Jump to content

600 MHz auction results posted and transition schedule

ericdabbs

By ericdabbs
in General Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 509
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

WiWavelength
WiWavelength

I thought that Sprint got rid of Claire about a decade ago.  And while she was a voice response system, that does not mean she was authorized to speak on Sprint's behalf about its spectrum auction pla

S4GRU
S4GRU

We keep saying it will be delayed and delayed.  It's not coming soon.  That's why Sprint is progressing with 800MHz nationwide ASAP and fighting back on rebanding delays and T-Mobile is buying up 700-

S4GRU
S4GRU

Heck, I'd say if they have Cellular A or B and a 700 6x6 or 12x12, then no 600 in that market. They don't need to have both A&B to be omitted from 600, in my opinion.   But in the instances wher

Posted Images

WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

For 126 MHz, it was $86.4 billion, IIRC.

 

How does the loss of only two OTA physical channels drop the target by over $30 billion?  That 114 MHz seems like too much spectrum for too little money.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trip Member Level: 4G LTE

Trip

Posted
Posted

How does the loss of only two OTA physical channels drop the target by over $30 billion?  That 114 MHz seems like too much spectrum for too little money.

 

AJ

 

In the initial stage, a number of markets had no competitive bidding (see any area with market variation as examples).  With the addition of two more channels, most (not all) markets have now had at least some competitive bidding. 

 

- Trip

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dkoellerwx Member Level: LTE Advanced

Dkoellerwx

Posted
Posted

How much do TV stations in the 600MHz band make per year? Most of them actually will be repacked in lower bands so they are not going to lose their allocation. The millennials don't watch TV, either OTA or cable or satellite. So why the hell are we paying the OTA spectrum holders? Can somebody tell me?

 

How much do we make? Not nearly as much as you think...

(The political season is driving up add costs, so that is helping in the short term)

 

Most of your smaller market stations barely break even looking at cost to get product on air vs revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Stage 2, we hardly knew you.

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/stage-2-incentive-auction-ends-after-a-single-round-generates-only-21-5b-bids

 

Bonanza is turning into bust.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

How much do we make? Not nearly as much as you think...

(The political season is driving up add costs, so that is helping in the short term)

 

Most of your smaller market stations barely break even looking at cost to get product on air vs revenue. 

 

I want that spectrum to be used to generate higher GDP. I do believe that wireless carriers will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

I want that spectrum to be used to generate higher GDP. I do believe that wireless carriers will do that.

 

I did not know that "600" stands for "GDP."  I also did not know that wireless operators do not presently have spectrum with which to generate higher GDP.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

I did not know that "600" stands for "GDP."  I also did not know that wireless operators do not presently have spectrum with which to generate higher GDP.

 

AJ

 

Spectrum is a public resource and it should be used in the most economically efficient manner. I believe that is cellular communications. My beef is why the hell are we paying the broadcasters to vacate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Spectrum is a public resource and it should be used in the most economically efficient manner. I believe that is cellular communications. My beef is why the hell are we paying the broadcasters to vacate.

 

You really have gone off the deep end on this one.  Your beliefs do not a logical argument make.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trip Member Level: 4G LTE

Trip

Posted
Posted

Spectrum is a public resource and it should be used in the most economically efficient manner. I believe that is cellular communications. My beef is why the hell are we paying the broadcasters to vacate.

 

"Land in cities is a limited resource and should be used in the most economically efficient manner.  I believe that to be apartment buildings.  Why the hell are do private apartment building developers have to pay people to vacate their single family homes when they should be able to just bulldoze them and build apartments?"

 

Not the perfect analogy, but pretty close.  Unless you're one of those people who believes eminent domain should be used to kick people out of properties to hand over to private developers, does that not strike you as unfair?  Usually, private developers pay people a premium to move out of their homes in prime locations to build there because it's more valuable as apartments.  How is this any different?

 

- Trip

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted (edited)

"Land in cities is a limited resource and should be used in the most economically efficient manner.  I believe that to be apartment buildings.  Why the hell are do private apartment building developers have to pay people to vacate their single family homes when they should be able to just bulldoze them and build apartments?"

 

Not the perfect analogy, but pretty close.  Unless you're one of those people who believes eminent domain should be used to kick people out of properties to hand over to private developers, does that not strike you as unfair?  Usually, private developers pay people a premium to move out of their homes in prime locations to build there because it's more valuable as apartments.  How is this any different?

 

- Trip

 

TV broadcasters did not pay for their spectrum. They were given it for free. To extend your analogy, let's say that a public housing project was built in what is now considered prime real estate. A private developer comes in and wants to buy the land from the government for a large amount of money so he can built high rise condos on the spot. Not only that but he will built a new public housing development in another spot. What shall the government do?

Edited by bigsnake49
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trip Member Level: 4G LTE

Trip

Posted
Posted

TV broadcasters did not pay for their spectrum. They were given it for free.

