dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Verizon Pouts About Spectrum Auction Rules, Calls it a 'Subsidy'
by Karl Bode 04:16PM Thursday May 01 2014
AT&T recently threatened to take their ball and go home (read: not participate in the upcoming 600 MHz spectrum auction) if the government imposed rules trying to ensure that smaller competitors weren't blocked by larger carriers when it comes to grabbing valuable spectrum. After meeting with FCC officials AT&T appears to have changed their tune, now insisting that "our desire to participate in this auction and our hope for a successful auction is unchanged."

What happened? The FCC released a few more details on the spectrum auction process, making it clear that initially, nobody will be blocked from bidding on spectrum:
quote:
When the auction reaches a “trigger” point that the Commission will set in advance of the auction – largely based on meeting a price threshold – wireless providers with a dominant low-band position in a license area will be constrained from bidding on a few “reserved” spectrum blocks. The exact amount of “reserved” spectrum available will depend on how much spectrum non-dominant providers are actively bidding for at the trigger point, but in no instance will the reserve exceed 30 megahertz.
In short, the FCC's blocking off of spectrum is fairly minor, and it appears AT&T was pouting before fully understanding what the FCC had planned. Verizon, however, has no such reservations. Despite the company having so much spectrum they've had to offload much of it in recent months, the telco told the FCC in a statement that it's not fair to impose limits on spectrum ownership because that's akin to "subsidizing" them:
quote:
Verizon stressed that it would be perverse and unjust for the
Commission to adopt auction rules that subsidize some large multinational companies at the expense of their competitors. T-Mobile and Sprint are large corporations with established, well-financed corporate parents. They and their parent corporations are more than capable of paying substantial amounts to acquire spectrum in the incentive auction if they choose to do so.
That of course ignores that AT&T and Verizon not only already dominate existing spectrum reserves, but wireless retail, and the special access market as well. It also ignores Verizon Wireless and Verizon's long history of receiving subsidies for doing little to nothing, as we've seen in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Apparently Verizon meant to state that they're opposed to "subsidies" unless they're the ones getting the subsidizing?

view:
topics flat nest 

Zenit

join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
kudos:1

VZ

Once again, VZ continues to show its true nature.

It only likes subsidies when it gets the money, and then gets to keep it for the executives. Use it for what it was meant for? Ha!

Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

the sad truth is

most of those "small companies" don't do anything with the spectrum either. more often than not it's a block of investors who bid under false pretense, then later sell the "small company" for big money when someone with deep enough pockets needs that spectrum after all.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

The auction needs "use it or lose it" requirements for all spectrum sales

Again, if the FCC wasn't so spineless it would implement spectrum auction in a way that is truly beneficial to consumers. Any spectrum sales should be "use it or lose it" with a time clock that starts from sale completion. The reality that AT&T and Verizon hoard so much spectrum is further evidence how dysfunctional and broken the FCC is when it comes to fostering competition.
tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service

Re: The auction needs "use it or lose it" requirements for all spectrum sales

I agree with that idea, however the devil is in the details. From what I've read around these forums, in the past Sprint has been guilty of deploying lone Wimax cell sites for similar licensing reasons.

Too bad they can't all share infrastructure and share spectrum, get a system going like when you could suddenly get long distance from multiple phone companies. CLECs, ILECs and all that stuff. The partitioning of the spectrum today is like having multiple POTS lines going to each house to compete for service back in the day. Or multiple power companies running power lines to your house.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Verizon Wireless?

"It also ignores Verizon Wireless and Verizon's long history of receiving subsidies for doing little to nothing,"
Karl,
Pretty sure Verizon WIRELESS didn't have anything to do with the NJ and PA Regulatory failure
If you're going continue to spin out of control, might as well blame Chris Christie, Rob Ford, and Karl Marx for that because we KNOW at least 2 of them probably did something wrong.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

Re: Verizon Wireless?

I have done nothing wrong. Chris Christie is a partisan hack who used his political power to punish those who opposed him. Rob Ford.. well, Canadian.. enough said. Verizon the corporation CANNOT be separated from Verizon Wireless. Remember, corporations are 'people' too, so what happens to one, happens to the other.
--
The best way to defeat religion it to ignore it. Look at Ra/Thor/Zeus, they all thought they were forever.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Verizon Wireless?

I meant Karl Marx historical fiqure, not karlmarx See Profile hysterical conspiracy theorist And since Verizon wireless didn't even exist until 2000, they can hardly be responsible for unfulfilled agreements from the early/mid -90's.
Do you also blame Snowden for everything the NSA ever has or will do?
Should we also blame George Washington, Thomas Jefferson etc?


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

Re: Verizon Wireless?

It's not a conspiracy if it's true. I don't blame snowden, I blame the oligarchy that the US has become. Politicians no longer represent the people, and CORPORATIONS are to blame. It all started when 'corporations' were declared to be 'people'. If you tell me how we can put VERIZON in jail for breaking the law, THEN I will give the corporations the right to donate money, free speech. Guess what, those RIGHTS that you have, you CAN lose them if you commit a crime and go to jail. If a CORPORATION breaks the law, there is no 'jail', thus, they should have no RIGHTS to start with. A corporation should have the right ONLY to collect money and distribute money. Any CONTRACTS by a corporation should be signed by a REAL PERSON, who CAN go to prison if the need arises. Any laws broken by a corporation should have REAL PRISON possibilities for the officers of said corporation if they break the law. Corporations DO NOT EXIST to serve people, they EXIST solely to MAKE MONEY, NOT serve the public. Thus, they have ZERO moral compass, and should have VERY limited rights.
--
The best way to defeat religion it to ignore it. Look at Ra/Thor/Zeus, they all thought they were forever.

chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
Verizon wireless did exist before 2000 it was Bell Atlantic Mobile.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Verizon Wireless?

