| |
Use it or lose itThat's why there should be a use it or lose it policy for spectrum. The truth of the matter is that spectrum is limited. Companies should be required to give a timeframe in which they plan to use the spectrum before they are allowed to purchase it. If they don't use it, then they lose it. This would keep companies like at&t from buying and sitting on spectrum just so no one else can use it. |
|
| |
It's more than that.Big telco and big cable is determined to make everyone pay for tv. They want to kill free tv by creating this artificial spectrum crisis. |
|
| |
to waiting4fios
Re: Use it or lose itif at$t, and alike, used what they' had; they'd be able to cover every corner of the country with every technology possible as far as GSM and CDMA and LTE with no problems at all.
and as far as TWC's they should be required to start building out something to. Their first plans where to create their own cell phone company only later to resell Sprint and never market the service. Then killed it and still has the spectrum. They should sell it to Cox and generate more $$$$ if its in the AWS band. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
to fifty nine
Re: It's more than that.said by fifty nine:Big telco and big cable is determined to make everyone pay for tv. They want to kill free tv by creating this artificial spectrum crisis.
BINGO! |
|
| |
how do you figure? they can keep OTA where it is at and keep selling off other frequencies. Big Telco has no real interest in getting people to buy CATV as they have a very small coverage of TV compared to the MSOs. and you'd do the same if you were the MSOs making $$$$ for all he customers. |
|
| |
to dvd536
He who controls the pipes controls the universe!
... or something like that anyways. |
|
| |
Where are the new entrants going to get theirs?If AT&T and Verizon are squatting on spectrum, where are the new entrants going to get theirs? 'Use it or lose it' is a catchy jingle, but it's flat out unconstitutional. New spectrum has to come from somewhere else. |
|
1 recommendation |
What would be unconstitutional is to seize the auctioned spectrum without compensation. But I think it would be perfectly legit to simply repay the auction fees for unused spectrum and put it back out to bid under a "use it or lose it" deal. |
|
| |
DC er
Anon
2011-Feb-1 7:52 pm
Deaf EarsI have heard and seen presentations by smart spectrum guys like Darrin Mylet who have been saying this for a long time.....it seems like many of these public officials either will not listen or have other agendas.....no excuses. |
|
|
| |
to LostInWoods
Re: Where are the new entrants going to get theirs?And what makes you think bigger competition would not buy it again and squat on it? Jesus you guys are ridiculous. |
|
|
zolcos
join:2010-05-19
Houghton, MI |
zolcos
Member
2011-Feb-1 8:35 pm
said by mitsu06mr:And what makes you think bigger competition would not buy it again and squat on it? Jesus you guys are ridiculous.
because any FUTURE licensing of spectrum could come with a built-in stipulation that unused spectrum will be lost without compensation. Since the buyer would have to agree to that beforehand, it wouldn't constitute unreasonable seizure. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
to DC er
Re: Deaf Earssaid by DC er :it seems like many of these public officials either will not listen or have other agendas.....no excuses.
Their other agendas are well paid cushy jobs once they leave government. At an advanced ATSC symposium later this month a plan that would effectively let the spectrum now occupied by TV channels 38 to 51 be used twice or even four times for both broadcast TV and 4G mobile cellular and improve the performance of both will be presented. Because it would require the entire 84 MHz to remain in the TV Band it is probably not what the FCC wants to hear. |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
to LostInWoods
Re: Where are the new entrants going to get theirs?said by LostInWoods:What would be unconstitutional is to seize the auctioned spectrum without compensation. But I think it would be perfectly legit to simply repay the auction fees for unused spectrum and put it back out to bid under a "use it or lose it" deal.
I agree with that. Don't use, then lose it. But you have to give them their money back. And one of the few times I agree with Karl. The spectrum shortage being phony. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
to LostInWoods
It is not unconstitutional for the government to seize it through condemnation. Since the holder has chosen not to use the spectrum it is questionable that it still has the same value as when it was acquired. |
|
| |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by LostInWoods:What would be unconstitutional is to seize the auctioned spectrum without compensation. But I think it would be perfectly legit to simply repay the auction fees for unused spectrum and put it back out to bid under a "use it or lose it" deal.
I agree with that. Don't use, then lose it. But you have to give them their money back. And one of the few times I agree with Karl. The spectrum shortage being phony. They should not get anything back. Learn from the scum airline industry. You buy and do not use it, you lose. |
|
fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
to Sammer
said by Sammer:Since the holder has chosen not to use the spectrum it is questionable that it still has the same value as when it was acquired.
...not true. |
|
 ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2011-Feb-2 1:36 am
D.U.H. checkTell me something I didn't have figured out by the time I graduated from Middle school.
We all know that if every provider of bandwidth would open the floodgates, the internet would perform just as it had been before the gates were open, the bottlenecks would shift around a bit, but that's about it. |
|