 

And the land the houses were built on was taken from the Native Americans for free, too.  Since then, market transactions have, in almost every case, included the value of the underlying land/spectrum.

 

- Trip

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Spectrum is a public resource and it should be used in the most economically efficient manner.

 

Yosemite National Park is a public resource.  But most of it is just sitting there, unimproved.  We need to sell it to Disney.  Raising admission prices, building roller coasters, and creating jobs will increase GDP.

 

The White House is a public resource.  We need to take advantage of built in cross marketing and open a White House Black Market fashion boutique just off of the Rose Garden.

 

Public resources should be used in the most economically efficient manner.  We must increase GDP!

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

Spectrum is a public resource and it should be used in the most economically efficient manner. I believe that is cellular communications. My beef is why the hell are we paying the broadcasters to vacate.

 

bigsnake49, you had a phone message while you were out this afternoon.  Let me see, oh, here it is...

 

Ayn Rand called.  She said, "You and your ideas be cray cray extreme."

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trip Member Level: 4G LTE

Trip

Posted
Posted

TV broadcasters did not pay for their spectrum. They were given it for free. To extend your analogy, let's say that a public housing project was built in what is now considered prime real estate. A private developer comes in and wants to buy the land from the government for a large amount of money so he can built high rise condos on the spot. Not only that but he will built a new public housing development in another spot. What shall the government do?

 

Ah, you edited your post.

 

Well, the TV stations aren't owned by the government, like most public housing would be, so that analogy falls apart.  Furthermore, I'm not sure which part of forcing the TV stations off the air is anything like "new public housing [will be built] in another spot".

 

- Trip

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dkyeager Member Level: LTE Advanced

dkyeager

Posted
Posted

AT&T may reduce or drop out: http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/analyst-at-t-may-opt-out-incentive-auction-due-to-time-warner-deal

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

bigsnake49, you had a phone message while you were out this afternoon.  Let me see, oh, here it is...

 

Ayn Rand called.  She said, "You and your ideas be cray cray extreme."

 

AJ

 

Not so. Why do you think we have this auction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • Paynefanbro
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      Kind of amazing that T-Mobile is still holding onto that speed title despite Verizon all but killing off lowband 5G on their network. While Verizon is mostly being evaluated on mmWave and C-band performance, T-Mobile and AT&T's average 5G speeds include their massive lowband 5G networks that are significantly slower.
    • schmidtj
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By schmidtj · Posted

      5G in the U.S. – Additional Mid-band Spectrum Driving Performance Gains T-Mobile holds on to it's lead in 5G Speed
    • RedSpark
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By RedSpark · Posted

      Yup. Very true. We were originally on an Everything Data 1500 Plan, which got Unlimited Minutes thanks to Marcelo's "Loyalty Benefits" offer. We then switched to Unlimited Freedom (with the Free HD add-on that Sprint originally wanted $20/month per line for.... remember that?) because the pricing was better with "iPhone for Life", vs. the "Loyalty Credit" for staying on a Legacy Plan. After that, I ran the numbers and switched us over to Sprint MAX, especially for the international travel benefits. There's absolutely no reason for us to switch to Go5G Plus or Go5G Next if we're going to do BYOD by purchasing from Apple/Samsung/Google directly as we've been doing. These new plans aren't priced for current customers to switch to. They're priced for new customers, where they throw in a free line, etc. It's gone from "Uncarrier" to "Carrier". What a shame.
    • dkyeager
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Strange business model that they keep around all these pricing plans. 1000s of plans per carrier is reportedly not uncommon.  Training customer support must be a nightmare. Even MVNOs have legacy plans. A downside of their contract mentality I guess. Best to change contracts during a recession. But then all carriers try to squeeze out legacy plan benefits as they grow old.  
    • RedSpark
      Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

      By RedSpark · Posted

      Everything "Uncarrier" is becoming "Carrier" again. Because of the Credit Limit that T-Mobile put on our account for no reason at all (and wouldn't change/update the last time I checked all the way up to the CEO), I don't plan on buying/upgrading our iPhones through T-Mobile. I'm going through Apple directly. Looks like I'll be going through Google and Samsung directly for our other lines for upgrades. Also, we're staying on Sprint Max given the ridiculous pricing for Go5G Plus. On Sprint Max, we currently pay for our Plan: $260 for 7 Voice Lines $25 for two Wearable Lines. (One is $10/Month. The other is $15/Month because the AutoPay discount only applies up to 8 lines.) Total: $285/Month vs. Go5G Plus (Per the Broadband Facts "nutrition label" on the T-Mobile Website): https://www.t-mobile.com/commerce/cell-phone-plans $360 - ($5 AutoPay Discount x 7 Voice Lines) = $325 The Watch Plans show as either $12/Month or $15/Month: https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/affordable-data-plans/smartwatches So this is about the same for the wearables as what we're paying now. Overall, it's quite more than we're paying now to switch plans. Ridiculous....

  • Recently Browsing

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