels.. you could make 5 billy in no time! Damnit I'm in the wrong business, these hamsters have nothing on those damn gerbils :/
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      There's some small guys on that list that seem to bid on everything the FCC puts up for auction. For example, there's a retired mail carrier named Vincent D. McBride (who operates under the name McBride Spectrum Partners, LLC) who has bid at just about every FCC auction since sometime around 1996-1997. Others might be doing it for name recognition (just having your name on the bidding list gets you exposure) and others still might be doing it to gather evidence to prove that the FCC does, in fact, favor t
  • by mraudigy (1193551) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @09:42AM (#21763694)
    The auction of the 700 Mhz band is quite interesting.... it will be interesting to see who wins the bid and what it will do for the country's infrastructure. At&t is one of the many that still has an incomplete application.... typical.
  • Nice list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by techpawn (969834) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @09:44AM (#21763722) Journal
    A who's who of multibillion dollar companies. What happened to the government and the parts there of working in the peoples interest? Unless you have a few billion to spend don't even think about it. The peoples airwaves are sold to the highest bidder, literally, and all I can think of the FCC doing is censoring and working in corporate interests (like consolidation of radio companies and maybe the same with TV/Newspapers).
    • Re:Nice list (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:02AM (#21763858) Homepage Journal
      Multibillion dollar companies owned by... you and I, or anyone with a share.

      The problem is not the multibillion dollar companies, the problem is the FCC. The FCC creates the regulations, and laws, and restrictions, and mandates, that force you and I and a million others from tossing in our own $1500 each and competing. We'd need to hire lawyers who probably worked for the FCC and wrote the rules. We'd need to get approvals from a slow and red-tape-ladened administration. We'd need to prove who we are and what our intentions are.

      That's the problem. You think it's these huge megacorps that cause these issues? Well, they sure lobby for them. But if the Federal Executive branch actually followed the Rule of Law (i.e., the Constitution), the FCC would be probably a teeny tiny organization that just made sure no one was perverting the airwaves with massive noise outputs from dirty electronics.

      WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.

      We don't need the FCC, we need more individuals getting together, pitching in a few grand, hiring managers, and competing with the old powerful regimes. Unfortunately, it isn't available. We can't do it. We can't compete. The market doesn't work efficiently when there are barriers to entering the market, and the ONLY barrier is government regulation. Raising $1billion is easy; the machete you need to cut through red tape is nearly non-existent.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Erwos (553607)
        So, let me get this straight: your office WiFi AP works OK, so it follows that all spectrum should remain unlicensed?

        Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.
        • Re:Nice list (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jcgf (688310) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:24AM (#21764098)
          Totally, as a licensed ham, I shudder when I hear some of the things slashdotters say about the RF spectrum. The common theme is that it should be totally free and unregulated, yet they don't understand that spectrum ain't software so it's not like everyone can get a copy.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by kfort (1132)
            As a licensed ham for half my life, I couldn't disagree with you more. The RF spectrum is the property of the people, and the FCC exists to regulate it in the interest of the public good. In the past it was a problem because modes of operation like AM, SSB (single side band), FM are prone to interference either malicious or unintentional.

            We have the technology now to fight this problem. The only thing we lack is the innovation. The technology of the future would be based on homebrew inventions that amateur
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Actually, while light can be used to define the entire electro-magnetic sub-section, colors are just a sub-section of the electromegnetic spectrum referred to as 'colors' (normally 400-700 nm, but one could argue slightly outside the visible). Radio waves are not colors they are in fact a sub-section of the electromagnetic spectrum referred to as as 'radio waves'.
              • by kfort (1132)
                The only thing special about 400-700 nm is that we have receptors (antennas you could crudely say) in our eyes that are tuned to this band and are processed by our brain. This is completely analogous to an antenna tuned to a different wavelength, and then processed by hardware and software. That is my point, we can process the RF now to the point where we can filter the interference from the useful information, in the same way our brain works to focus (in a mental sense, not optical) on particular aspects o
                • by Anpheus (908711)
                  If I were to walk into a crowded theatre and hold up an enormous flashlight, an extremely bright LED, or worse, trigger as powerful a flash of white light as is currently possible with modern engineering, I would not only be kicked from the theatre, but I'd risk damaging those antennas of everyone in the room, not to mention interfering with the ability of everyone from seeing the picture on the screen.

