NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/08/frontline_wireless_shuts_shop/>

Only Google can save the airwaves

Frontline Wireless, the uber-startup that was poised to lay down a
bid for a prime portion of the US wireless spectrum, now says it's
"closed for business".

...

The news will come as a shock to anyone who's followed the brouhaha
over the so-called 700-MHz spectrum, a slice of wireless bandwidth
due to be auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) later this month.

Little more than a month ago, when Frontline officially joined the
list of bidders for the spectrum, the company told us it was "bidding
to win". But on January 4, 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.

Backed by a former FCC chairman and another Washington insider who
once led the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) under President George H.W. Bush, Frontline was
one of the main reasons - along with Google - that the FCC attached
an "open access" requirement to the 700-MHz auctions.

...

With Frontline out of the running, hope for a truly open network now
lies with Google. And putting all our eggs in Google's basket makes
us feel a little, well, uneasy.

[MORE]

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

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.

Larry
--
As the price of Monopoly money rises, at some point it will equal
Federal Reserve Private Bank fake banknotes in value!

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>

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.


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com:

> 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.
>
>

So:
Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's. They don't auction off Yellowstone National
Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.
This bullshit of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
everything we have to the international bankers.

Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
since the first radio station came on the air.

Larry
--
As the price of Monopoly money rises, at some point it will equal
Federal Reserve Private Bank fake banknotes in value!

Larry wrote:
> So:
> Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
> airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's. They don't auction off Yellowstone National
> Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.
> This bullshit of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
> government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
> all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
> wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
> for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
> everything we have to the international bankers.
>
> Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
> consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
> since the first radio station came on the air.
>
> Larry


Y'all don't understand. It's the Dumbyican "free market" way...

You lost me at "Illuminati".

----


~ John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
~ news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com:
~
~ > 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.
~ >
~ >
~
~ So:
~ Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
~ airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's. They don't auction off Yellowstone National
~ Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.
~ This bullshit of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
~ government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
~ all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
~ wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
~ for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
~ everything we have to the international bankers.
~
~ Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
~ consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
~ since the first radio station came on the air.
~
~ Larry

Aaron Leonard <Aaron@Cisco.COM> wrote in
news:isp9o39apgh7icm0d2e9obl2ie6gacqcf9@4ax.com:

> You lost me at "Illuminati".
>
> -

You need to come out from under that rock more often.



Larry
--
As the price of Monopoly money rises, at some point it will equal
Federal Reserve Private Bank fake banknotes in value!

John Navas wrote:
> 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.

Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....

> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.

Thats the spin, certainly. The reality is that the upfront cash rule
sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
less as there's less competition.


--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

Mark McIntyre wrote:

> The reality is that the upfront cash rule
> sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
> less as there's less competition.
>

While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.

Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.

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


"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.co m:
>>
>>> 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>

Cubit wrote:
> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>
> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>
>
Why not a lottery?

Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
resources.

The same could be done here. Prospective operators would need to meet
qualifications to enter a lottery run by a disinterested third party.

The winner would not be required to "buy" the spectrum which is really
just a disguised pre-paid tax on its future users but only a nominal
application fee to cover the cost of the lottery.

George wrote:
> Cubit wrote:
>> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>>
>> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>>
>>
> Why not a lottery?
>
> Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
> apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
> projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
> bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
> resources.

Problem there is - someone has to decide who is "responsible". In the
absence of an open process, it would degenerate to politics. Some
political appointee with no public presence would pick the shortlist.
This is how it works in construction...

At 09 Jan 2008 07:43:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >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.


How so? One could easily argue that money taints the process. Suppose, for
example, a future cash-strapped administration decides the x# of billions
another cellular band would bring in trumps it's current "profitless" use by,

say, the military?

Secondly, the auction payment is a barrier to actually deploying a service,
since a company's resources are squandered by buying the spectrum before
the first dollar is spent on actual infrastructure. This also drives up
the cost of providing service, which utimately costs the very consumers
who, as Larry points out, actually own the spectrum in the first place.)

This can also stifle competition- it's in the best interests of, for example,

AT&T and Verizon, to buy the spectrum to lock out additional future
competitors like Google, Comcast or Echostar from upsetting their current
practical duopoly. A more consumer-friendly FCC might enforce tighter
spectrum limits to foster competition (I still can't believe they allow one
company to control both 800-band cellular licenses in some areas!)


> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.


True- as long as you're having an auction, there's nothing wrong with
requiring a "deposit" to sit at the table. ;-)

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.

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

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.
>

A token down payment doesn't guarantee satisfaction of a higher bid.

In <yY2dncyUy7w_thjanZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> News <News@Group.name> writes:
>>>>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.

>A token down payment doesn't guarantee satisfaction of a higher bid.

