Spectrum Auction Could Be A Game of Chicken

Ardvark writes "Google promised some time ago to bid at least the reserve price for the C block of 700Mhz spectrum if the FCC accepted its demand for an open access rule for devices using the band, which the FCC did over Verizon's objections. If the reserve price is not met the rule will be dropped and the block re-auctioned. It appears now that bidding has stalled just short of the reserve price. It's assumed that Google has no interest in becoming a cell phone company and with a recession looming the 700MHz spectrum now seems worth a whole lot less. If Google's strategy was to force the bidding above the reserve but still lose the auction, Verizon could be calling their bluff, threatening them to live up to their word and buy what to Google could be the equivalent of a $4.6 billion 'doohickey.'" Update: 01/31 16:01 GMT by Z : And just like that, the plot thickens: the C block has hit the reserve price during bidding.

Comments

when the usa purchased alaska from russia

[circletimessquare]

they called it "seward's folly"

it was a joke. why did we spend $7 million on some permafrost again?

same with anyone who doubts the value of this auction

i can't see why a monopoly on a prime band of communication spectrum can't be anything but pure gold. there's only so much spectrum, but more and more people and more need for communication tech every day

Who said anything about a recession?

[ficken]

Google has no interest in becoming a cell phone company and with a recession looming the 700MHz spectrum now seems worth a whole lot less

Who said anything about a recession? You do not know you are in a recession until after it happens. How do you know we're not spiraling into a depression?

Nothing to see here yet, move along...

[rickb928]

Lemme see. Reserve is 4.6B, bid is 4.3B. 6.5% difference, 300M. If I were buying a rusty old Duster for $600, this would be a difference of $40.

Obviously this is just gamesmanship.

Re:too bad

[Brad Eleven]

There's just one problem with that data: it's based on the top 1% of wage earners . The wealthy do not earn wages. It is my opinion that wage earners define the middle class, although the notion of class distinction in a democratic Republic is open to interpretation.

For that matter, any assertion involving the term "middle class" is open to interpretation.

It's not so much that Limbaugh isn't popular with technically-minded people, it's that he is not nearly as interested in facts as he is in attention. He himself has admitted as much. He makes money by remaining popular, by inciting listeners to excitement. That's the stock in trade of talk radio: Current events plus interpretation with a clear agenda, designed to leave you feeling a certain way.

There's nothing wrong with choosing that flavor of entertainment. The problems crop up when you begin to use data from an entertainment source as fact. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Clayton, but if I wanted facts about corporate crime, I'd look elsewhere.

If Limbaugh inspires you, great. Inspired people move things forward. One of our biggest problems lately is that the inspired don't step out and think for themselves. My recommendation is that you maintain the distinction between entertainment and news. Get your facts from a reliable source, i.e., from a different source than your inspiration.

If you like thinking for yourself, that is. If you'd prefer to just listen without asking any questions, go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone who isn't plugged into the same source to treat you with any respect.