                  It turns out your brain isn't as good a filter as you'd like, if you can't filter that out.
            • If everybody was flashing bright lights all the time, and some people were flashing lights bright enough to *cause burns*, the yes, you would see regulation of colors. It's a simple traffic problem: you can't have everyone in the intersection at once [google.com], so you've got to regulate it somehow. The FCC does this by licensing transmitters, which you should be WELL aware of if, as you say, you're a ham.

              You'd also be aware that *any* transmission at the very least increases the noise floor. The bandwidth is inher
              • by kfort (1132)
                Cause burns? OK so it should be illegal to blast microwave death beams at people. I'm talking about using communication to bring people together, not develop weapons. We have the military for that. DSP and spread spectrum and high gain beam antennas are technologies that work to decrease the noise floor and decrease the amount of effective radiated power needed. We are not employing these to the best advantage because of archaic laws and regulations. The noise floor mostly comes from solar and cosmic radia
            • by jcgf (688310)
              Please inform me of this magic technology that will get rid of interference. Beams, packet, & encryption have nothing to do with this. Spread spectrum and DSP can help reduce the problem, but with the first you just run out of spectrum faster and the 2nd is not a miracle, unless your one of those hams that are fooled by MFJ's adds.

              "Free"ing the airwaves would just cause chaos like any kind of anarchy.

              • by kfort (1132)
                It is a fundamental law that bandwidth is directly proportional to the amount of information sent. This is called the Nyquist-Shannon theory. CW (morse code) uses the least amount of bandwidth possible, it is simply a continuous sine wave modulated on and off. Voice communication uses much more bandwidth, because more information is present in the signal. AM gives a richer sound. SSB is uses less but is not as robust, and broadcast FM uses the most because you have a signal that is not prone to static and
                • by jcgf (688310)
                  First off, I'm a ham, I know what CW, AM, SSB hf, vhf, and uhf are. And while bandwidth may increase as you go higher in frequency, you also loose the ability to go long distance without help, so you can't just say here's 10MHz of now give up the 20m ham band. Totally useless to me even though I get more bandwidth.

                  I also understand that the military uses spread spectrum, but there aren't any real powerful foreign governments left to test the system against. I'm sure alqeada and Iraq couldn't give it th

                  • by kfort (1132)
                    I will not assume that everyone /. reader is a ham or knows what they are talking about.

                    Considering the capabilities of HF to cross borders I could see some international issues there, but what if we just deregulated everything about 30Mhz? WiFi works. We have ways to make self healing mesh networks that can work with large numbers of nodes. It's the type of technology on which the Internet is based.

                    Why must I be forced to use 2.4 GHz for my wireless networks? It barely goes through walls, and is pretty clo
                    • by jcgf (688310)
                      Deregulating above 30 megacycles is more reasonable. If you want a killer wifi network, why not work on developing one to work over the 30cm or 23cm ham bands? You could easily take 15 MHz in most geographic areas (not too many hams on those bands) plus they are only as dangerous as your cell phone. It would be a lot of work, but you would be famous amongst hams.
          • It should be free but controlled. The FCC should do the controlling as a impartial observer.
          • The common theme is that it should be totally free and unregulated

            The common theme is rather that we want more spectrum to be available to the general public without the restrictions of the amateur radio bands.

            What Wifi has shown is that allowing parts of the spectrum to be used freely allows a lot of applications that would simply never happen on the licensed bands. Many of us would like to play with a smallish part of the 700MHz band.

            spectrum ain't software so it's not like everyone can get a copy.