It's the difference between a "no down payment mortgage"
versus a 20 percenter. It's far from a perfect determinant,
and has plenty of its own issues, but it's a realistic
first step screen.

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:09:23 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A205E2A112A8noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:1ku8o313cslnqlsuglctsi1aphcsvs700u@4ax.com :
>
>> 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.

>So:
>Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
>airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's.

Commercial licenses should be free? That makes no sense.
Government sets arbitrary prices? That makes no sense either.
Auctions make sense because they are the most efficient way to set the
price and to ensure the highest value use of the spectrum.
The public gets free use of (overused) unlicensed and (underused)
amateur bands.

>They don't auction off Yellowstone National
>Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.

In fact they do solicit bids for commercial use, as in the case of
concession operators.

>This bullshit of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
>government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
>all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
>wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
>for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
>everything we have to the international bankers.

On the contrary: Past government regulation resulted in high prices and
a glacial pace of innovation. Deregulation has resulted in lower prices
and rapid innovation. The auctioning of spectrum is an essential part
of getting government out of the way and ensuring the highest value use
of the spectrum.

>Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
>consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
>since the first radio station came on the air.

On the contrary: Licensed use _is_ regulated, and to argue the
regulation is not to your liking is to undercut your own advocacy for
government control.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:30:18 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A20766A2BFE7noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>Aaron Leonard <Aaron@Cisco.COM> wrote in
>news:isp9o39apgh7icm0d2e9obl2ie6gacqcf9@4ax.com :
>
>> You lost me at "Illuminati".

>You need to come out from under that rock more often.

That we don't have government of real "illuminati" is precisely the
reason for getting government out of the way as much as possible.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:15:48 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<13oa3qjhub4cl06@corp.supernews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>
>Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
>is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
>in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....

The spectrum is reserved for future 3G use, which makes sense. What
doesn't make sense is to consume all available spectrum immediately. If
sufficient 3G use doesn't materialize in time, then the spectrum can be
reallocated.

>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>
>Thats the spin, certainly. The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>less as there's less competition.

If you can't pay, then you shouldn't have any right to play, the
NextWave debacle being an excellent case in point.

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

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>> The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>> sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>> less as there's less competition.

>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.

In fact it does conform to free market economics.

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

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>

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:22:10 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <dsqdnT36fYx_gxjanZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>Cubit wrote:
>> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>>
>> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>>
>Why not a lottery?

Because it would fail to ensure the highest value use of a limited
resource. You could easily have some idiot win that wanted to run
wide-band morse code.

>Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
>apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
>projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
>bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
>resources.

You must not have much experience in construction -- that kind of
government involvement is rife with abuse, waste, and outright fraud.
No thanks.

>The winner would not be required to "buy" the spectrum which is really
>just a disguised pre-paid tax on its future users but only a nominal
>application fee to cover the cost of the lottery.

A one-time license fee is not a tax.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>
>
>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>less as there's less competition.
>
>
>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>
>
> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>


No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
later form teams.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>> <x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>
>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>
>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>
>> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>
>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>later form teams.

Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
all the time.

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

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>
> Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
> is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
> in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....

That's not right. Not only do at least 4 of the 5 wireless operators
in the UK now provide 3G services (and one of those operators, Three, only
has 3G spectrum) but data service seems downright reasonably priced compared
to the US, let alone compared to the price of anything else in the UK. One
of the UK prepaid SIMs I have gets 3.6 Mbps HSDPA service with charges
capped at $2 per day, with the other you can buy a week of HSDPA for $5;
I've used both of these with my laptop. You can't get 3G service on a
prepaid account in the US at any price, and even the postpaid contract
service you can buy in the US if you commit to pay for it for a year or
two isn't any cheaper than that.

It is the case that the UK operators were thought to have overpaid for
the spectrum, but they seem to be over that now and these days are
competing on price.

Dennis Ferguson

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>
>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>
>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>
>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>later form teams.
>
>
> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
> all the time.
>


Note use of the word "later".

Timing is part of the game.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
<4KGdnYw9lsjxpRjanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>> <kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>>
>>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>>
>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>
>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>later form teams.
>>
>> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>> all the time.
>
>Note use of the word "later".
>
>Timing is part of the game.

Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
> <4KGdnYw9lsjxpRjanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>><kKKdnYkgyfSBrhjanZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@speakeasy.net >:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <News@Group.name> wrote in
>>>>><x4GdnR-78p_siRjanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>>
>>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>>later form teams.
>>>
>>>Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>>>all the time.
>>
>>Note use of the word "later".
>>
>>Timing is part of the game.
>
>
> Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.
>


Nonsense yourself, for poo-poo'ing a major bidding process flaw.

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.