Slashdot Mirror
FCC Ends 700 MHz Auction
Apu writes "Having received bids totaling $19.5 billion over 260 rounds of bidding, the FCC has announced the closing of Auction 73. The Chairman's statement notes that the auction has "raised more money than any [FCC] auction has ever raised" besting the 2006 Advanced Wireless Service-1 auction that raised $13.9 billion and topping the $10.6 billion Congress estimated it would receive for the 700 MHz spectrum. The New York Times reports that "the last bid in the auction was $91,000 for frequencies around Vieques, Puerto Rico." According to the FCC, "eight unsold licenses [...] remain held by the FCC and will again be made available [...] in a future auction." This includes the "D block" which was to be shared by commercial and public safety users and only received a single $472 million bid, below the $1.3 billion reserve price. However, as previously reported, the open access provisions will apply to one-third of the auctioned spectrum as the minimum $4.6 billion bid for the "C" block was received. The names of the winning bidders have not yet been made public."
"may" do so? Did the New York Times misspell "must"? Or is it that there is a lack of clarity in the FCC's administrative law as to how long it can go before it makes public the detailed results of the auction?
When the D Block gets resolved, the FCC will be allowed to reveal who won the other blocks.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Under the published rules, the names will not be released until after the D block is re-auctioned, which could take more then a few weeks to occur. However, it is commonly believed that the FCC will waived the re-auction in favor of a different plan for the D-block. Thus, the FCC *may* release the names in the next few weeks, or may wait upto a few months until the disposition of the D block.
...to see how many of the bid winners manage not to default on their bids and actually deliver a working product.
And regarding the C-Block (?) for shared public/private usage, I am not surprised. As competitive as the telecomms are in wanting to keep their networks just to themselves, who would want to spend billions developing a nationwide network that would have to give free access to public service? Sure, it would be a boon to firefighters and police, but the telecomms don't seem to worry about good or bad PR.
Bearded Dragon
This plan would be unprofitable in most of the states, the ones with the least populations. With those states (ie, the Dakotas), there aren't enough people to justify the cost. With a nationwide network, that cost is absorbed by the profits in the 10 major population states.
Bearded Dragon
With the erasure of the analog spectrum, a whole range of learned skills will be forgotten, a whole range of home projects will vanish. Once the television spectrum is done, then comes Radio. As a kid, I made my own home AM radios, an incredibly useful tool for the budding EE's in the world. the loss of such profound examples will cut off the joy of home electronic projects to another generation.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
$19.5 billion, Sounds like such a small number these days... What is that, a few weeks in Iraq? Or, 1/10 the amount it cost to bail out Bear Sterns?
Instead of rights to electromagnetic spectrum, box contained bobcat. Would not buy again.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I'm planning to use that part of the frequency spectrum to broadcast round the clock demo tapes from '80s cover bands, the piano works of Conlon Nancarrow and the speeches of Everett Dirksen.
And if you're wondering, yes, I've got the idea protected legally, so don't try to beat me out of the gate.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Having established that ownership rights need to be allocated, the question becomes how to allocate them. Economically, the most sensible solution is an auction of this type, for the reason that the auction winners will be the enterprises who are able to pay the most, under the principle that the reason they are able to pay the most because their goods and/or services provide or are likely to provide the greatest value to the market, and ultimately, society. Thus, you end up with the most economically efficient allocation of the spectrum.
Other alternatives for allocation also have problems. A lottery could easily result in relatively useless owners possessing the rights while those with a product much more highly valued by the public are denied. A political determination would result in the usual pork-barelling and outright corruption.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
If the funding for a Sunk Cost comes from borrowing then of course it affects future business decisions. European networks paid $129 billion for 3G licenses. Vodafone alone spent more than $30 billion. It seems unlikely that sort of money came from cash surpluses.
In Japan, 3G licenses were free. Looking at the state of the mobile market there, and comparing it with that in Europe, then yes, I'd say that huge cost delayed roll out and by increasing user costs slowed uptake.