Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Loosen Wireless Ownership Rules
jgaynor writes: "The FCC on Thursday voted to remove the existing restriction on how many frequencies a single wireless provider can own in any one location. While this is a blow for consumers who want more cell bandwidth and services like data or video - they could end up getting hosed as this might knock some smaller players out of the market and decrease competition, raise prices, etc. Excite has coverage; CBS Marketwatch does too."
The comment is completly backwards on this post.
This will allow higher bandwidth and better services, but reducing competition will most likely increase prices
1) George Bush won the election.
2) Michael Powell was appointed Chairman of the FCC.
Now, given that Mr. Powell is (a) very, very connected to the heaviest hitters in the Republican Party and in big business (b) has stated explicitly that he sees nothing wrong with 1 or 2 mega-corporations controlling all communications in the United States --- why would you expect any different outcome?
sPh
Treating spectrum locale as "land" is a perfect demonstration of the value of a Georgist single tax aka "taxation only of unimproved land value". The spectrum locale "land" would have zero value without someone around to enforce the property right -- so the "economic rent" on that property right should be, simply, the costs of defense of that property right. This would fall out of "warrior's insurance".
Seastead this.
Forbes covered this two months ago. Basically, because too many providers are splitting up too little bandwidth, cell phone coverage sucks. It's high time the FCC got out of the way and let the stronger players acquire the weaker. Maybe service will improve to the point where I'd actually consider buying a cell phone.
On a related note, I have no sympathy for the companies that overpaid for spectrum licenses nor the greedy Feds who thought they had a chance in hell of collecting all those $billions. Golly, who pays for those license fees? Can you say massive tax on users?
What many people may not realize is that there are several wireless companies out there right now that are just sqautting on the spectrum they have. They built out just enough to keep their licenses, and are basically just waiting for the cap to be lifted, so that whichever company (AT&T, Cingular, Verizon or whoever) already owns a considerable amount of stock can buy them out, and make them all rich. So on the upside, once the Big Guy buys them out, people who live in those areas will finally get better service. It also helps Big Guy company cut costs for nationwide roaming and things like that, so its possible (albeit HIGHLY unlikely) that Joe Consumer might not get hosed.
The downside is that some smaller providers, who are genuinely interested in providing services, may get squeezed out of the market, since they have to partner with other providers to allow for nationwide roaming and other features that most consumers feel should come standard with any wireless plan.
Economic Darwinism is a powerful thing. Its fine and Dandy to watch all the posts about Powell and the FCC, but this is capitalism folks... If you don't want to see the big fish eat all the little fish, stay with your local provider. Unfortunately, most people are going to look at how much cheaper the big boys can do it and go with them, forcing the little guy out of the Market.
from the MarketWatch link:
Previously, carriers were limited to 45 megahertz of spectrum in big markets, or one-fourth of the available airwaves.
from the FCC link:
"the FCC's shift from an inflexible spectrum cap rule to reliance on case-by-case review of CMRS spectrum aggregation."
What's going on is that the FCC has decided that the "Anyone owning more than 1/4 of the spectrum is an illegal monopolist" rule is horse shit. Apparently, there are better measures of market competition than that.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.