700 MHz Auction Begins Tomorrow 187
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. (Score:4, Funny)
So why NOT Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So why NOT Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I see this posted a lot, and i still don't get it. What could Google possibly use the 700MHz band for? Even as an investment it makes little sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And deploying is not the only issue - you have to provide each recipient with a receiver. Since 700MHz was commonly used for TV, there's no current devices intended for those purposes in that band. Teletext [wikipedia.org] is the closest you can get, but it works over an an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Deployment- could be cheaper than cellular due to 700MHz propagation. Maybe reuse the existing towers. Get a WiMax vendor to cut some equipment for it.
2) Devices- upcoming handhelds will start to have DTV tuners and WiMax anyway, so perhaps adding a receiver wouldn't be too costly. No cost to Google.
3) Teletext- it's one way, that's a non-starter. There isn't a two-way technology except for the celullar data, which are user-hostile in that they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cynical prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Cynical prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are flush with cash, but yes, they'd end up working with other companies. It would be under true open device terms though. I don't know that they would be re-licensing, there would be joint development agreements, etc. The licenses are worth to much. they wouldn't be dumb enough to give up the license in any way. Joint Development agreements would be the way to go. Google's got enough money to make it work, and this spectrum is the right one for cell/data wireless. Other companies will jump at t
Google has cash a plenty (Score:2)
Still, I don't think the FCC will take Google stock as payment - cash only please.
Why would Google need to pay with stock? Google is a money making machine. Google has almost 14 billion in cash and short term investments on its balance sheet right now. They could likely raise two or three times that in a heartbeat if they wanted to mount a large bid.
And just for reference - Verizon only has 11.5 billion in cash on hand. Basically, they would have to team up with one of their nationwide competitors to out
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cynical prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
As for being able to afford it, Google is bigger than Verizon and nipping on the heels of AT&T. Even if they bid an absurdly high amount in order to win - say $30 billion - when they do win, they will make that up the n
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Google can get enough money to outbid. Maybe sell "Gbonds" so they can pay absurdly low yields on borrowed money :-P
As of their last 10-K filing, Google had about $10B in cash on hand. Time Warner has about $1.5B, for a comparison. I think it would take more than a couple of Google's competitors to put together a winning bid. I'd say that's doubtful, considering 1) I'm not sure that would be legal, and 2) their competitors hate each other and can't work together. The only one that would have a
American Gladiators (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No good. Chuck Norris [chucknorrisfacts.com] works for Viacom. No one else would even bother to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm paying for part of it, I'd like to own one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"The Government" does not always (usually) operate by consensus, thus the need to protect (especially minorities) against uncompensated takings. More to the point, government often can be accurately modeled as a bunch of lying crooks.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be ideal, but since all of the government was elected by a minority of the people which doesn't include me, it can't really claim to be 'the people'. If you want real democracy you have to at least have a majority requirement before you allow it to enact any laws. Otherwise the presumption should be that the people don't want any more government, and everything should be left status quo until they do.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that nobody would ever think of campaigning on a platform of "status quo". Nobody is elected unless they promise "change". Everyone gets elected to "do something". Nobody ever considers the possibility that many things are actual
Democracy my arse! (Score:2)
Who ever said that the US was a democracy? Frankly, the concept of it being one scares the hell out of me.
Republic, people. The US is a republic, not a democracy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html [cia.gov]
It's always been private (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The broadcasters, like with radio and free papers, recovered their costs through the selling of advertising.
Besides, under the new digital television standard, there will actually be the potential for MORE channels of TV to broadcast - even a HDTV signal doesn't take the bandwidth an analoge signal needs.
Meanwhile Uncle Sam is pitching in some of the proceeds of the auction to subsidize the cost of new tuners.
Same thing as rest areas... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In New Jersey many of the highways are toll roads and the rest stops are not allowed to charge more than the gas stations in the local area off the highway. I don't remember the toll structure there but in Mass it doesn't really cost more to get off the highway and back on... though the time it takes makes rest stops worth it even if they do cost more (and I have never confirmed that they do or do not).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, everyone's a winner, including the consumer - who has the opportunity to buy a burger somewhere where he wouldn't otherwise have been able to. Even if it is at extra expense.
They should take that spectrum, and award it based on the public good that will come of it.