        • Re:Nice list (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:26AM (#21764116) Homepage Journal
          Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.

          For many years, the idea of a truly software-based, frequency-hopping radio was the idea of dreams and science fiction. We have them today. They work well, but are still limited in frequencies they can utilize. Power-sources have been the biggest limiting factor for opening up spectrum for unregulated use, but that too is quickly being overcome by technological discoveries (see the nano-wire battery article from yesterday).

          Regulated spectrum may have been important when radio transmissions were inefficient, dirty, and even dangerous. We've overcome those issues, and now have the technology to utilize wireless transmissions that could be best navigated and selected based on distance to the other transceiving device, available power for transceiving, speed and latency requirements, and other traffic detected. Because power is not limitless, the idea that one massive power source would likely overpower everything in the area is only based on the idea that someone would or even could transmit garbage over every frequency at high power levels. Yes, I know there are technological marvels that COULD do this, and that's why I will allow for the idea that the FCC may exist only to penalize users of such dirty-transmission devices. Personally, I feel that the market would correct for these power-wasting freaks, but I'll at least accept a small role for the FCC to prevent dirty-transmissions.

          With frequency-hopping, and software-based radios, we'd reach a new era of wireless. We're WASTING gigahertz of spectrum on old media -- TV, radio, even cell phone and cordless phone frequencies that could be better used to combine everything into a WiFi-like system. The days of forced media schedules are slowly ending, with more and more people grabbing TV shows a la carte, via bittorrent or PVR-systems. Instead of flooding the airwaves with the gigahertz of garbage no one is watching, de-regulate that bandwidth and allow more wireless providers to send people what they want, when they want it.

          Those who demand faster bandwidth and lower latency may spend the money for the extra power they'll need to acquire the spectrum they need in their area, for their purposes. Yet power is the BIGGEST cost of wireless transmissions, and I can guarantee that anyone who wants to hog a wide swath of spectrum will find themselves with an unbelievable electric bill after one month. Yet even with someone locally occupying a certain amount of frequencies, there is still a huge amount of bandwidth available all over the entire radio spectrum. A move to digital, on demand IP-based transceiving makes more sense. We're moved beyond the need for fixed-frequencies, except for the old media who needs to control, and regulate, competition out of existence.

          They know their time has come. The need to keep cell phones on the same basic frequency, TV on the same basic frequency, and radio on the same basic frequency has been replaced, and proven so, by the newer technologies out there (Satellite, XM, WiFi, even 700Mhz cordless phones). Those days are over, but we're too engaged with the old system to realize it.

          The best thing the FCC could do is to just deregulate the 700Mhz-900Mhz frequencies entirely, and let the market provide services. Let's see what would happen. I bet amazing things would come into the market quickly. Then start deregulating more frequencies, until the FCC shrinks to a minor enforcer of clean transceiving.
      • by dkf (304284)

        Raising $1billion is easy;
        For you maybe, but for me?
      • by lstellar (1047264)

        Rule of law: a state of order in which events conform to the law

        - Princeton WordNet

        The Constitution is a living document, and was designed as such. Any law invoked here was instated within the confines and regulations of the constitution- therefore lawful. Your "Rule of Law" argument is misplaced.

        And while in many sectors there are artificial governmental barriers to entering, this is almost certainly not one of them. It seems you are atop a soapbox preaching about big government and interference with the free market, but you chose a completely inappropiate time to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by faedle (114018)
        WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.

        Actually, WiFi is a case-in-point of why the existing regulatory scheme is broken, and how completely "unregulated bandwidth" would be a disaster for our communications infrastructure.

        Case study: Portland's
      • WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.

        I've just got to take issue with this statement, true enough lots of wifi equipment works well with other wifi equipment in the 2.4 ghz band. unfortunately its one band being used for a number of purposes. Try adding a TV sender into the mix. Wifi becomes highly unreliable and the tv transmission is hit badly by the random wifi packets add a cordless phone into the mix and none of it works reliably.

