Jump to content

FCC Intends to Bar Joint Bidding in Airwaves Auction

GoBigRed79

By GoBigRed79
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

dstar2002 Member Level: eHRPD

dstar2002

Posted
Posted

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.

Destroyallcubes Member Level: 4G LTE

Destroyallcubes

Posted
Posted

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
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

I am sure that there could be a minority/woman headed organization that can bid big that would then lease the spectrum to T-Mobile and Sprint...just saying....:)

EmeraldReporter Member Level: 1x Advanced

EmeraldReporter

Posted
Posted

I am sure that there could be a minority/woman headed organization that can bid big that would then lease the spectrum to T-Mobile and Sprint...just saying....:)

No one is a minority. Everyone is equal.

bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

No one is a minority. Everyone is equal.

That might be true, but the FCC gives a discount to minority/women owned businesses.

EmeraldReporter Member Level: 1x Advanced

EmeraldReporter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just a heads up to to the thread to watch the political comments.

Shoot. Sorry I forgot that I was on S4GRU. It won't happen again Mod Lilo! I'll do my best not to instigate anything!

Edited by EmeraldReporter
maxsilver Member Level: 3G EVDO

maxsilver

Posted
Posted

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?

bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

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.

Jones Member Level: 3G EVDO

Jones

Posted
Posted

How would the 10x10 block be divided by sprint and t-mobile if they won a bid jointly? Wouldn't it be split into 5x5's anyway?

maxsilver Member Level: 3G EVDO

maxsilver

Posted
Posted

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.

bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

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.

maxsilver Member Level: 3G EVDO

maxsilver

Posted
Posted

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).

jamisonshaw125 Member Level: LTE Advanced

jamisonshaw125

Posted
Posted

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!

S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

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
S4GRU Member Level: LTE Advanced

S4GRU

Posted
Posted

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

bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

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

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

The 30% that they set aside for T-Mobile/Sprint/CCA

Calvin200 Member Level: 3G EVDO

Calvin200

Posted
Posted

How about stop the merger plans (both agree that there is no break up fee), have a truce to not compete with each other at the auction, and have the CCA help with the logistics.  Then merge.

  • Like 3

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • dkyeager
      Galaxy S24 Info & Discussion

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Yes
    • PythonFanPA
      Galaxy S24 Info & Discussion

      By PythonFanPA · Posted

      Was it like only 1.2MB?  I had a tiny one last night but no date change as I was already on November here.
    • dkyeager
      Galaxy S24 Info & Discussion

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Nov 1 play system system update.
    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      A new apartment building in my neighborhood is getting a 4G/5G DAS installed. No idea if it's going to be carrier agnostic or if it's going to be just for one carrier. The antennas they are using cover the full range of spectrum from 600MHz-4.9GHz so no telling by equipment alone. I noticed a ton of Cat6E ethernet being run in the garage a couple of days back and then I saw a guy running the ethernet through the ceiling yesterday and didn't think to ask what for until I noticed this antenna this morning mounted on a wall outside near the ramp but with nothing connected to it at the moment.     The garage attendant told me that the phones that are provided to them by the parking management company are on Verizon and they're the only carrier without coverage down there so the building management told them that they're "installing something to fix it". So as far as I know, this will work on Verizon but I'm curious to see who else will get a boost too. — — — — — Without exaggerating, I have mapped a new at least one new small cell on my way to work every day this week. I don't know who the regional network managers for NYC and Boston are, but other cities need to take a page from their book about small cell buildouts. And it's not just upgrades of existing small cells, it's new ones too. Not to mention pings near 10ms on all of them.
    • PythonFanPA
      Galaxy S24 Info & Discussion

      By PythonFanPA · Posted

      Yep, 562.51MB December 1 sec patch just found here tonight as well. 

  • Recently Browsing

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