5 ms·

So, basically, this was a complete and total bust: In June, the FCC said sellers had initially sought $86.4 billion for 126 megahertz of television airwav

So, basically, this was a complete and total bust: In June, the FCC said sellers had initially sought $86.4 billion for 126 megahertz of television airwaves taken from broadcasters to be sold for wireless use. Many analysts had expected broadcasters to earn substantially more in the auction, with some forecasting in 2016 $30 billion in proceeds. This is the spectrum that would have been used for the "tv whitespace" wireless (except now you could do it amazingly better with clear spectrum) I guess the analysts don't realize that a lot of these guys don't need tons more spectrum, they just want to prevent others from using it. Don't worry though, our FCC chief is on it: "FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the closing of bidding is a "major milestone," adding the spectrum will boost wireless service." No idea how, since even with the fcc rules around use, they'll do pretty much nothing. Hey, you know what also would have boosted it? Having the people who actually gave a crap, and were trying to make wireless available to everyone by using this, do it. Or worse, we'll see wonderful devices that only work with specific carriers. To be fair though, congress literally forced them to auction it after massive lobbying from telcos and isps. I'm sure though, that those same congressman will not remember to ask why the hell the auction did so badly if they needed the spectrum so much. This spectrum all would have been better off in the hands of people trying to actually boost our economy, and it would have been worth a lot more in 20b to help free people from the iron grip of broadband non-competition.

tptacek 10y ago
I believe you in this specific case, but how do you devise a rule for this that works in the general case, or a rule that determines when we should switch to the "let Google or companies it blesses" special case from that general case?
mjw1007 10y ago
It would be more interesting if the article had reported the median analyst forecast. Given that it doesn't go as far as to say "most analysts had expected substantially more", it seems plausible that this the result is in fact in line with expectations.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Given that it doesn't go as far as to say "most analysts had expected substantially more", it seems plausible that this the result is in fact in line with expectations. " I'm a bit lazy ATM, but when this boondoggle was sold to congress, the median forecast was done and was much higher. The broadcasters also were forecasting, as part of their earnings, much higher numbers.
rayiner 10y ago
It would be really visionary to take a big chunk of spectrum like this and set it aside as a next gen unlicensed band: http://www.comlab.hut.fi/studies/4210/papers/8_2.pdf http://www.comlab.hut.fi/studies/4210/papers/8_2.pdf.
leereeves 10y ago
> Having the people who actually gave a crap, and were trying to make wireless available to everyone by using this, do it. Who are these people, who might "help free people from the iron grip of broadband non-competition"?
- kogepathic 10y ago
  > Who are these people, who might "help free people from the iron grip of broadband non-competition"? Ideally, the FCC. By licensing the spectrum to smaller providers with guarantees for service (e.g. we connect X customers in Y years or forfeit the license) and at very affordable rates (or free). Except the new management at the FCC doesn't seem to be at all concerned with making things better for the average citizen...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    That's the opposite of what should happen. One of the reasons we're stuck with broadcasters parked on beachfront spectrum was that back in the 1930s spectrum was licensed based on what would serve the "public interest" (in some bureaucrat's judgment). Back then, TV was revolutionary something something education. Spectrum auctions were a good model when the FCC started doing them. Today we have the technology for devices to mediate spectrum use among themselves (maybe following very high level regulatory guidelines). To use an analogy: you don't "allocate road" to cars. You let drivers figure it out themselves against a background of rules for dealing with conflicts (e.g. Right of way).
- DannyBee 10y ago
  The whitespaces project the FCC was involved in doing, for example, was open, and involved a very large number of non-telcos who wanted to produce devices, and in fact, produced working prototypes. It was open. Anyone could do it as long as they could produce a device that met specs. I get your sarcasm in that you clearly seem to think that everyone just wants to lock everyone else in differently, but at least, the other envisioned use for this spectrum was, in fact, similar to WiFi today. Unlicensed use by spec compliant devices. I don't think you can reasonably argue that 2.4ghz/5ghz wifi would have been better off being auctioned off. In fact, wifi would be even better had it had more spectrum to work with.
wtf_is_up 10y ago
I love how you managed to shoehorn a dig at Ajit in there. Very creative, 8/10.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Uh, he's the one claiming success out of failure? Even his fellow republican commissioners all but called it the same.
IBM 10y ago
I don't understand, if it would be worth a lot more than $20 billion to someone why aren't they bidding for it? I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to sink $20 billion to "prevent others from using it".
- joecool1029 10y ago
  The major players already have enough low-band spectrum. Capacity issues will be solved by densification and securing mid-band spectrum for 4G and high-band spectrum for 5G deploys. The smaller players were the ones primarily interested in this auction, allowing them to roll more coverage to rural areas with less towers. Most of the spectrum has some build-out requirement, so no.. it wouldn't make much sense for a company to sink $20billion into it to prevent others from using it. There's other ways to screw over owners of spectrum. Follow the history of the 700A spectrum in the US. AT&T owned most of the lower 700mhz licenses (B and C but not A: that was T-Mobile and other rural carriers). Someone got someone to issue a report saying 700A might interfere with channel 51 television broadcasters. AT&T and the vendors created a subset band called band 17 that was wholly incompatible. This essentially screwed over the other carriers and caused a multi-year delay in band 12 deployment in the US. Article on it: http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/will-fcc-require-all-700-mhz-lte-equipment-to-interoperate http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/will-fcc-requir... FCC report on the topic: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021920804.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021920804.pdf
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 10y ago
Fun fact: TV whitespace is where the wireless microphones used in most live events operate. Very large, big-budget sound companies and venues can get licenses, run extremely expensive digital gear that manages to be reliable while making efficient use of bandwidth, and refresh their inventory every few years. They'll be fine. Your average high school or nonprofit theater will not.

