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."

Re:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Ed Avis]

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.

When did it go from public to private

[techpawn]

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:Cynical prediction

[acvh]

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]

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:Cynical prediction

[Firethorn]

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).

Auctions are a bad idea

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

Re:Same thing as rest areas...

[UbuntuDupe]

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:Public land != radio spectrum

[dattaway]

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:Big businesses win, we lose!

[Eravnrekaree]

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]

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!

[jandrese]

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:Auctions are a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

We take public interest to be defined as economic activity, and observe that those willing to pay most for the airwaves have the most activity to do and therefore the most public interest. We ARE using public interest to dispense these airwaves. Do not try to snidely sidestep this fact which you surely know. Instead, question the premise that public good can be measured this way.

Re:Cynical prediction

[Fieryphoenix]

Even so, the licensure Google gave would presumably require open device adherance, thus fulfilling the parent's desire for satisfaction.

Re:Public land != radio spectrum

[mstahl]

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 may seem at first if everybody's transmitting power is limited too, since the spectrum here in Chicago's probably not nearly as wide-open as it is in the middle of Nevada.

2.4GHz was a good compromise but it's getting really crowded over there. I had complaints from my neighbours in the last apartment that I lived in that my wireless router was interfering with their new cordless phone. Aside from turning down the power of one device or another, weighing the usefulness of my wireless router against the usefulness of their cordless phone, there really wasn't a whole lot that could be done. In a totally "free" system I could've somehow hacked all my devices to work on a different frequency, but I'd inevitably interfere with something else. And eventually there's the prospect that you'd interfere with something really critical like the radio communications of firemen or EMTs. That would be what we call a very bad thing.