Results 16 to 30 of 73
- 01-09-2008, 02:25 PM #16John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:09:23 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>So:
>Auctioning spectrum should be forbidden. It's NOT the government's
>airwaves, it's the PUBLIC's.
Commercial licenses should be free? That makes no sense.
Government sets arbitrary prices? That makes no sense either.
Auctions make sense because they are the most efficient way to set the
price and to ensure the highest value use of the spectrum.
The public gets free use of (overused) unlicensed and (underused)
amateur bands.
>They don't auction off Yellowstone National
>Park to Holiday Inn, because Yellowstone belongs to the PUBLIC, dammit.
In fact they do solicit bids for commercial use, as in the case of
concession operators.
>This bull**** of selling the PUBLIC's airwaves to shore up the bloating
>government bureaucracy of the Illuminati ISN'T why the FCC was created. It
>all happened when the greedy lawyers ran the engineers, who made America's
>wireless systems so great, out of the FCC and took over. Now, everything's
>for sale before the government finally bankrupts the country giving
>everything we have to the international bankers.
On the contrary: Past government regulation resulted in high prices and
a glacial pace of innovation. Deregulation has resulted in lower prices
and rapid innovation. The auctioning of spectrum is an essential part
of getting government out of the way and ensuring the highest value use
of the spectrum.
>Once FCC loses control of frequencies that "belong" to someone else,
>consumer protection stops....exactly what corporate America has been after
>since the first radio station came on the air.
On the contrary: Licensed use _is_ regulated, and to argue the
regulation is not to your liking is to undercut your own advocacy for
government control.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
› See More: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
- 01-09-2008, 02:28 PM #17John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:30:18 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Aaron Leonard <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> You lost me at "Illuminati".
>You need to come out from under that rock more often.
That we don't have government of real "illuminati" is precisely the
reason for getting government out of the way as much as possible.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:31 PM #18John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:15:48 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>
>Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
>is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
>in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....
The spectrum is reserved for future 3G use, which makes sense. What
doesn't make sense is to consume all available spectrum immediately. If
sufficient 3G use doesn't materialize in time, then the spectrum can be
reallocated.
>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>
>Thats the spin, certainly. The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>less as there's less competition.
If you can't pay, then you shouldn't have any right to play, the
NextWave debacle being an excellent case in point.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:31 PM #19John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>> The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>> sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>> less as there's less competition.
>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
In fact it does conform to free market economics.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:33 PM #20John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:38:16 GMT, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
It's not taxed -- it's licensed. There's a big difference.
>That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
And that's the point.
In the future, please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in
mid-thread -- it makes the thread confusing and hard to follow. Thanks.
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:24:21 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> bidders were required to fork over an
>>>> "upfront payment" prior to the actual auction, and you have to wonder
>>>> if Frontline was able to pay up.
>>
>>>This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from
>>>bidding....same
>>>as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money
>>>for
>>>political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>>
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:36 PM #21John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:22:10 -0500, George <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:
>Cubit wrote:
>> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>>
>> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>>
>Why not a lottery?
Because it would fail to ensure the highest value use of a limited
resource. You could easily have some idiot win that wanted to run
wide-band morse code.
>Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
>apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
>projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
>bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
>resources.
You must not have much experience in construction -- that kind of
government involvement is rife with abuse, waste, and outright fraud.
No thanks.
>The winner would not be required to "buy" the spectrum which is really
>just a disguised pre-paid tax on its future users but only a nominal
>application fee to cover the cost of the lottery.
A one-time license fee is not a tax.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:48 PM #22NewsGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>less as there's less competition.
>
>
>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>
>
> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>
No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
later form teams.
- 01-09-2008, 02:53 PM #23John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>
>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>
>> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>
>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>later form teams.
Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
all the time.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 02:53 PM #24Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
Mark McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Not so:
>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>
> Not really - the 3G auction in the UK is a case in point. The spectrum
> is sitting empty, and likely to remain so, because nobody was interested
> in buying the overpriced services the auction "winners" wanted to sell....
