3 ms·

The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have d

The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would bear. Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government, the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny. For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation of the two carries using the same protocol. GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.

klenwell 15y ago
I'm less worried about the lack of competition than the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.
- anamax 15y ago
  > the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers. Ah, a visitor from a universe without regulatory capture.
pyre 15y ago
> This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise. Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now, there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking them into account. Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it, their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were being paid to have it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

klenwell 15y ago

I'm less worried about the lack of competition than the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.

anamax 15y ago
> the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers. Ah, a visitor from a universe without regulatory capture.

pyre 15y ago

> This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise. Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now, there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking them into account. Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it, their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were being paid to have it.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]