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."

Comments

Hams?

[tajmorton]

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

Re:Hams?

[Kenja]

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

The ham radio groups where going to stage a protest, but they all got winded when trying to climb the stairs out of their parents basement. Then there was a Babalon Five marathon to watch.

I kid.

Why should the FCC Sell?

[stecoop]

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.

Re:Why should the FCC Sell?

[Pxtl]

Besides that, I have the creeping sensation that this will just be used to further proprietise the US cellular communication system, pushing interoperability even further away. Company X uses expanded protocol Z that uses band ranges Y and so on, making it harder for customers to switch providers.

Re:Why should the FCC Sell?

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Why should the FCC Sell?

[the morgawr]

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.

learn from other countries

[d_strand]

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)

They should be renting it out, not selling it.

[kenf]

The gomment should be renting spectrum, not selling it outright. That way we would have an income stream , not just one payment to squander.

"3G" refers to...

[Eric Giguere]

Multiple choice:

a) the cost of a new wireless device that supports this technology
b) the average damage to your car when you hit a tree while trying to watch a video on your phone
c) per-year productivity lost to phone-based instant messaging
d) your new monthly cellphone bill

Eric
JavaScript != Java

Not really accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

The article isn't very well written. It says that more spectrum will help carriers increase coverage. That isn't true. It would allow some carriers to provide native coverage (as well as sell service) in some new markets, but more licenced spectrum won't increase coverage at all. Spectrum increases capacity. That means less system busies and the ability to let customers use more of the system's capacity for things like data.

It also suggests that Verizon and Cingular are in the same spectrum position which isn't accurate. In many markets (including mine) Cingular has nearly twice the spectrum of Verizon. This also leads me to think that Verizon will be a bidder in the auctions. Another thing that they don't mention is that the lesser carriers (T-Mobile and Sprint) often have equal or greater amounts of spectrum to Verizon in most markets.

These auctions allow carriers to increase their capacity in their current markets and to move into markets where they aren't able to offer service because they aren't licenced for it - like how Verizon isn't licenced to operate in Oklahoma City. It won't increase coverage as the article suggests.

3G isn't going to work...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

...if they still charge too much for the content.

I'm talking $3 for a 125x125 background picture, only allow people to keep it for three months and that kind of crap.

I'm not paying $10 a month for slow internet service to same phone with 125 resolution either.