Jump to content

FCC commissioner calls out Dish for Designated Entity bidding in AWS-3 Auction


lou99/maximus1987
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pai is the best Commissioner on the FCC today. Simply fantastic.

 

Finally!

 

I'm glad someone is trying to hold Dish accountable for this mess. Or at least pretending to care.

 

 

well before the AWS-3 auction started, I dissented from the FCC’s decision to loosen the DE rules for this auction. I explained that doing so was not only unlawful but would “invite arbitrageurs to make creative end-runs around our DE rules.” One of my fears was that the FCC was sending the message to big businesses that “anything goes.” I didn’t expect to be this right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that we'll read on fcc votes but I guess in general.

Like I'm gonna guess he's against municipal broadband.

So really, you're just making shit up as you go along? Okay, got it. Now that we have that out of the way...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally!

 

I'm glad someone is trying to hold Dish accountable for this mess.

You can't blame dish. Not really.

Dish is playing by the rules the 3 Dems voted in. It's like blaming a 3 year old for taking candy placed on the edge of the table. It's the adult's fault who put the candy there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally!

 

I'm glad someone is trying to hold Dish accountable for this mess. Or at least pretending to care.

The fcc should stop this fantasy that somehow there's gonna be a new entrant in telecom. It shouldn't allow bidders without an existing wireless business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fcc should stop this fantasy that somehow there's gonna be a new entrant in telecom. It shouldn't allow bidders without an existing wireless business.

 

No, no no no. That's not the takeaway from this.

 

The FCC should welcome new entrants into telecom. But spectrum sold should always have strong buildout requirements.

 

All the FCC needs to do is have and enforce strong buildout requirements. Serious new entrants will meet them. Fake new entrants won't, and will loose their spectrum. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fcc should stop this fantasy that somehow there's gonna be a new entrant in telecom. It shouldn't allow bidders without an existing wireless business.

There are tons of companies outside of the major metros that would love more reasonably priced spectrum. There are dozens to maybe hundreds in the mobile wireless game and thousands in the fixed wireless game.

 

Municipal broadband…

You were guessing municipal broadband. If you're stating municipal broadband, I can take that. Good, get the tons of failed government broadband boondoggles out of here. They don't cause material harm to the big guys, but virtual eliminate any independent networks in the area. There should be a nationwide moratorium on municipal broadband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no no no. That's not the takeaway from this.

 

The FCC should welcome new entrants into telecom. But spectrum sold should always have strong buildout requirements.

 

All the FCC needs to do is have and enforce strong buildout requirements. Serious new entrants will meet them. Fake new entrants won't, and will loose their spectrum.

Yes but established telcos - the big four plus regionals - ARE in it for the capacity/coverage that new spectrum provides.

With "new entrants", you don't know if they're speculators or not.

 

And honestly at this point, can a new entrant legitimately compete with >100% saturation? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of companies outside of the major metros that would love more reasonably priced spectrum. There are dozens to maybe hundreds in the mobile wireless game and thousands in the fixed wireless game.

 

You were guessing municipal broadband. If you're stating municipal broadband, I can take that. Good, get the tons of failed government broadband boondoggles out of here. They don't cause material harm to the big guys, but virtual eliminate any independent networks in the area. There should be a nationwide moratorium on municipal broadband.

Wow. I definitely hope AJ jumps in.

But by that logic, ind networks should've been thriving in the states with bans.

Have they?

 

To the first point, I guess strict buildout requirements is the way to go then. That'd take care of speculators. [emoji106]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I definitely hope AJ jumps in.

But by that logic, ind networks should've been thriving in the states with bans.

Have they?

 

To the first point, I guess strict buildout requirements is the way to go then. That'd take care of speculators. [emoji106]

I don't care who jumps in. The board's management knows that I have built and operate my own ISP. There are literally thousands of us out there, but we're not as flashy to the markets due to scale and we're not as flashy to the pipedreamers because we prove their concepts invalid.

 

There are a ton of great ideas for increasing competition. http://harnishhypothesis.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-gig-is-up.html Just one of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, get the tons of failed government broadband boondoggles out of here. They don't cause material harm to the big guys, but virtual eliminate any independent networks in the area. There should be a nationwide moratorium on municipal broadband.

 

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care who jumps in. The board's management knows that I have built and operate my own ISP. There are literally thousands of us out there, but we're not as flashy to the markets due to scale and we're not as flashy to the pipedreamers because we prove their concepts invalid.

 

There are a ton of great ideas for increasing competition. http://harnishhypothesis.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-gig-is-up.html Just one of many.

I meant that AJ probably has more accumulated knowledge, not to bully you because of your position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

I would appreciate a mod spinning off these non-AWS posts to a new thread so I can continue to educate people over there instead of cluttering up this thread. Please notify me when you do. Until then, I'll stop on this tangent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats...that's not how government broadband typically works...

 

This is getting offtopic, but I've also built and worked for an independent ISP. I've also met with half-a-dozen other ISP's across Michigan. Title 2 + Municipal Fiber would be a godsend to basically all of them. (Even the ones that already paid to put their own fiber in the ground).

 

Gigabit Fiber to homes, $65/month, from your pick of 8 different providers (on top of regular Cable + DSL services). "Government fiber" is real, it exists today, it's not "controlled" by the government in any noticable manner, and it basically rocks. - http://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/

 

While there are plenty of growing pains with programs like that, it's clearly the right direction to push for. We need people to promote this. Not pretending it's some sort of "government boondoggle"

I'm leaning towards mhammet because: why doesn't the fcc do last mile open access (not sure what it's called exactly) which is why they have in Europe an Britain (I think)

In Britain you have the former monopoly bring forced to lease their network to anyone.

See the line rental line item in this link:

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/comparison/broadband

 

It's not far fetched that this administration wants to control the internet. Look at FEC votes - most recent notable ended in a tie - that would've greatly restricted free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dish/TMo would bring lots of spectrum to the table. Lots of weird spectrum. Hello custom T-Mo devices - they'd have the same issues Sprint has now with procurement.

 

Also I imagine Charlie and Johnny would fist fight each other in the space of a month. :lol:

 

Final point: say goodbye to old T-Zone and Voicestream plans if Dish buys T-Mobile. Charlie will want to have rural LTE to sell his rural customer base. That might cause some consternation in the "cheap please" part of the Magenta base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dish/TMo would bring lots of spectrum to the table. Lots of weird spectrum. Hello custom T-Mo devices - they'd have the same issues Sprint has now with procurement.

 

Also I imagine Charlie and Johnny would fist fight each other in the space of a month. :lol:

That's why I said they should only sell aws3 if they get agree duo to agree to support aws4.

They shouldn't even merge unless they achieve this.

Obviously dish would sell to att it's b29 spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I said they should only sell aws3 if they get agree duo to agree to support aws4.

They shouldn't even merge unless they achieve this.

Obviously dish would sell to att it's b29 spectrum.

I can't put my finger on why I don't like such a plan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't put my finger on why I don't like such a plan...

For sprint's sake or TMO/dish?

Sprint would have a harder time selling it's spectrum, maybe.

I don't know what synergy's there'd be in a dish/TMO merger.

Maybe use the 40mhz SDL + other spectrum for rural fixed wireless? Wouldn't be the same as 120mhz of 2.5 but it'd be better than satellite or dialup: 40mhz SDL = 300mbps and the second carrier - prolly aws1 - would provide some more.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...