russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to MichaelWacey
Re: As Predicted...
Yes, these auctions contain build-out provisions. I do not know the wording; I do know that it is based on covering a certain percentage of the population with service. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Fisamo
And how long has Sprint 'shelved' its spectrum for WiMAX ? Its been years. With Sprints stock in the toilet, they may actually have to sell of Xohm.
I don't expect much different from AT&T.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to factchecker
In most auctions of public assets, there is a requirement to make good economic use of the asset for the public good in a specified time. If the winner does not, they loose both the asset and the money they payed for it. Land auctions typically work this way.
Does anyone know if this auction has such a provision? If it does, do they define 'economic use' and 'public good'? |
|
Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
 ·VOIPo
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
Considering in the past, bidders have placed bids just for the purpose of locking out competition by denying them valuable spectrum, it is a distinct possibility.
There is absolutely no guarantee that anything will be done with the spectrum.
Agreed. There is no guarantee that they will do anything with these licenses. But they will be sorely pressed to use, instead of shelve, the assets forthe following reasons (among others) :
•Consumer demand for advanced services
•Shareholder demand for ROI (which won't come from simply locking out competitors by 'shelving' such a license
•Consumer demand for "more bars in more places", which should be possible at this frequency
Rhetorical question: If not the incumbents, who has the cash to compete with them on the license purchase, besides Google and Microsoft? WHY would Google or Microsoft compete against the incumbents if the asset isn't at the core of their business model?
Those of us on the sidelines can probably think of numerous reasons Google should have bid to win, but the only discussions that count are those that occur in Google's boardroom, and the 'nays' clearly prevailed. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to jester121
said by jester121  :You're right, but those weren't multi-billion dollar, geographically diverse, very useful frequencies that everyone has been salivating over. Different animal entirely here. I'll grant you that point. The fact that this spectrum is so sought after makes it far less likely that they will sit on it and do nothing, but past behavior by some of these companies certainly does weigh in on people's opinion of who won. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to factchecker
You're right, but those weren't multi-billion dollar, geographically diverse, very useful frequencies that everyone has been salivating over. Different animal entirely here. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :said by KrK :No surprise here, and nothing gained for US consumers. Ridiculous statement. Do you think they're going to sit in a dark cave admiring their spectrum? "My precioussss" Considering in the past, bidders have placed bids just for the purpose of locking out competition by denying them valuable spectrum, it is a distinct possibility.
There is absolutely no guarantee that anything will be done with the spectrum. |
|
