Slashdot Mirror


Wireless Carriers looking for Elbow Room

pillageplunder writes "Businessweek is reporting on the upcoming Wireless Spectrum Auctions. Over the next two years (Starting in Jan 2005) the FCC will auction off enough spectrum that will more than double the amount currently available. Estimates range anywhere from 50 to 70 billion dollars will be raised by these auctions. Short term, it should improve the quality of Cell-phone, long term, it should open up opportunities for so-called 3G services to take off."

5 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Hams? by tajmorton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And what about the hammers? Will they be elbowed out?

    --
    Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
  2. Why should the FCC Sell? by stecoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a pet peeve of mine. Why should the FCC be able to sell spectrum for a region giving basically a monopoly to the bidder. I would much prefer that the FCC leases the spectrum to vendors and the income goes back to the people that rightfully own it (the land owners over the given region - you and me). It isn't the FCC's property to sell and it doesn't force vendors to address issues fast enough.

    1. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've never liked the idea that landowners somehow owning the spectrum over their land. Does that mean that people who own massive tracts of dessert would get large amounts of money from the FCC for satelite TV (even though no one is utilizing that spectrum in those empty tracts of land)? I don't have a cogent argument against it, but the whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

      My problem with the spectrum auction model is it encourages companies to buy up spectrum only for the purpose of keeping it from others companies. If you own the spectrum you should be forced to put it to use within N years by X% of the public in that area, otherwise it reverts back to the FCC.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by the+morgawr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually the land owners don't own the spectrum and never had. That's why the FCC was set up.

      IANAL but my understanding is:

      When someone starts using land they have the rights to everything they need to use it in the manner they want. Tresspass and nusance laws prevent people from interfering with your use of the land. So you can't have someone walk through your yard because it is physically invasive to your property, but you can have someone broadcast radio through the airwaves or fly a plane way overhead because neither of those impeades your use of the property in anyway.

      In all likelyhood radio would have developed a similar set of common laws (this was all getting worked out in the courts). Where the first radio station in a region was allowed to use the band they were broadcasting on and could sue anyone emitting harmful interferance. However Congress became concerned that the legal costs would hold the industry back (there were concerns that radio companies could even make money), so they made the FCC.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  3. learn from other countries by d_strand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    auctioning spectrum is a bad idea. It's better to give it away for free to the companies that promises the best services to it's customers.

    Many countries in europe auctioned off 3G-spectrum a few years ago, and the money involved was insane... many of the "winners" weren't able to build any networks from lack of funds after the crazy fees they payed for the spectrum.

    Some countries instead held "beauty contests" where the companies that promised best area coverage where given spectrum for free (the promises must be kept with the threat of huge fines of course)