        There is no need for more red tape but a few more low power frequencies with type approval for each band allo

  • by Demiansmark (927787) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @09:45AM (#21763724) Homepage
    I really am curious as to how much a company like Xpress Web [xpressweb.com] could possibly dedicate to this, from the looks of the web site I'm assuming the proprietor operates from the dumpster behind the quik e mart.
    • well, by being on that list they'll get their fair share of their 15 minutes of fame, and that is called marketing. "who are they?" .. well, now people find out. but of course, they have no business of being on that list whoever is behind it, as so many people will say, this is a battle for the big boys.
  • So I wonder if Paul Allen is bidding as a proxy to Microsoft...it's not like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are mortal enemies.
    • by simong (32944)
      Paul Allen is behind a number of businesses of his own but I doubt that it would surprise anyone if he won the auction and Microsoft became involved in whatever he intended to do with the spectrum. However, there is the potential for it not just to be MS, as an exclusive deal with them probably wouldn't be acceptable to the FCC.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by infonography (566403)

      So I wonder if Paul Allen is bidding as a proxy to Microsoft...it's not like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are mortal enemies.
      Unlikely as a proxy, Paul Allen has his own agenda and telecoms schemes. I would not call his motives purely altruistic however he does favor the offbeat ideas and makes a pretty good go of them when he does.
  • by phobos13013 (813040) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:12AM (#21763956)
    Ok, Im not a spectrum expert here (IANASE?), so I dont know all the possible and impossible uses of the band are. But MY personal belief is that if Google wins this thing, it will mean a whole new future of cell and multimedia technology. With Android on the horizon, the possibility for video technology to be broadcast on this spectrum, and a "do no evil" corporation behind its implementation we as consumers could see a major change in how we use and most importantly PAY for cell phones.

    I could VERY easily see Google offering about five models of cellphones, all with user-modifiable environments with broadband TV access, internet, and of course cell (or wifi or some such combo). A recent interview with the CEO of HTC [engadget.com] suggests there are some big plans with Android/Google/HTC. This would all be possible with a low unlimited usage fee (say $50 unlimited cell access, $75 unlimited TV/internet, etc.) Maybe you will see some sort of music site popup over this or integrate it with Google's music info site. This will of course be highly marketed and everyone will flock to it. Maybe not everyone will get to use it and it will become a tester in some markets sort of like gmail beta when it was first introduced. This sort of thing is usually looked at skeptically (think when 3G first rolled out after many delays, all the complaints and grumbles) but by Google will be looked at as the hippest thing since white bread!

    This of course over time will force the other cell providers to change their scrupulous business practices or be satisfied with greatly reduced user-base. Which of course is more incentive for these other companies to get their hands on it over Google.

    It seems to be infrastructure and other base technology is already in place for it, so immediate rollout could happen, of course in that interim introductory period additional infrastructure can be added to beef up the spectrums inevitably high usage!

    This is all of course simple musing, but looking at Google's past and their current state coupled with their desire for this spectrum leads me to believe there is a plan for it and its big. I look forward to this possibility... hope it comes true. Now if anyone can punch holes in any of this please do so now.
    • by isa-kuruption (317695) <kuruption.kuruption@net> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:27AM (#21764140) Homepage
      Yes, a cellphone revolution... in advertising....

      Google will track wherever you go via GPS. Google can then sell advertising to companies that you walk by. The more people that walk by a business, the more they can charge for advertising. Then, when you walk within 500 feet of that business, they'll send you some text message telling you of said business's latest deals. You clear the message, and in another 300' you get another text message from another business with their lunch specials.

      Then, of course, google will have you use your "google logon" with your cellphone, too. So when you go do Internet searches on your PC, it will cater the results to where you go and where you've been. "Hey, I noticed you're looking for anal plugs... there was a good shop with a buy one get one on your route to work".

