« Avast, Me Hearties! Here Be Rational Profit Maximizers! | Main | Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200. »

June 14, 2007


Maybe this is a way that content providers are taking a swipe at the current service providers who were trying to charge them for carrying their content (if I recall a previous post correctly).

Does Verizon have so much more capitalization than Google, or are there some intricacies to the bidding process that mean that Google would likely lose?

A single dominant national block would give the winner a near monopoly over new, enhanced national services. If few can bid on it, it would likely be licensed at low value despite being potentially the most profitable property on the beach. That seems to make no sense for taxpayers, and to be an irrational way to allocate spectrum.

It would seem logical, I suppose, to an administration that prides itself on putting extraction industry lobbyists in charge of regulatory agencies overseeing their "former" industries. It would also help explain why so many telecomms companies have been willingly to supply their customers' data to Mr. Bush's domestic spying program(s) without a peep. Kinda redefines the notion of "fee for service". I wonder how that's disclosed in the fine print?

I think it's a really bad idea to bust up the spectrum into extremely narrow blocks. I don't think there's a well-defined threshold between big enough and too small, but I think it's pretty clear (speaking qualitatively, here) that you don't want to portion spectrum out in 1 Hz increments (MUCH too small), nor do you want to portion spectrum out in chunks whose width is 20% of centerband (too wide). The subdivision being discussed here is 0.3% of centerband, which I think might be on the small side.

If one assumes that the spectrum will be used for CDMA cellphone communications modeled on CDMA2000, then the LSB of spectrum should be roughly 1.25 MHz, but I'm not sure that's a good assumption. That chunk of spectrum is only enough to support 40+ simultaneous conversations; it might not be cost-effective for anyone to support a single chunk of spectrum that small.

The money the auction generates and who gets the spectrum isn't really that important in the long run. What's important is what the spectrum is used for and how. It we want to put forth a true wireless broadband option, then we have to grant a very big chunk, or it simply won't work. If we don't want that, then it doesn't matter, because normal voice operations don't require that much space.

I wouldn't assume that a "bunch of internet companies" have no chance of outbidding Verizon if that's their goal, the money isn't going to be an issue.

Personnally I'm in favor of Frontline Wireless's plan. Highest bidder on 10 MHz gets an additional 12 MHz free out of the 24 currently allocated for public safety. The network is built out using public safety standards (which are more rigourous) and network access is offered to governments at cost, however much they need in emergencies, and the rest is sold wholesale. Makes tons of sense to me to seperate the network opperator from service providers.

You've officially "jumped the wonk" p-diddy.

We like it when people jump the wonk ;)

Oh, I meant that as an unvarnished compliment!

I aspire to, myself, one day mount some particular mortocycle of wonkery and leap over the benighted masses of sharks beneath.

Alas, all I have is this rusty old bicycle.

I think you mean water skis, Eric.

Oh sweet jesus, I'm doomed.

uninformed, pop psychology will always be my first love.

uninformed, pop psychology will always be my first love.

And we liked you for that...

This is good as far as it goes, but the picture is much more complex. In particular, I disagree with your charcterization that those supporting large license blocks are either Bellheads or their "useful fools."

My rather lengthy discussion at: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/825

The comments to this entry are closed.