Slashdot Mirror
US Wireless Spectrum Auction Raises $44.9 Billion
An anonymous reader writes: The FCC's recent wireless spectrum auction closed on Thursday, and the agency has raked in far more money than anyone expected. Sales totaled $44.89 billion, demonstrating that demand for wireless spectrum is higher than ever. The winners have not yet been disclosed, but the FCC will soon make all bidding activity public. "The money will be used to fund FirstNet, the government agency tasked with creating the nation's first interoperable broadband network for first responders, to finance technological upgrades to our 911 emergency systems, and to contribute over $20 billion to deficit reduction. In addition, the auction brought 65 Megahertz of spectrum to market to fuel our nation's mobile broadband networks. The wireless industry estimates that for every 10 Megahertz of spectrum licensed for wireless broadband, 7,000 American jobs are created and U.S. gross domestic product increases by $1.7 billion."
Who decides where the proceeds go for public airwave auctions? I would have thought it would go to the treasury to contribute paying all the bills of the government, not just an isolated project?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The wireless industry estimates that for every 10 Megahertz of spectrum licensed for wireless broadband, 7,000 American jobs are created and U.S. gross domestic product increases by $1.7 billion
I estimate that for every million dollars I receive, I create 8,000 American jobs and increase gross domestic product by $3 billion. They should talk to me before spending all the money they got from this auction.
Are there any free bands in that mix for the rest of us? For the likes of 802.11a/b/g/n/ac? I would say those free bands has done more.
A mobile phone is practically a necessity. The cost recovery on such massive "investment" is nothing more than a regressive tax. Well, actually, it's also a great barrier to entry.
And more importantly, this correlates to a 5% increase in executive compensation, and a 2% increase in the hookers and cocaine fund.
This will also increase the pool for bribing politicians by an additional 1.5%, ensuring the best opportunities to purchase favorable legislation.
CEOs are said to be pleased with the forecasted pillaging of the American public, and look forward to raising your rates and finding new and creative ways to give you less for your money, while optimizing long-term executive compensation.
Suckers.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The wireless industry estimates that for every 10 Megahertz of spectrum licensed for wireless broadband, 7,000 American jobs are created and U.S. gross domestic product increases by $1.7 billion."
Yes, of course they do. That's a nice press release for both the wireless industry, and the politicians they paid for.
"The money will be used to fund FirstNet, the government agency tasked with creating the nation's first interoperable broadband network..."
You could just as well put the money in a pile and burn it. Heck, given the inevitable follow-on costs, burning it would be cheaper...
"...contribute over $20 billion to deficit reduction". Meaning it's going into the general fund, where it will be promptly spent three or four times over, each time with the justification that the expenditure has already been paid for by the wireless auction.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Yellow everybody. Let's hope those who lost out in this auction aren't feeling blue about it. It'd be understandable to be green with envy, sure, but I hope no-one's seeing red, because the last thing we want is for things to turn violet. Orange you glad this hasn't happened? Best just to heave a cy-an move on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Nice to auction something that one does not own.
I remember when they held sales in Belgium and the rest of Europe over the UMTS licences. That did not go over well for some companies. Fun times loosing my job because they needed to make good on that money they spend. Well, not just me, in the end 50% of the company and it went downhill from there.
The reason I am against this is that even though it is extra money for the government, it will mean that people will still have to pay for it, so in reality it is a tax.
It also removes any real option of competition.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
$45 Billion? True, this is the amount raised. All of it has been paid to Uncle Sam.
The same amount of $45 Billion is also telecomunication companies' best estimate, a modelled amount, equal to the net present value of all their clients' prospective fees, less their expenses, to be collected in the future.
If a customer would ever ask a question, why his wireless service bill is so high, he would be given an answer that the bill includes amortization of $45 Billion of previously capitalized expenses, which companies had to pay.
The GDP increase by $1.7 B is merely an additional tax, that the parties will need to pay, and represents increase in prices that the customers will sooner or later pay.
As spectrum is a finite resource, why sell it, instead of rent it? It goes up in value each year, so the stuff we sold years ago is now worth MUCH more than we sold it for.
And, since the frequencies are owned by the general public, why the transfer to private corporations, who then hide income offshore? Heck, if the feds put up cell towers and little buildings to house the radios, they could easily earn enough money to fund the government's basic needs for MANY years to come.
Just like Alaska does with its "Permanent fund"?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yes, we should give that obviously highly valuable wireless spectrum to cell phone companies for free! Because they will pass those savings directly to us, and not horde the profits for themselves!
Can someone explain what "65 Megaherz of spectrum" looks like? Did they buy up the rights to broadcast on all frequencies between 0 and 65 Mhz?
First, how do you square selling a public good to private parties? Second, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the good to the economy of allocating it without charge intelligently would exceed the auction's proceeds. Third, the proceeds don't come out of thin air. That's money that we'll all be paying the "winners" in the future. So as usual, it's using resources from the future in the present.