tptacek 10y ago

I believe you in this specific case, but how do you devise a rule for this that works in the general case, or a rule that determines when we should switch to the "let Google or companies it blesses" special case from that general case?

mjw1007 10y ago

It would be more interesting if the article had reported the median analyst forecast. Given that it doesn't go as far as to say "most analysts had expected substantially more", it seems plausible that this the result is in fact in line with expectations.

DannyBee 10y ago
"Given that it doesn't go as far as to say "most analysts had expected substantially more", it seems plausible that this the result is in fact in line with expectations. " I'm a bit lazy ATM, but when this boondoggle was sold to congress, the median forecast was done and was much higher. The broadcasters also were forecasting, as part of their earnings, much higher numbers.

rayiner 10y ago

It would be really visionary to take a big chunk of spectrum like this and set it aside as a next gen unlicensed band: http://www.comlab.hut.fi/studies/4210/papers/8_2.pdf http://www.comlab.hut.fi/studies/4210/papers/8_2.pdf.

leereeves 10y ago

> Having the people who actually gave a crap, and were trying to make wireless available to everyone by using this, do it. Who are these people, who might "help free people from the iron grip of broadband non-competition"?

kogepathic 10y ago
> Who are these people, who might "help free people from the iron grip of broadband non-competition"? Ideally, the FCC. By licensing the spectrum to smaller providers with guarantees for service (e.g. we connect X customers in Y years or forfeit the license) and at very affordable rates (or free). Except the new management at the FCC doesn't seem to be at all concerned with making things better for the average citizen...
- rayiner 10y ago
  That's the opposite of what should happen. One of the reasons we're stuck with broadcasters parked on beachfront spectrum was that back in the 1930s spectrum was licensed based on what would serve the "public interest" (in some bureaucrat's judgment). Back then, TV was revolutionary something something education. Spectrum auctions were a good model when the FCC started doing them. Today we have the technology for devices to mediate spectrum use among themselves (maybe following very high level regulatory guidelines). To use an analogy: you don't "allocate road" to cars. You let drivers figure it out themselves against a background of rules for dealing with conflicts (e.g. Right of way).
DannyBee 10y ago
The whitespaces project the FCC was involved in doing, for example, was open, and involved a very large number of non-telcos who wanted to produce devices, and in fact, produced working prototypes. It was open. Anyone could do it as long as they could produce a device that met specs. I get your sarcasm in that you clearly seem to think that everyone just wants to lock everyone else in differently, but at least, the other envisioned use for this spectrum was, in fact, similar to WiFi today. Unlicensed use by spec compliant devices. I don't think you can reasonably argue that 2.4ghz/5ghz wifi would have been better off being auctioned off. In fact, wifi would be even better had it had more spectrum to work with.

wtf_is_up 10y ago

I love how you managed to shoehorn a dig at Ajit in there. Very creative, 8/10.

DannyBee 10y ago
Uh, he's the one claiming success out of failure? Even his fellow republican commissioners all but called it the same.

IBM 10y ago

I don't understand, if it would be worth a lot more than $20 billion to someone why aren't they bidding for it? I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to sink $20 billion to "prevent others from using it".

joecool1029 10y ago
The major players already have enough low-band spectrum. Capacity issues will be solved by densification and securing mid-band spectrum for 4G and high-band spectrum for 5G deploys. The smaller players were the ones primarily interested in this auction, allowing them to roll more coverage to rural areas with less towers. Most of the spectrum has some build-out requirement, so no.. it wouldn't make much sense for a company to sink $20billion into it to prevent others from using it. There's other ways to screw over owners of spectrum. Follow the history of the 700A spectrum in the US. AT&T owned most of the lower 700mhz licenses (B and C but not A: that was T-Mobile and other rural carriers). Someone got someone to issue a report saying 700A might interfere with channel 51 television broadcasters. AT&T and the vendors created a subset band called band 17 that was wholly incompatible. This essentially screwed over the other carriers and caused a multi-year delay in band 12 deployment in the US. Article on it: http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/will-fcc-require-all-700-mhz-lte-equipment-to-interoperate http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/will-fcc-requir... FCC report on the topic: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021920804.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021920804.pdf
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

closeparen 10y ago

Fun fact: TV whitespace is where the wireless microphones used in most live events operate. Very large, big-budget sound companies and venues can get licenses, run extremely expensive digital gear that manages to be reliable while making efficient use of bandwidth, and refresh their inventory every few years. They'll be fine. Your average high school or nonprofit theater will not.