6 ms·

It never ceases to amaze me that we allow our FCC to sell leases for so little. Instead of demanding companies share revenue or provide basic services for all

It never ceases to amaze me that we allow our FCC to sell leases for so little. Instead of demanding companies share revenue or provide basic services for all for free, we allow this type of theft under colour of "fair governmental auction". Remember, in the US, the FCC is only the current custodian of this shared property called the EM spectrum. US citizens can and should take it back as their property, and demand all citizens profit equally from these auctions. Other countries have declared internet access a basic human right... At a minimum that should be included in all future leases.

kortilla 7y ago
The FCC is US citizens. Running an auction is the best way to get the most value at the present time for the spectrum.
vvanders 7y ago
You're more than welcome to get an Amateur Radio license and get the same access to spectrum, in some cases spectrum that's even better than what cellphones run on now.
- StudentStuff 7y ago
  Amateur Radio license holders can't use encryption in the USA. This kills a large portion of the use case for an amateur cellular network.
  - notduncansmith 7y ago
    Would steganography count as encryption?
    - swiley 7y ago
      Yes although you might not get caught if you were careful and quiet. You’re aloud to sign things, so if you’re doing ip/packet you can use client side certs for authentication and then I think with OpenSSL there’s a way to only enable the “null” cypher. The other issue is you’re not supposed to use it for profit (except selling radio equipment and I think there are other rules on that too) so you really couldn’t usefully replace your internet connection with it.
supertrope 7y ago
When European regulators auctioned off spectrum for UMTS use they got bids so high that the operators became capital constrained with respect to actually building the network.
- jake_morrison 7y ago
  I was working at British Telecom when they bought their 3G licenses for the UK. The stock dropped by 50%, making my options worthless. Not that I am salty. I wonder if it is optimum for society to price the spectrum so high that it is barely possible to build on it, then transfer the costs to the consumer. Basically it's a tax on technology. Or if it's not so high, then it's a windfall to the carriers.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  Some say that the high prices paid at frequency auctions are partially responsible for the high prices, shitty coverage, and mediocre bandwidth of mobile networks in Germany. Most of Europe is much better.
  - iforgotpassword 7y ago
    Yep and it's gonna be the same thing all over again with 5G.
    - glenneroo 7y ago
      At least you can rejoice that Austria was selected as the testing grounds for 5G before Germany. I was at the event where T-Mobile renamed themselves to Magenta and the CEO of Magenta "interviewed" the right-wing chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz as they laughed and announced Austria will roll 5G out before poor Germany. The audience didn't seem all that enthusiastic with the announcement, then again in Austria getting crowds really excited at business events is quite the challenge... A friend of mine also has a map of 5G hotspots in Switzerland, and there are already quite a lot, e.g. in Geneva, for such a small city and they have at least multiple tens already installed.
  - 7y ago
Johnny555 7y ago
It never ceases to amaze me that we allow our FCC to sell leases for so little. Instead of demanding companies share revenue or provide basic services for all for free, we allow this type of theft under colour of "fair governmental auction". I feel the opposite -- why are the leases so expensive? Billions of dollars paid to the government for spectrum is a hidden tax since it's paid by consumers. Much better would be to sell them for the cost of administration of the sale, but only upon approval of a business plan that weighs the value to consumers in awarding the bid. So instead of selling to huge telcos that can afford to pay billions of dollars, it could be sold to a much smaller company that may provide a better value to end users.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  The tax on consumers is appropriate because cell users should pay for the opportunity cost of removing the spectrum from other possible uses. As to government review of business plans—the market is better at deciding what business models bring “better value to end users” than the government. We used to have exactly the model you suggest—the FCC would grant spectrum licenses based on its view of “the public interest.” It was a disaster—resulting in our current situation where huge amounts of spectrum are locked up in low value uses like over-the-air TV.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    Over the air broadcast TV provided great value to consumers (and still does -- lets me watch local TV without needing to buy cable). The problem with broadcast TV is that the technology at the time meant that the spectrum had to be dedicated to TV and can't easily be phased out for other uses -- the cutover to digital TV was a huge ordeal. That's no longer the case, different users can share the same spectrum today.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  If the lease was cheap, what would force the owner to price their services any cheaper? No one can compete with them anyway as they own the spectrum
rayiner 7y ago
The leases are sold at auction, so they go for what they go for. Remember, on top of buying the spectrum rights, companies have to invest a ton of capital in actually building networks. (It’s like leasing land to build a hotel. The land lease is going to be a small fraction of the hotel revenue.) As to attaching “basic services” and other riders—these are outmoded, disproven ideas. Unfunded mandates and conditions invariably (1) reduce competition; (2) cost the public more money; and (3) produce opaque markets and trade offs that are impossible to quantify. Granting license based on “public interest” type analysis is what got us into our current mess, with broadcasters holding valuable spectrum for low value television and radio services. (Likewise with the idea of granting cable monopolies in return for the public benefit of serving areas that would otherwise be unserved, which was such a bad idea Congress had to make it illegal.) Almost every developed country has copied the US model of spectrum auctions. It was one of the foundational advances in the regulation of public goods in the 20th century. See: https://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Porter-Smith-Hazlett-RadioSpectrum.pdf https://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Porter-Smith-Hazlett-RadioSpe....

kortilla 7y ago

The FCC is US citizens. Running an auction is the best way to get the most value at the present time for the spectrum.

vvanders 7y ago

You're more than welcome to get an Amateur Radio license and get the same access to spectrum, in some cases spectrum that's even better than what cellphones run on now.

