Way back in the time known as "BC" ... (that's "Before Cellular"), the FCC
authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage
licenses. An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the
frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency
coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC
actually issued the licenses for a "fee". The terms of the license
required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was
required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were
served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date. It was (IMHO)
rational, and served the market of radio users. Doesn't sound that far off
from what Matt describes.
Cellular changed all that. In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of
applications for a limited number of licenses. Cellular design dictated
that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at
will within the served area. But it was made clear that all licensed
systems would have to follow the "standard" (AMPS) and be interoperable.
They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple
applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps
monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out
of it).
Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an
accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the
license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they
made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever
technology they wanted! Interoperability in the interest of the nation's
good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the
first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be
extracted in return for licenses. Consumer service (coverage) for digital
cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4
out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned,
and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership
(adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing
strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their
technology).
All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a
return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve
the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept).
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make
quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum
gets returned.
Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either.
What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the
form of rebates at time quotas are met.
The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not
necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be
jsut as valuable.
For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to
consumer well being.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest
bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most
customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to
win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being
served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for
innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model
winning.
-Matt
Rich Comroe wrote:
Amen. Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy
designed to serve the public. This had a major role in the US cellular
industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any
good). Why can't our government understand this? European 3G spectrum
auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and
spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the
cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it). The FCC
should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not
managing spectrum to maximize government revenue. But that's just me.
Rich
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon K. Schafer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to
stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3
Thank you.
Regards,
Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884 efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
