how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-03-01 12:03:01: Senator Mark Pryor has had a lot to say in opposition to FCC Chief Kevin Martin. Recently, he spoke against the way that the 700 MHz auction has been handled under Martin’s direction. ..
| |
 MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  FCC critics can't be satisfied
So the FCC designed the rules this time to make it a "SECRET" auction so that no bid rigging could be done. Are the usual FCC critics happy? No, they are not.
Let's face it - Sen Pryor and others of his ilk don't want auctions at all. They want some group of politically connected(connected to them that is) bureaucrats appointed who will make that decision instead of letting those with the means to use that spectrum get it at auction.
And what would be the end result of that method? The pols friends get the licenses and they in turn would lease it to - get ready now - the same companies that would have won it at auction anyway. But they would also have directed tons of money to their supporters with the requisite kickbacks coming to them.
Guess who Pryor's friend is?? Alltel
»www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar···/allnews
Pryor was quoted as stating: “History will show that the way the FCC structured the auction basically helped the two big wireless companies {LOL - not Alltel}to the detriment of competition in this country.”
So what gives? Is Pryor industry’s champion or not? Perhaps it depends. While Pryor’s bill benefits all wireless carriers, including Little Rock, Ark.-based Alltel Corp.; ambitious 700 MHz bidding by AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless is not necessarily good for Alltel. Alltel, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has accounted for $31,800 (fourth largest) in campaign contributions to Pryor over the past five or so years. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: FCC critics can't be satisfied I don't understand either. It was recommended by public interest groups and others that the auction be structured so that bids were kept anonymous. That may be part of the reason the auction has made so much money.
There should be simple test for any congress critter that wants to talk about or do anything related to broadband:
- if they don't know what DSL stands for, STFU
- if they don't know that fiber uses light to xmit data, STFU
- if they don't use the internet regularly, STFU
- if they don't use a computer regularly, really STFU | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| The only alternative to an auction is to give the spectrum for free or nominal charge to those that they feel deserve it.
Which leads to pandering to special interests of a representatives state/region/campaign contributers.
That is not in the nations public interest. I don't see him having a plan that is superior than we currently have.
Pork barrel spectrum doesn't smell right ...
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
| | | Eek2121
Lovin Verizon FIOS
join:2002-10-12
Flanders, NJ
| Re: FCC critics can't be satisfied said by gaforces  :The only alternative to an auction is to give the spectrum for free or nominal charge to those that they feel deserve it. Which leads to pandering to special interests of a representatives state/region/campaign contributers. That is not in the nations public interest. I don't see him having a plan that is superior than we currently have. Pork barrel spectrum doesn't smell right ... The best alternative to the spectrum would be to lease it out. Place specific demands in the lease, for instance, a buildout requirement, etc. This would prevent companies such as verizon wireless and AT&T from leasing the spectrum and sitting on it. | |
| | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: FCC critics can't be satisfied The auction is for a lease, the licenses are for 10 years, and they do have buildout requirements.
I agree that they should have stricter requirements for it, like if the winning bidder fails to buildout 70% of their areas, they shouldn't be able to bid on the next auction.
The way it is now they could sit on the spectrum for 8 years before they would lose it.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
| | | 
hmmm
@verizon.net
| They could just make is public spectrum... ... but that would not let them sell the air waves which already belong to the public for $20,000,000,000.00
... Yeah, they sold the public commons, the publicly owned spectrum for 20 BILLION ...
... and nobody noticed ...
Real asstoot bunch here.
 | |
| mark2cool
join:2000-10-28
Newcomerstown, OH | Wow Its called "GREED" | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Don't agree I don't see how its structured to the benefit of ATT and Verizon... unless he means "highest bid wins". I think the open access requirements and anonymous bidding are great ideas, what is this guy's alternative suggestion? | |
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308
| The whole process is stupid and unfair They are paying those ludicrous amounts because it grants them protection from competition.
We shouldn't allow any private company to own our airwaves.
It should be handled like any finite natural resource.
It should be given to everyone to use at a better price.
If the government or private contractors built a wimax,cell network then you could expect much lower prices.
Maybe $10 dollars a month. Maybe less. | |
| | | |
|