That's not right. Not only do at least 4 of the 5 wireless operators
in the UK now provide 3G services (and one of those operators, Three, only
has 3G spectrum) but data service seems downright reasonably priced compared
to the US, let alone compared to the price of anything else in the UK. One
of the UK prepaid SIMs I have gets 3.6 Mbps HSDPA service with charges
capped at $2 per day, with the other you can buy a week of HSDPA for $5;
I've used both of these with my laptop. You can't get 3G service on a
prepaid account in the US at any price, and even the postpaid contract
service you can buy in the US if you commit to pay for it for a year or
two isn't any cheaper than that.
It is the case that the UK operators were thought to have overpaid for
the spectrum, but they seem to be over that now and these days are
competing on price.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-09-2008, 03:11 PM #25NewsGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>>><[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>
>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>
>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>
>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>later form teams.
>
>
> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
> all the time.
>
Note use of the word "later".
Timing is part of the game.
- 01-09-2008, 03:17 PM #26John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>><[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>>
>>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>>
>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>
>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>later form teams.
>>
>> Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>> all the time.
>
>Note use of the word "later".
>
>Timing is part of the game.
Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 01-09-2008, 03:25 PM #27NewsGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:11:08 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:48:29 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>>><[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>><[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>>>>>>sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>>>>>>less as there's less competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>>While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact it does conform to free market economics.
>>>>
>>>>No. It circumvents game theory by immediately pruning those who would
>>>>later form teams.
>>>
>>>Nothing prevents teams from being formed in advance. In fact it's done
>>>all the time.
>>
>>Note use of the word "later".
>>
>>Timing is part of the game.
>
>
> Nonsense. You're beating a dead horse.
>
Nonsense yourself, for poo-poo'ing a major bidding process flaw.
- 01-09-2008, 05:10 PM #28Mark McIntyreGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:57:29 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> In <[email protected]> John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> This was setup by the big boys to keep the little guys from bidding....same
>>>> as Broadcasting. Big corporations with BIG, DEEP pockets full of money for
>>>> political hacks to be paid from is all Washington is about.
>>> Not so:
>>> * Auctioning spectrum ensures the most efficient use of that spectrum.
>>> * Up front cash is just prudent auction practice, to avoid disruption of
>>> the auction process by those that can't really afford to bid.
>> or... to prevent a repeat of the debacle with NextWave,
>> which bid oodles of money last time around, didn't pay up,
>> and somehow got the US Supreme Court to rule that they
>> still "owned" the unpaid for frequencies.
>
> That's my 2nd point.
I don't think it was entirely valid. What *would* validate it is if the
bidders had to produce proof of the ability to pay, before their bid was
accepted. On the one hand, an upfront payment deters smaller firms from
entering the fray; on the other hand it allows more reckless firms a
foot in the door to a smaller marketplace.
- 01-09-2008, 05:13 PM #29Mark McIntyreGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:30:18 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Aaron Leonard <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> You lost me at "Illuminati".
>
>> You need to come out from under that rock more often.
>
> That we don't have government of real "illuminati" is precisely the
> reason for getting government out of the way as much as possible.
That's a neocon argument. That you don't have a govt of real illuminati
is precisely the reason for getting better advisers, not leaving it up
to a host of vested commercial interests.
On the one hand you don't want dumb-as-bricks politicans making the
decision based on campaign funds contributions and misunderstood
articles in the Times, on the other hand you don't want sharp-as-pins
capitalists making the decision based on how much cash they can winkle
out of the dumb public before the bubble bursts.
- 01-09-2008, 05:14 PM #30Mark McIntyreGuest
Re: NEWS: Frontline Wireless bombs out
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:37:37 -0500, News <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> The reality is that the upfront cash rule
>>> sets a barrier to participation and allows those who /are/ in to pay
>>> less as there's less competition.
>
>> While making it appear to conform to institutional "free market" policy.
>
> In fact it does conform to free market economics.
By placing a barrier to free engagement on equal terms?
Yes, thats right - the US is a free market - provided you're not trying
to import goods from China, Europe, Mexico.... :-)
Similar Threads
- Verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
WeissBet
in Chit Chat