On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:49:17 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I also have a a conspiracy theory: the FCC is trying to find a
>set of rules which increases the rewards for operators which
>actually deploy stuff in the spectrum rather than just for
>showing up for the auction.
The Reed Hundt version of the spectrum auctions was suppose to include
a "use it or lose it" clause. Instead, the FCC concentrated on the
payment aspects, and didn't really care if the spectrum sat idle. The
FCC was warned that it would take time to build a national wireless
network and is being extremely lax about reminding auction winners
that eventually, they'll have to do something. This is a rather
interesting contrast to commercial land mobile licenses and
construction permits, where licensees are expected to meet rather
rigid construction and deployment restrictions. I would be happy with
a consistent policy that works for all classes of license.
>Note that while Verizon share holders may have $0.45 per share
>less cash after the 700 MHz auction, they gained an appreciating
>asset of equivalent value: the spectrum licenses. Verizon
>currently values their spectrum licenses at $71 billion, a number
>which moves up with time even if Verizon doesn't make the
>capital investment to use the licenses.
True. However such assets are not used to balance expenditures since
they don't generate any direct, leasing, or interest revenue. From
the operating expenses point of view, the value of the spectrum is
"intangible". However, someone has to pay for the acquisition costs,
which usually means the customers.
>The capital gains from
>just owning the spectrum are more valuable than keeping the
>money in the bank. Exclusive-use spectrum is a fine investment
>whether you get around to using it (or even paying for it, just
>ask Nextwave) or not, God isn't making any more of it.
Nextwave was either brain damage at the Supreme Court level, or
brokered behind the scenes by lobbyists. The FCC will certainly not
repeat that mistake, nor allow any more auction contracts without
detailed failure to perform clauses.
Whether spectrum constitutes an entitlement is subject to debate. Just
ask the broadcasters, who for year supported the FCC quite handsomely,
and assumed this preferred status would last in perpetuity. That
didn't happen and broadcast allocations have been auctioned off to
higher bidders. I seriously expect the cellular providers to be stuck
with minimum performance deadlines and requirements or risk losing
their investments in the same manner as the broadcasters.
Incidentally, I know of a few satellite slots and allocations that are
not being used. Same with many land mobile licenses. It probably
won't be difficult finding the same in public safety. For them, the
license is not exactly an asset. It's simply too expensive to replace
at a later date. I still hear IMTS tones on the old VHF mobile phone
channels, but have never heard any traffic. The carriers are there
just as a place holder to occupy the frequency.
>If you can find a set of rules which reduces the profitability
>of being a spectrum landlord and increases the relative reward
>for actually using the spectrum, then you should get more use
>and less sitting on blocks of empty bandwidth.
That's logical but not exactly the way it works. Note that AT&T
bought 700Mhz spectrum from Vulcan Spectrum (Bill Gates and Paul
Allen). I don't think these two powerful people are going to support
an FCC that takes their abilities to speculate away.
>I guess 2.4 GHz
>is the extreme example. The spectrum itself costs nothing but
>still generates a lot of economic activity, and the guys who
>get rich from it are only those who facilitate its use, so
>the band is just chock full of stuff.
Sounds revisionist to me. What actually happened is that 2.4Ghz usage
grew so fast that the FCC didn't have a clue what to do about it. I've
seen some odd comments from the late 90's that sounded like they
wanted it to go away. There was some attempts at plugging the holes
(requirements for unique RF connectors, type certification by system,
not components), but many of those were later reversed when it was
hinted that it might kill the golden goose (like the FCC did with CB
in 1977). Learning the lesson, when the FCC finally decided to
release 50Mhz of semi-unlicensed 3.6Ghz spectrum, they a tangle of
strings attached to make sure this one didn't get away from them. I
suppose it would be ungracious to point out that services with the
LEAST amount of FCC oversight and regulation, tend to be the most
popular and successful for the users.
>> The term "Broadband" is badly defined and badly misused. For example,
>> cramming more users into public safety spectrum using narrowbanding
>> (12.5KHz and eventual 6.25KHz channel spacing) has somehow become part
>> of "broadbanding". I suggest we replace "broadband" with "spectrum
>> management reform".
>I don't know, but I thought the intention for the big block of
>700 MHz spectrum put aside for public safety was to build a
>nationwide CDMA2000 network, complete with PTT handsets and the like,
>for exclusive public safety use. 1.25 MHz channels are pretty
>broadband.
I have some opinions on the D block auction fiasco and why it failed.
The current national broadband plan for the future has little to do
with that. The D block auction was an attempt to convince the
cellular providers to build a 700Mhz with public safety as the primary
user and their commercial customers as secondary users. None of the
parties involved wanted this compromise. Cyren Call tried to work out
another compromise but couldn't get financing. In addition, the FCC
tried to nail down the details, and ended up micromanaging the
proposal including some price controls. Little wonder there were no
bids.
Reminder: The entire purpose of the Recovery Act was to create jobs
and prop up the economy. That seems to be getting lost in all the
proposals, comments, and technology discussions. How will handing
800Mhz of allocations create jobs or improve the economy?
>Dennis Ferguson
--
Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Re: NEWS: mobile telecommunications needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly 
That Web site's still looking state
Linear Mode