Some of it. my point if we are going to hold everyone responsible for anything anyone they ever had contact with did most of us (all if you are honest) are in deep trouble.
this isn't six degrees of separation, and such a vague link holds no legal, ethical or moral weight.
also I doubt BA wireless received tax breaks for wired system promises, but if you have PROOF, please proceed.
ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
Actually according to the gov't Verizon Wireless- aka Cellco Partnership, LLC/P is separate company from Verizon.

chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH

Re: Verizon Wireless?

We all know it's not though.

chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
I'm pretty sure he means the guy that made communism not you.

Mr Guy

@24.183.212.x

Irony of the haters

People wanted to keep at&t and Verizon from getting to much spectrum but if they had more spectrum they could actually be a competitor for cable internet which is what people constantly whine about. So quit whining about cable monopolies when you want to prevent competitors from existing in the first place. Sorry but if you want wireless to have caps of at least in same range as cable 250-300 GB or higher( instead of 2 GB -10 GB ) and have speeds in excess of 10 Mbps well someone is going to need 200 MHz just for download and no one has that nor will they at this rate.

why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..

1 recommendation

Re: Irony of the haters

said by Mr Guy :

People wanted to keep at&t and Verizon from getting to much spectrum but if they had more spectrum they could actually be a competitor for cable internet which is what people constantly whine about. So quit whining about cable monopolies when you want to prevent competitors from existing in the first place. Sorry but if you want wireless to have caps of at least in same range as cable 250-300 GB or higher( instead of 2 GB -10 GB ) and have speeds in excess of 10 Mbps well someone is going to need 200 MHz just for download and no one has that nor will they at this rate.

You really think that the 2GB cap is due to not having the bandwith. Okay then I have the golden gate bridge for sale and 50mbs/5mbs cable is the same as 1000/1000 fiber too, oh and T-Mobile customers using 300+GB on unlimited are only able to do that because there are only about 1/2 of the size and if they had the same number of customers they would have to go from 1TB to 2GB right?

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
You are so full of it. Category 8 LTE will increase capacity by a real factor of 10. TDD-LTE let's you use the same spectrum for both download and upload. Verizon right now is using 20 MHz on the downlink to cover the largest subscriber base in the US and they're only barely experiencing congestion.

They still have all their CDMA spectrum and AWS holdings to convert to LTE.

SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast

2 recommendations

Sprint is the biggest squatter

Sprint is squatting on over 100 mhz of 2.5 ghz spectrum across the country. They are only using it in a handful of cities with the goal of being in 100 markets in 3 YEARS! That's far too long to be sitting on the spectrum you already have. In my opinion Sprint should be the one that is barred from this auction and also barred from buying T Mobile.
bcltoys

join:2008-07-21
Lost today

2 edits

Re: Sprint is the biggest squatter

2.5ghz is good for about A half mile from the tower at best it would take thousands of more towers for it to make a difference.Maybe tens of thousands.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

Re: Sprint is the biggest squatter

Define squatting. Physics is not on their side @ 2.5. That will probably be deployed as fixed or super-near only. As a general usage spectrum, the chipsets and are not their yet and physics is physics.. Not all MHz are created equally.

I mean I can squat on a condo in Manhattan that is 1000 sq feet or a ranch in upstate NY of 40 acres. Guess which one is worth more. The 1000 sq feet or the 43,000 square feet. I may want to buy the 40 acre for $100k versus dropping $10m on the condo, with the intention of building a house on it in 3 years when I get the cash. But in the end of the day, you are out in the sticks or Manhattan. That still won't change the relative valuation. Frequency is LOCATION, bandwidth is ACREAGE.

Spectrum is real estate, period. The rich get Manhattan, and the plebs get the back 40.

SlowFITL

join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL

Re: Sprint is the biggest squatter

The 2.5 GHz frequency isn't as bad as it's made out to be. They need to deploy it using a high density model. They could use micro cells on telephone poles and offer a viable wire line replacement.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

1 edit

Re: Sprint is the biggest squatter

Yes 2.5 GHz is not good for long range. It is well suited for densely populated areas such as major cities. It is well suited for malls, sports arenas, parks, times square, etc. It can be used very well. I have Verizon Wireless and live on Long Island. My signal is weak at about -110 which is about 1.5 bars. 4G does come up but it eats the phone's battery like crazy, and stays connected even when on WIFI so you can get MMS messages from Verizon's private server. I wrote a Tasker application that shuts that off completely when connected to WIFI. No data, and the radio only connects for voice. There was no other way to deal with it. Verizon Wireless has a ticket opened for this problem, but since it is my problem, not theirs, they have done nothing to fix it. Smaller 2.5GHz cells placed strategically to allow the lower frequency towers to expand their circle and transmit more signal would be the solution, but I would die waiting to get that. Go to London and you will see micro cells everywhere. Actually I take that back. You will not see most of them, but they are there.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

So screwed up

The spectrum in this country is so screwed up, that the government needs to re-allocate everything, but of course that will never happen, as Verizon and AT&T would cry very, very loudly.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

Re: So screwed up

Solution! Classify any public network that charges for access a class 2 common carrier. This includes wired, fiber, wireless and anything else they can dream up. You charge, you are regulated. Then there can be no playing games as any specialized money grab they create would have to be applied for and would carry a tariff for the entity that creates it. In other words, play games and the tariff will kill you. That is what happened to the home phone. It can happen here too but the carriers fear it so much they'll never let it happen as once class 2, the last mile can be used by any of their competitors as well (think DISH FIOS, LoL). No one will be quick to create a tariffed service either as it could eliminate them by doing so.
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

Re: So screwed up

screw you vz and att you get together greedy bastards
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Huh? What does that have to do with the spectrum allocations?