StudentStuff 7y ago
Amateur Radio license holders can't use encryption in the USA. This kills a large portion of the use case for an amateur cellular network.
- notduncansmith 7y ago
  Would steganography count as encryption?
  - swiley 7y ago
    Yes although you might not get caught if you were careful and quiet. You’re aloud to sign things, so if you’re doing ip/packet you can use client side certs for authentication and then I think with OpenSSL there’s a way to only enable the “null” cypher. The other issue is you’re not supposed to use it for profit (except selling radio equipment and I think there are other rules on that too) so you really couldn’t usefully replace your internet connection with it.

supertrope 7y ago

When European regulators auctioned off spectrum for UMTS use they got bids so high that the operators became capital constrained with respect to actually building the network.

jake_morrison 7y ago
I was working at British Telecom when they bought their 3G licenses for the UK. The stock dropped by 50%, making my options worthless. Not that I am salty. I wonder if it is optimum for society to price the spectrum so high that it is barely possible to build on it, then transfer the costs to the consumer. Basically it's a tax on technology. Or if it's not so high, then it's a windfall to the carriers.
ahartmetz 7y ago
Some say that the high prices paid at frequency auctions are partially responsible for the high prices, shitty coverage, and mediocre bandwidth of mobile networks in Germany. Most of Europe is much better.
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  Yep and it's gonna be the same thing all over again with 5G.
  - glenneroo 7y ago
    At least you can rejoice that Austria was selected as the testing grounds for 5G before Germany. I was at the event where T-Mobile renamed themselves to Magenta and the CEO of Magenta "interviewed" the right-wing chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz as they laughed and announced Austria will roll 5G out before poor Germany. The audience didn't seem all that enthusiastic with the announcement, then again in Austria getting crowds really excited at business events is quite the challenge... A friend of mine also has a map of 5G hotspots in Switzerland, and there are already quite a lot, e.g. in Geneva, for such a small city and they have at least multiple tens already installed.
- 7y ago

Johnny555 7y ago

It never ceases to amaze me that we allow our FCC to sell leases for so little. Instead of demanding companies share revenue or provide basic services for all for free, we allow this type of theft under colour of "fair governmental auction". I feel the opposite -- why are the leases so expensive? Billions of dollars paid to the government for spectrum is a hidden tax since it's paid by consumers. Much better would be to sell them for the cost of administration of the sale, but only upon approval of a business plan that weighs the value to consumers in awarding the bid. So instead of selling to huge telcos that can afford to pay billions of dollars, it could be sold to a much smaller company that may provide a better value to end users.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
The tax on consumers is appropriate because cell users should pay for the opportunity cost of removing the spectrum from other possible uses. As to government review of business plans—the market is better at deciding what business models bring “better value to end users” than the government. We used to have exactly the model you suggest—the FCC would grant spectrum licenses based on its view of “the public interest.” It was a disaster—resulting in our current situation where huge amounts of spectrum are locked up in low value uses like over-the-air TV.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  Over the air broadcast TV provided great value to consumers (and still does -- lets me watch local TV without needing to buy cable). The problem with broadcast TV is that the technology at the time meant that the spectrum had to be dedicated to TV and can't easily be phased out for other uses -- the cutover to digital TV was a huge ordeal. That's no longer the case, different users can share the same spectrum today.
ubercow13 7y ago
If the lease was cheap, what would force the owner to price their services any cheaper? No one can compete with them anyway as they own the spectrum

rayiner 7y ago

The leases are sold at auction, so they go for what they go for. Remember, on top of buying the spectrum rights, companies have to invest a ton of capital in actually building networks. (It’s like leasing land to build a hotel. The land lease is going to be a small fraction of the hotel revenue.) As to attaching “basic services” and other riders—these are outmoded, disproven ideas. Unfunded mandates and conditions invariably (1) reduce competition; (2) cost the public more money; and (3) produce opaque markets and trade offs that are impossible to quantify. Granting license based on “public interest” type analysis is what got us into our current mess, with broadcasters holding valuable spectrum for low value television and radio services. (Likewise with the idea of granting cable monopolies in return for the public benefit of serving areas that would otherwise be unserved, which was such a bad idea Congress had to make it illegal.) Almost every developed country has copied the US model of spectrum auctions. It was one of the foundational advances in the regulation of public goods in the 20th century. See: https://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Porter-Smith-Hazlett-RadioSpectrum.pdf https://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Porter-Smith-Hazlett-RadioSpe....