4 ms·

No, they created a competitive open market for spectrum. Any company can bid in the auction, it doesn't have to be a telecom "monopoly". Private equity will b

No, they created a competitive open market for spectrum. Any company can bid in the auction, it doesn't have to be a telecom "monopoly". Private equity will be bidding, Google will be bidding. The unspoken truth about when spectrum auctions was handed out by the government is that crony-ism played a huge part, and led to inefficient allocation of spectrum. Another debate can be had about the just finished reverse auction - should the government pay these tv stations (think your local ABC station) money to buy back the spectrum they were given for free?

bnfjrjjfjhm 10y ago
The notion of granting permanent exclusive right of way to anyone is decidedly non-optimal. What was once the most efficient use for that spectrum may no longer be the case, but now you have to fight monopoly forces in order to achieve efficient use. If spectrum were an infinite resource, sure grant permanent ownership, but it's not infinite. One spectrum grant precludes someone else from having access to wireless spectrum. A much more efficient means would have been automated auctions for 12 month leases, combined with broadcasters having the capability to automatically switch to different channels as their spectrum portfolio changes.
- refurb 10y ago
  Ummm... it's not permanent ownership, it's a limited duration license.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  Sounds like you would like the 3.5 GHz "citizens band." https://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-354 https://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-354
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't create batches of new accounts to use only for a comment or two. This breaks the fundamentals of the community here: HN threads are for individuals engaging in conversation. Anonymity is fine, of course, but there needs to be some sort of identity for people to relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames at all, which would be an entirely different site. It's particularly bad to do this within a single conversation.
  - nkkjcfhb 10y ago
    >It's particularly bad to do this within a single conversation Ordinarily I would use the same account for at least a few threads, but you're not making this easy with all the new filters
pdabbadabba 10y ago
Google will not be bidding. http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-won-t-bid-fcc-s-600-mhz-incentive-auction http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-won-t-bid-fcc-... But this doesn't necessarily undermine your broader point about the competitiveness of the auction. There are 62 qualified bidders. Most will probably not compete meaningfully with the Verizons of the world, especially in large markets where prices may be very very high. But some may.

bnfjrjjfjhm 10y ago

The notion of granting permanent exclusive right of way to anyone is decidedly non-optimal. What was once the most efficient use for that spectrum may no longer be the case, but now you have to fight monopoly forces in order to achieve efficient use. If spectrum were an infinite resource, sure grant permanent ownership, but it's not infinite. One spectrum grant precludes someone else from having access to wireless spectrum. A much more efficient means would have been automated auctions for 12 month leases, combined with broadcasters having the capability to automatically switch to different channels as their spectrum portfolio changes.

refurb 10y ago
Ummm... it's not permanent ownership, it's a limited duration license.
pdabbadabba 10y ago
Sounds like you would like the 3.5 GHz "citizens band." https://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-354 https://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/12-354
dang 10y ago
Please don't create batches of new accounts to use only for a comment or two. This breaks the fundamentals of the community here: HN threads are for individuals engaging in conversation. Anonymity is fine, of course, but there needs to be some sort of identity for people to relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames at all, which would be an entirely different site. It's particularly bad to do this within a single conversation.
- nkkjcfhb 10y ago
  >It's particularly bad to do this within a single conversation Ordinarily I would use the same account for at least a few threads, but you're not making this easy with all the new filters

pdabbadabba 10y ago

Google will not be bidding. http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-won-t-bid-fcc-s-600-mhz-incentive-auction http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-won-t-bid-fcc-... But this doesn't necessarily undermine your broader point about the competitiveness of the auction. There are 62 qualified bidders. Most will probably not compete meaningfully with the Verizons of the world, especially in large markets where prices may be very very high. But some may.