      Of course, google will also use that GPS data to notify businesses in your local area what you're searching for and what you buy from their competitors.

      Then Google founders will use all that extra cash to buy an EVEN BIGGER private jet to go play around the world and burn more fuel while hypocritically telling us that we need to reduce our fuel consumption to save the environment.

      • Flamebait? Come on, only the last sentence was flamebait. The rest was insightful with just a bit of troll!

        Probably pretty insightful, actually. Google could very easily do all of that, especially in the areas where they've ALREADY mapped out everything at the street level. If they bundle that with free airtime and throw in the phone at a heavy discount as well, people would put up with it too.
      • We're never going to get rid of advertising, but it can become better. I'm generally conditioned to ignore any and all advertising, but there have been occasions where unobtrusive, targeted advertising has caught my eye because it was actually useful to me.

        If someone is making money on providing me with information that might actually benefit me, what's the harm? As long as I have control over my privacy, I would much prefer that to blinking banner ads and billboards.

        If cheap or free ad-supported cell pho
    • "With Android on the horizon, the possibility for video technology to be broadcast on this spectrum, and a "do no evil" corporation behind its implementation we as consumers could see a major change in how we use and most importantly PAY for cell phones."

      I love Google, but I think the "do no evil" thing went out the door when they went public and got shareholders whom expect returns. So far they're not evil, and I love them for it. But as they amass assets like this spectrum, they might start changing.
    • If I were Google, I wouldn't enter the cellphone market directly. Instead, I'd use the spectrum to create a large-scale Wifi network as part of an effort to route around the big telecoms who keep threatening Google with non-neutrality. (The other part would be all that dark fiber they bought up.)

      If they do *that*, it's pretty easy to layer VOIP on top of it to create cellphone/blackberry-like services, but that'd only be part of it. Imagine wireless connectivity anywhere for the price you now pay your IS
  • by iknownuttin (1099999) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:13AM (#21763970)

    Very broadly, this spectrum is divided into two bands -- the lower and upper 700 MHz. The lower band is 48 MHz wide, and the upper band is 60 MHz wide. Of the upper 60 MHz, 24 MHz is being reserved for public safety, according the to FCC. The 747- to 792-MHz portion of the spectrum, which includes a highly coveted swath known as the "C Block," is now used for commercial UHF television. But federal law now mandates that broadcasters convert to digital TV signals by 2009, so they're handing this particular chunk of spectrum back to the FCC (in return for new UHF spectrum).

    So, I guess VHF [wikipedia.org] TV frequencies will be auctioned off soon too? Or is that going to be completely used by radio services (Marine, some aviation and some consumer goods.)?

    • I'm not sure why you would think that. The idea is merely that the total number of channels allocated to TV is being reduced. The reduction is purely in terms of the high numbered UHF channels.

      TV stations are not being moved to entirely new spectrum. The digital TV channel range are the same spectrum as the analog NTSC range, minus those high numbered UHF channels. For example, in my area, the local CBS affiliate broadcasts NTSC (analog) on channel 12, and ATSC (digital) on the adjacent channel 13 (they

  • I'm rich! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kinthelt (96845) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:18AM (#21764018) Homepage
    Who would have thought my old Athlon 700 would prove to be so valuable?
  • Some information on this band can be found here:
    http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/700mhz-explained/ [gigaom.com]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_Mhz_wireless_spectrum_auction [wikipedia.org]
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070815-700mhz-auction-whats-really-up-for-grabs-and-why-it-wont-be-monopolized.html [arstechnica.com]

