 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction
»www.infoworld.com/article/07/07/···n_1.html
Save Our Spectrum Coalition: The coalition has also asked the FCC to require anonymous bidding, instead of its past practice of revealing bidders. Anonymous bidding would prevent auction participants from engaging in retaliatory bidder, the coalition argued. This is the only thing I agree with being proposed by the special interest public advocacy groups. Anonymous bidding does prevent a single or multiple large bidders from rigging the auction and it also will return the largest amount for the Treasury. And it is also the fairest way to give everyone a chance to get a piece of the action. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|
 |  | | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction How about 'no' auction.
Create a national muni network using these freq.
No auction = low low cost. | |
|
 |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction said by Eric Martin:How about 'no' auction. Create a national muni network using these freq. No auction = low low cost. With the government building & running it? No thanks. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction said by ThrowDemsOut:With the government building & running it? No thanks. with the current status of broadband as controlled by the incumbents (high prices, slow speeds, lack of innovation), I hardly see how the government could do a worse job.
of course, I certainly wouldn't want it to be the government we have right now - they couldn't even run a Quickie Mart without ruining it (can you say "new orleans"?).
Delay the auction until we get a democratic president. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction ROTFL... yeah, since the Democrats did such a great job running New Orleans all these years.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction Non sequitur, much? As I recall, the mayor of a city doesn't have the authority to give orders to FEMA, or to reinstate the levee repair funds that were cut from the federal budget a year before Katrina. | |
|
 |  |  |  RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium join:2002-04-02 Redwood Valley, CA kudos:1 | said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Eric Martin:How about 'no' auction. Create a national muni network using these freq. No auction = low low cost. With the government building & running it? No thanks. I'd rather have that than companies who could care less about anything but profit doing it  -- »www.gorail.org See MAJOR freight&passenger action@ the Galesburg, IL RailCam! »205.245.189.161:1100/ My soon to be employer,as an Asst.Conductor- »www.amtrak.com »www.modocrailroadacademy.com -Grad,Class of 2-07,woohoo! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction One argument in favor of it would be that it could basically be run on the money saved by efficiency increases. Think of replacing all government telephone lines with VoIP, all cell phones, Blackberries, etc.. They run similar systems in some cities and rural areas: the service is paid for by public safety uses, and government access, and left open for civilian use at no charge. | |
|
 |  |  Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | No, any more muni network talk is irrelevant, it does not work, it's not profitable, and ran by government?
Please, I can't even trust them to keep my social security number safe. -- Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. | |
|
 |  |  |  Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction It doesn't work because why? The wifi projects are failing, (thought still in their early infancy) but the muni networks have been doing just fine.
The government has been successful at things in the past. If they were to just offer the network and have private enterprise offering the service over it, that would be ideal. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | Re: Anonymous bidding is the fairest way to auction Coverage, penetration, interference.
I am also referring to Muni-WiFi, not Muni-land based networks. Either way this thread is about wireless spectrum, so it's safe to assume that we are referring to Muni-WiFi and not DSL/Fiber/Cable based operations. -- Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. | |
|
 1 edit | Combo Cell/Wimax mesh network communications 1.Create cellphone type network which utilizes Wimax & Municell & wifi broadband would be good. Needs to be lowcost. Might be better than cell because there might be more powerful.
The towers are the main problem. Muni towers?
 | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  | | Re: 2 ideas.
I'm dying to whip out the credit card and plop down for a couple dozen Meraki mesh units. The temptation has been killing me for a while now; I'd love to experiment with an apartment community and branch out from there...
- Tate
-- Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| it's not "should do" but "will do" Since it's not in anyone's power on this forum to do anything about what "should" be done, the question is "what WILL" the FCC do?
At this point, I hold out absolutely no hope the FCC will do anything that benefits consumers. Unless they affirmatively and actively control the auction to PREVENT the incumbents from scooping up valuable spectrum, consumers will once again be screwed.
I am being pessimistic and cynical, but based on the FCC actions over the past several years, I would say my feelings are well founded. | |
|
 |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC | Re: it's not "should do" but "will do" Oh yeah, the big cell phone carriers will wind up with it for sure. It's not even worth discussing. | |
|
 ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA 1 edit | Auction it to the smaller players on a regional basis More competition is a good thing. | |
|
 |  kcir join:2005-07-30 Butner, NC | Re: Auction it to the smaller players on a regional basis Winner(s) go to who submits the best plan to bring fiber to all locations or providing 10M/1M at least in the next 10 years to EXISTING locations where it's not offered. After 15 years the public will vote if the plan was met and if not the spectrum goes back up for auction. | |
|
 |  |  ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA | Re: Auction it to the smaller players on a regional basis This is wireless spectrum. And even with the promises of deploying fiber in exchange for getting the wireless spectrum, we saw from the Pennsylvania Verizon fiber promise for which they got billions is taxpayer dollars that plans and promises by these operators don't mean anything. Verizon simply kept the money and didn't deploy anything. -- Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire | |
|
 plkLil' Duffer Burger BarnPremium join:2002-04-20 Ogden, IA | Follow the money I think we all know how this will play out. The Big Bells with cellular will snag it all up. I would imagine as a partnership since one Bell doesn't own the whole country.
Or for a better sweetheart deal for the Bells via the FCC, they will divide the regions on the same line the carriers own.
One has to wonder if it will come with deployment mandates. If it does, I am sure the Bells will make sure it doesn't require rural deployment or they can sell the rural low profit areas down the road. Thus, leaving rural areas in the same boat.
One has to wonder where Qwest will be in the game. Will they end up big losers since they don't own cellular and have no existing wireless towers etc, will they not play? If they choose not to...will they end up seeing AT&T deploying wireless in their area? Or will the FCC write in some kind of protection against this?
One would wish in one hand.... that this spectrum comes with some kind of use it or loose it mandate so these companies can't just sit on it for 5 years.
Selling it as a whole package for the entire country has its advantages, one technology and universal coverage (in the big cities) However this will slow deployment and be least effective for rural areas.
On the other hand, dividing it up will lead to many technologies and make seamless coverage difficult.
Dividing it up by State and rural vs city has it's own problems. However, it would lover the cost for rural only players.
This is going to be interesting.
Thoughts? -- Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 | |
|
 Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | These auctions are a JOKE! These auctions bring in very little $$ to the govt.-and result in the strip mining of yet another natural resource.
I have a great idea for the govt.- WHY NOT TRY SPENDING LESS???!!!
Let's start with with the big federal subsidies and tax cuts given the farm and oil industries. You know the ones gouging us at the supermarket and the pump?
Next, let's eliminate the "pork barrel".
Finally, let's pull out of IRAQ-that's costing us over a million dollars a minute I understand.
The total value of all the auctions so far (combined!) is a little over 2 billion dollars, yet the federal deficit is approaching 600 BILLION DOLLARS for just this year alone.
These auctions are window dressing. They are a joke! | |
|
 | | More public access frequencies are needed. What we also need are more public access frequencies. Channels of different types, data, mobile, whatever. There needs to be more bands of unlicensed space for the regular person to be able to use.
The government is selling or giving away frequencies mostly to commercial or "private entities." Where is the average citizen in all this? If this is a natural resource, why aren't we allowed more allotments? | |
|
 |
|