On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:38:16 GMT, "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in
<sw8hj.83807$Um6.63036@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> :

>Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.

It's not taxed -- it's licensed. There's a big difference.

>That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.

And that's the point.

In the future, please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in
mid-thread -- it makes the thread confusing and hard to follow. Thanks.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:24:21 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A1FD0109695Dnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>news:np48o35ke3p14ritsq3jv4pbha4uo8p17f@4ax.com :
>>>
>>>> bidders were required to fork over an
>>>> "upfront payment" prior to the actual auction, and you have to wonder
>>>> if Frontline was able to pay up.
>>
>>>This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from
>>>bidding....same
>>>as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money
>>>for
>>>political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>>
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>