Jump to content

FCC Intends to Bar Joint Bidding in Airwaves Auction


GoBigRed79

Recommended Posts

So apparently the fcc was instituted to protect att and vzw?

Clearly the FCC is only there to ensure whoever has the most cash gets more cash.

 

Guess what, us consumers don't have the most cash, so we suffer most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does sprint or T-Mobile need more than a 5x5 chunk for most areas? Major cities maybe 10x10 but 600mhz spectrum will be used mainly for extended coverage,building penetration, and possible capacity in some markets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as quite the terrible thing it appears to be, at first glance.

 

If you let Sprint + T-Mobile bid jointly, what's to stop Verizon + AT&T from also bidding jointly, and still winning all of the (non-rule-protected) spectrum at the auction.

 

In fact, if you allow joint bids, what prevents all four carriers from bidding on the auction together, to drive the auction prices down. 

 

Doesn't the FCC basically *have* to make bidders operate independently, or else the auction won't work in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as quite the terrible thing it appears to be, at first glance.

 

If you let Sprint + T-Mobile bid jointly, what's to stop Verizon + AT&T from also bidding jointly, and still winning all of the (non-rule-protected) spectrum at the auction.

 

In fact, if you allow joint bids, what prevents all four carriers from bidding on the auction together, to drive the auction prices down. 

 

Doesn't the FCC basically *have* to make bidders operate independently, or else the auction won't work in the first place?

Yes, but here is the problem: Let's say that separately Sprint and T-Bomile can only bid for the 5x5MHz blocks. Together they can bid for the 10x10MHz blocks against the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world. The 10MHz block will now attract a lot more money since you will have 3 bidders instead of just two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but here is the problem: Let's say that separately Sprint and T-Bomile can only bid for the 5x5MHz blocks. Together they can bid for the 10x10MHz blocks against the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world. The 10MHz block will now attract a lot more money since you will have 3 bidders instead of just two.

 

Right. I fully understand how an auction works. But your "problem" isn't solved by a joint bid.

 

In your scenario, if Sprint and T-Mobile are allowed to combine when bidding, then Verizon and AT&T can *also* combine to bid, to combat this. Now your still back to just two bidders for the same 10mhz block. Your not attracting any more money (actually likely less money), and the duopoly still gets the spectrum.

 

Remember, Verizon and AT&T can joint bid on, and share/split a 10mhz block just as easily as Sprint and T-Mobile can.

 

I'm all for the little guy at the auctions, but this FCC rule doesn't seem that problematic. If you let one group start 'fake merging' for bids, then everyone will do it, and they'll effectively write the rules for the auction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I fully understand how an auction works. But your "problem" isn't solved by a joint bid.

 

In your scenario, if Sprint and T-Mobile are allowed to combine when bidding, then Verizon and AT&T can *also* combine to bid, to combat this. Now your still back to just two bidders for the same 10mhz block. Your not attracting any more money (actually likely less money), and the duopoly still gets the spectrum.

 

Remember, Verizon and AT&T can joint bid on, and share/split a 10mhz block just as easily as Sprint and T-Mobile can.

 

I'm all for the little guy at the auctions, but this FCC rule doesn't seem that problematic. If you let one group start 'fake merging' for bids, then everyone will do it, and they'll effectively write the rules for the auction.

No, Verizon and AT&T are not allowed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Verizon and AT&T are not allowed to.

 

Right. That's the problem I mentioned three posts ago.

 

Any rule that lets Sprint and T-Mobile joint bid, would also let Verizon and AT&T joint bid, unless it specifically singled them out (at which point they'd sue, and probably win).

 

We're basically asking the FCC to make a rule that says, "everyone is allowed to jointly bid, except specifically these two companies, simply because we don't like them".

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the FCC to do that. Even if they were as pro-small-operators as possible, that's an unreasonable expectation, as they're still tasked to craft rules that are reasonably equal for all parties (even the ones we don't like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. That's the problem I mentioned three posts ago.

 

Any rule that lets Sprint and T-Mobile joint bid, would also let Verizon and AT&T joint bid, unless it specifically singled them out (at which point they'd sue, and probably win).

 

We're basically asking the FCC to make a rule that says, "everyone is allowed to jointly bid, except specifically these two companies, simply because we don't like them".

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the FCC to do that. Even if they were as pro-small-operators as possible, that's an unreasonable expectation, as they're still tasked to craft rules that are reasonably equal for all parties (even the ones we don't like).

