how-to block ads
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: rigged? said by axus  :I can't see how you can call an auction rigged, unless you weren't allowed to bid at all. Whoever is willing to pay the most money wins, I don't think it can be more fair than that. Taxpayers get the money, and the people who paid for the license will build something there. Google didn't have enough money to pull this off, that's too bad. I think they could have grown the market more than Verizon will, but it's up to their shareholders and board to decide that. Whomever has the most money wins is not fair. By the rules of this auction it is, but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole.
We will get a new technology in 10 years time from Verizon and AT&T, which will have usage caps, be locked to the original provider, have draconian contracts with ridiculous early termination fees, and be prohibitively expensive. In other words, nothing will change. | |
|  RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: rigged? said by Matt :but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. Please explain how this is "decidedly unfair". Every single one of these is for "public spectrum", and they are mandated by Congress. Did you read the auction documentation or are you just upset that Google played you?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: rigged? said by RadioDoc :said by Matt :but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. Please explain how this is "decidedly unfair". Every single one of these is for "public spectrum", and they are mandated by Congress. Did you read the auction documentation or are you just upset that Google played you? I could care less that about the whole Google fiasco. I'm upset that the system caters to the incumbents who have the most money. It doesn't allow for an upstart to win any valuable spectrum ... so the system is unfairly biased toward whomever has the deepest pockets. IN this case, Verizon and AT&T. Yet again. | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: rigged? You probably don't understand bidding credits and bid multipliers.
Any startup wanting to get in on this could have.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: rigged? The spectrum Echostar/Dish won is for one-way transmission.... | |
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| There's a big issue for any startup- they can't use this spectrum at all until next year, but they'd have to pay for it right now- a down payment within ten days, and the full balance within twenty... Honestly, that part of the auction seems the most biased against startup wireless companies to me. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: rigged? AT&T dropped a cool billion in down payment today... | |
| | | hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | silly. They won't give it to some a financially weak upstart company because that company does not have the financial resources to build a network. All some upstart would do is sell the frequencies to another company at an inflated price. | |
| | | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Matt :said by axus :I can't see how you can call an auction rigged, unless you weren't allowed to bid at all. Whoever is willing to pay the most money wins, I don't think it can be more fair than that. Taxpayers get the money, and the people who paid for the license will build something there. Google didn't have enough money to pull this off, that's too bad. I think they could have grown the market more than Verizon will, but it's up to their shareholders and board to decide that. Whomever has the most money wins is not fair. By the rules of this auction it is, but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. We will get a new technology in 10 years time from Verizon and AT&T, which will have usage caps, be locked to the original provider, have draconian contracts with ridiculous early termination fees, and be prohibitively expensive. In other words, nothing will change. I think "most money wins" is more fair than subjective feelings about how "good" or "bad" a company is. If you have subjective measurements like that, the potential for corruption goes up. You do know that Martin has a soft spot for telcos, right?
If the FCC had put a value on certain promises, say "promises not to restrict the devices are worth 2 billion", we'd be in the same situation we are now, with 2 billion less. | |
| | | |
|
·
·
·