I'll point out that at least some direct good will come of this - part of the spectrum is assigned for a new emergency communication systems, capable of penetrating walls much better than cur
Good Luck With That (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Real news will be hearing who wins, or continues the next round.
Auctions are a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
get your own radio license, then (Score:2)
Never Before (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where does the money go? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where does the money go? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
how it's gonna work in Canada... (Score:2)
Still an auction, but the way it's going to work is, there's going to be ~2/3 of the spectrum that will only be available to new players in the market. So Rogers/Bell/Telus et. al. (AT &T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile for American readers) won't even be able to _bid_ on that range of the spectrum.
Still not perfect, but at least it keeps the current ISPs/Cell phone providers from co
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be the winner (Score:2, Funny)
Impact on wireless audio gear in UHF 66-69 range? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Impact on wireless audio gear in UHF 66-69 rang (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
NTSC (Score:2)
Re:Big businesses win, we lose! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big businesses win, we lose! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
"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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Let me guess: the government wants more money...
Re:Big businesses win, we lose! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I would like to begin my reply by imploring you to use linguistic features like "paragraphs" to organize your thoughts so that they are easier to read.
As the article summary notes:
As for the rest of your comment, it is as poorly thought out as it is written and organized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big businesses win, we lose! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
No hidden tax. You consume something you don't need, then it isn't really a tax, is it? Nor is it really "hidden" since it is included in the cost of the item you want.
If you want to complain about "hidden" taxes, how about employer paid payroll taxes. Most people never see the cost of these taxes paid on their behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's disregard the voluntary vs non-voluntary argument and look at this from the absolute necessities argument that you're presenting.
Unless you're living off the land in the hills building your shelter from logs and mud either you or the vendor of your three basics WILL use the services of a business. That business will be taxed by the government and pass that cost to you.
Food? Trucking companies, grocery stores, rail carriers, farmers, tractor d
Re:Big businesses win, we lose! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Google is all that super good but I know that I am in the minority on Slashdot.
Yea I would love for Sprint to do better BTW. I feel they are the least evil of the Cell companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that no small company can afford to build out this spectrum
On a national level? Maybe not. But why has nobody considered the option of encouraging smaller (i.e: regional) carriers to come about? That's originally how the whole wireless market got going before we allowed the massive consolidation that happened later. There's no reason why somebody couldn't get the funds to win a regional license and deploy a network. Partnerships with similar networks in other markets could provide for nationwide coverage, more or less transparent to the end users.
I don't think Google is all that super good but I know that I am in the minority on Slashdot.
I'm in
Re: (Score:2)
As to small regional carriers. Even a small regional carrier wouldn't be small. Smaller then say Sprint but s
You bring up a great point (Score:2)
Public land != radio spectrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never heard of the shortwave band? DHSS? 802.11? Technology always has an answer. Government regulations always have questions.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Why not? Tell me, experienced Ham Operator, why can't we do it? Why can't we have a public spectrum? Are you afraid everyone is going to abuse the spectrum by turning up the power with "free" electricity or something? Share your experience, your wisdom please.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it can operate at a wide variety of frequencies but that doesn't mean that it should. If you're transmitting at low enough power (say less than 100mw or so) do whatever the hell you want. If you're transmitting powerfully enough for your device, whatever it is, to interfere with other peoples' around you, then you're doing what we call "causing a ruckus".
The reason why we can't have a public spectrum has already been pointed out a couple of times in this discussion (I think by other people who respond
Re: (Score:2)
Good so far. But why do we little people get such a tiny sliver for ISM to play with? Why not a bigger park to play in? Seems kind of crowded to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly, he hasn't. That "amateur radio band" he mentioned in his second sentence is something else... But certainly not shortwave...
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The spectrum owners DO NOT CARE if there service is even reliable or works because they own a part of the monopoly and the public has no alternatives. Look at cellphone companies telling users that their software wont be allowed on their service. It's all about them selling selling selling their
Ok everybody just simmah right on down (Score:2)
Um. No. Pay attention to one of my previous posts. Wireless spectrum is not scarce. At all. What is the problem here?
First of all, part of the deal here is that whatever they do with this spectrum has to be usable by the general public. The whole point is to have that spectrum used for new technology that the general public will have access to. Think of something like when the cell phone bands got sold off, and now we have cell phones. You can bitch all you want about cell phone reliability but the fact of
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just described about 90% of today's reporters.