> Sales totaled $44.89 billion
Yey! We can put off borrowing for 14 days!
> [of which] contribute $20 billion to deficit reduction
Yey! I mean 6 days!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And us 99% get shit on. THX
This is where kickstarter really should step up. A nice little chunk of spectrum for hobbiest to play with. HAM, I know, I know, but there are some severe restrictions on HAM broadcasts. But, of course, we can't have anyone but corporations using wireless spectrum ... because, well, yeah...because.
Bah humbug.
For security reasons public should not have access to free radio waves. It's much safer in hands of few giant companies that already made concessions to surveillance demands and are guaranteed to cooperate in the future.
... my job is worth 1428.57 Hz?
Because the Alaska Permanent Fund takes a small amount of revenue from the oil recovery fees and puts it in a managed fund whose interest is dispersed to the couple of hundred thousand humans left in this mosquito infested swamp. It has a total capitalization of about 45 billion dollars, roughly the same as the spectrum sales.
However, Alaska's population is roughly 735,000, the US 316,000,000. Assuming the same long term returns, the average US citizen would get about $1.80 per year. On a good year.
Disbursement of government money to the masses doesn't really do much. It is arguably different in Alaska since outside the 'big' cities, a significant fraction of the population is at a subsistence level and the close to $1000 we get each year makes a big difference. But many people have argued that the fund would do better if it were more intelligently managed. Of course, that term is defined differently by different people,
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We need more class license WiFi bands, I couldn't give a shit about corporate greed of commercial use.
Can't believe no one else is saying this, but forget auctions, forget renting, forget discrete allocations altogether. Dynamic spectrum management makes infinitely more sense in a world of cheap and ubiquitous microcontrollers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_radio
There is another way to look at it. Using your figures, the total amount per US person is about US$142. That is for a ten year lease of the spectrum if I recall correctly, so we can expect a similar amount again in another decade. So, that is about US$14 per person per year during that time (well, a little more, with interest as the money if the money is received up front). For a family of four, that is about US$56 per family per year ignoring interest. That could be a month or two of cell phone service on a cheap plan -- or even half a year for one phone on a very cheap plan (like Ting's cheapest). Or, with the entire amount up front (US$560 per family), that could be the cost of an unlocked current smartphone or, say, two current Chromebooks, or, say, a Chromebook and a "FreedomBox" or such as a home server, or, say, a new Raspberry Pi educational kit every three years. Or it might just cover an otherwise-missed mortgage payment during the next decade. US$560 in various ways could make a *big* difference to a lot of lower middle class people living paycheck to paycheck on the edge in the USA.
Given that whoever got the spectrum will undoubtedly charge more for it given these up front costs, it seems only fair for families to get some money to offset those extra costs.
It's true though that some US states already have a free-to-the-user limited cell phone plan for very poorest people on Welfare, an one might argue in theory this money should also go to something like that -- but probably less fairly IMHO compared to a needs-blind cost, otherwise it becomes a hidden "tax" on everyone. I would argue that the current approach, to put the money to deficit reduction, is similarly just a hidden tax of US$560 on every US family -- where the tax for deficit reduction is paid by higher cell phone fees. Since the poorest people probably spend the greatest percentage of their income on cell phone service (which is becoming a necessity of mainstream US life), the plan to use the money to pay back the deficit is a terribly *regressive* tax as a way to pay back the deficit. This also ignores both that the deficit creates the US money supply and also that much of it can be considered to be underwriting problematical optional war spending like the Iraq war. So, rather than get US$560 in the family pocketbook, each US family instead sees a tighter money supply (so, higher credit card interest) and also probably yet more war spending since there was no real accounting for the previous spending (other than this new hidden cell phone tax).
Related:
http://costsofwar.org/article/...
"The increased military spending following 9/11 was financed almost entirely by borrowing."
As an aside, the theory of auctioning off (or "privatizing") the spectrum is probably based on some notion of "highest economic use", in the theory that whoever would pay the most for the spectrum would make the most use of it for the most benefit to the most people. But in reality, such auctions may just be putting resources in the hands of people (and their organizations) that may have the most capital (including trademarks and good will) and think they are best at "rent seeking" to extract the most money from the most people regardless of what they can deliver. Again, distributing the funds raised at least partially protects people from that -- however, it is still not enough in many cases. Ideas like the open WiFi spectrum are alternatives, and are helping a lot of people in a lot of ways. Other ideas include "ham" like regulations on the use of some frequencies.
Right now, almost everyone 65 or older (roughly) gets a basic income in the USA of about US$1000 - US$2000 per month via "Social Security" as well as health care via Medicare. Is that not significant? That makes a big difference to a lot of people and even their children. So, I feel it is hard to generalize that "Disbursement of government money to the masses doesn't really do much". Grant
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Holy crap... I remember a time when /. would be all over the important part of this story...
So now when marshall law is declared.. internet kill switch is thrown...
Gov can still communicate while you can't