I can agree with your logic. If the spectrum "caps" remain in place, then I think the auction will go okay....at least for sprint. Robert is right...ATT & Verizon need to be focusing on capacity now. Sprint has all the capacity they can get, and then some. Now all they need is a few hundred cargo crates to be shipped over with new equipment so sprint can finally enter the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as quite the terrible thing it appears to be, at first glance.

 

If you let Sprint + T-Mobile bid jointly, what's to stop Verizon + AT&T from also bidding jointly, and still winning all of the (non-rule-protected) spectrum at the auction.

 

In fact, if you allow joint bids, what prevents all four carriers from bidding on the auction together, to drive the auction prices down.

 

Doesn't the FCC basically *have* to make bidders operate independently, or else the auction won't work in the first place?

Sprint and Tmo wouldn't split a 10MHz block. They would either give certain regions to one or the other based on need, or they would do network sharing on that 10MHz (most likely).

 

Also, my objections are not just because of Sprint. It would disallow smaller providers who would definitely need to join forces to go after 600MHz. This is the biggest crime of them all.

 

As for AT&T and VZW joining forces to bid, that would not likely happen. They would not want to share spectrum or networks with each other. And if they do, so be it. But if they wanted to do so to try to keep prices lower, it would likely have the opposite effect. If the 10x10 bidding is low because AT&T and VZW joint bid, then many others would jump in on the bidding and try to take it from them.

 

The FCC doesn't have to make bidders independent. They haven't in the past. They just need to have the appropriate build out and network availability guidelines in place...and most importantly, ENFORCE THEM STRICTLY!!! The way the FCC has allowed de facto spectrum squatting for years beyond buildout requirements is a farce.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if they are allowed to jointly bid then they cannot have any set asides...

Set asides? I'm not sure I follow...

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • This site is built but not live. eNB 41150 is still live. eNB 41188 is decommissioned but as far as I can tell the site at 200 West 55th is not built yet. This site is live gNB 1346302. This site is live gNB 1092074 This site is live gNB 1371671 This site is live gNB 1371860 — — — — — Sprint eNB 6156 -> T-Mobile gNB 1349260 Sprint eNB Unknown -> T-Mobile gNB 1325016 — — — — — Bonus T-Mobile 5G small cell, gNB 1348688 in Queens:  
    • FTTH JVs are city by city as well, so it's not going to really be sector by sector. It sounds like TMo wants to be able to sell everyone home broadband, but if that requires building additional infrastructure that infra will take the form of FTTH builds rather than mobile densification. Which involves tradeoffs, but the product is better than e.g. what AT&T is doing for me right now, which is offering only Internet Air in an area where they have 100/20 DSL available but not (yet) fiber.
    • Hopefully they do not wait until these sectors get so overloaded that they start getting nasty reviews and people abandon them. Getting fiber coverage to the area of a overloaded sector can take a year or more. I also question if this can all be managed.  Lots of sectors all over the country can get congested fairly quick.  Lots of work and money to get fiber installed and there goes the profitability on the venture.
    • MoffetNathanson Conference This is a conference where the CFO talks telecom financial analysts so obviously it takes a return on investment approach.  Broadly T-Mobile divides there world into top 100 markets (60%) and small town/rural (40%). They ultimately want to have at least 1/3 market share in rural. They also look at demographics like 50+ and Hispanic.  Reputation is now starting to help them with CIOs.  Did mention c-band buildout beginning in major cities as well as continued band migration to 5g. IMO they may become more aggressive at offering 5g phones to LTE holdover and 5g users without VoNR at a future date. mmWave not discussed. Price increases not discussed iirc. Did mention spectrum purchases from speculators. $9 billion all goes through same ROI process. FWA is down to hexagonal patterns by sector of fallow spectrum. Fiber JVs will go where sectors are overloaded.
    • I am lucky to be served by an excellent fiber ISP and that is the only reason I haven't tried TMOs FWA. Once you go fiber, it is REALLY hard to go back. The choice of sub-10ms ping times is a very artificial bucket, FWA will seldom get much below 10ms ping times but fiber regularly gets me 1-3ms ping times. Basically, at around those times, the speed of light and the distance you are from the server become the limiting factors. As an aside, my internet provider, ZiplyFiber, has been awesome. They peer like crazy at all the major IX in the area and, as a result, you end up with what essentially amounts to direct fiber connections to the vast majority of major data sources. While it isn't sexy, it makes my 1Gb/1Gb connection load pages significantly faster than my works 10Gb/10Gb connection. On the "sexy" side, they are also fastest ISP in the nation. They offer up to 50Gb/50Gb via a direct fiber connection to the router, albeit for an eye watering $900/mo.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...