    For instance the GSM 750 band (has been in the GSM standards for at least 7 years) is a part of the spectrum.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands [wikipedia.org]
  • by Hanners1979 (959741) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:42AM (#21764336) Homepage
    I notice there's no revenue range or bidding credit listed for Google in the PDF document - Did they not have room for all those zeroes?
  • by Colourspace (563895) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:56AM (#21764572)
    Is it only me or does anyone else remember back in 1999 when the 3G (which I wouldn't say has mass market acceptance even now) licenses went up for bidding in the UK? As I remember it came to 20 billion pounds (the irony is I am in the UK using a US PC, so no pound sign for me on the keyboard) in the end, which is a HELL of a lot of money for a piece of paper saying you may broadcast on these frequencies. I don't think it would work out well for anyone if this turned out to follow the same path.
    • by jsjacob (94841)
      I don't know if you mean Windows or Linux or Mac OS or whatever. But if you're on a Mac, the £ sign is Option-3.

      • by curunir (98273) *
        In Windows, hold down the ALT key and type 0163 (then release the ALT key). For me, it only seems to work if I use the number keys at the right of my keyboard and not with the number keys above the qwerty row. The full character mapping can be found here [wikipedia.org].

        ...says the Mac user who, for work, had to learn the convoluted Windows method of doing something that OS X makes incredibly simple...
    • by jagdish (981925)
      Hold the right alt key and type 156 using the number pad. If you use a laptop, press alt, then the function button, then 156. Do not use the number keys above the alphabets. See http://www.asciitable.com/ [asciitable.com] for more characters.
  • Why do AT&T & Verizon Wireless have incomplete applications? Is it due to some type of legal issue (or issues), or did they screw up their paperwork?
  • In case we might have all forgotten, Paul Allen was one of the founding investors in Ricochet/Metricom.
  • 0002805596 Adams Telcom, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0014061097 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 0 - 15,000,000 0000021188 AlasConnect, Inc. 0016161788 Aristotle Inc. 0 - 15,000,000 0016927360 AWS Spectrum, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017118837 Bayou Internet, Inc. 0002477636 BEK Communications Cooperative 0 - 15,000,000 0003764727 Bend Cable Communications, LLC 0003766201 Blanca Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000 0017147406 Blue Sky Cell, LLC 0 - 15,000,000 0010698868 Bluegrass Wireless LLC 001719
  • 0002805596 Adams Telcom, Inc. 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
    0014061097 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 0 - 15,000,000
    0000021188 AlasConnect, Inc.
    0016161788 Aristotle Inc. 0 - 15,000,000
    0016927360 AWS Spectrum, LLC 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
    0017118837 Bayou Internet, Inc.
    0002477636 BEK Communications Cooperative 0 - 15,000,000
    0003764727 Bend Cable Communications, LLC
    0003766201 Blanca Telephone Company 15,000,000 - 40,000,000
    0017147406 Blue Sky Cell, LLC 0 - 15,000,000
    0010698868 Bluegrass Wireless LLC
    0017194473 Bresna
  • Along with AT&T and Verizon, Google and Paul Allen's Vulcan Spectrum are in on the bidding.

    I knew the 700MHz spectrum has much improved range compared to WiFi, but Vulcan? [wikipedia.org] WOW!!! ;)

  • The interesting thing to me is the "incomplete" list. There are some major corporations on that list. What happened there is what I want to know. Did they decide not to peruse the bid or maybe they just could not find a pencil sharpener in time to finish the application? If they were serious about a bid it seems odd to me that these major corporations would somehow not complete the application in a timely fashion or not correctly.
    • by robmx (566491)
      Anyone on the incomplete list was on time. They just didn't furnish some information or the FCC is questioning some information they provided. The big boys have more trouble doing this right the first time because their information can be more complicated. A new company with no record has it easy.
  • Many small companies and even individual bidders are on the list because there are hundreds of small area licenses up for grabs, many of which will probably sell cheap. A single 700MHz 6MHz channel may be plenty for a small WISP to provide much more reliable - not to mention mobile - broadband service than they can provide today with their 5GHz unlicensed Canopy or Alvarion gear. These small operators are crowding each other in the major unlicensed bands in urban areas, and they'd love nothing more than a p

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...