John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:57:29 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in <fm1up9$i3e$1@reader2.panix.com>:
>
>> In <1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> 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.

>> or... to prevent a repeat of the debacle with NextWave,
>> which bid oodles of money last time around, didn't pay up,
>> and somehow got the US Supreme Court to rule that they
>> still "owned" the unpaid for frequencies.
>
> That's my 2nd point.

I don't think it was entirely valid. What *would* validate it is if the
bidders had to produce proof of the ability to pay, before their bid was
accepted. On the one hand, an upfront payment deters smaller firms from
entering the fray; on the other hand it allows more reckless firms a
foot in the door to a smaller marketplace.