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

[dedub]

re: competition

 

 

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/03/competition-could-cost-us-isps-24b-a-year-says-report/

[Fraydog]

re: competition

 

 

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/03/competition-could-cost-us-isps-24b-a-year-says-report/

Landline has to get more competition with Title II and Municipal Broadband. That's pretty clear. That isn't addressing wireless, however.

[bigsnake49]

Landline has to get more competition with Title II and Municipal Broadband. That's pretty clear. That isn't addressing wireless, however.

 

Wireless will be part of Title II.

[bcltoys]

The devil in the details and yet to be seen, might end up being hogwash. Talking about title ll

[Fraydog]

The devil in the details and yet to be seen, might end up being hogwash. Talking about title ll

Verizon will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. That's where the real decision lies.

[bcltoys]

Verizon will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. That's where the real decision lies.

Yup it not over till it's over.Could drag out years

[milan03]

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.

 

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.

Charlie is looking to cash out on his spectrum position right about now, not sure if he's interested in spending more money on T-Mobile. That's probably his last choice right now.

 

But if Marcelo decides to sell some of Sprint's 2.5GHz spectrum to let's say Verizon, Charlie's spectrum will instantly lose most of it's hype. In my opinion that's about the only scenario that would force Charlie to seriously evaluate acquiring or partnering with T-Mobile.

[S4GRU]

Charlie is looking to cash out on his spectrum position right about now, not sure if he's interested in spending more money on T-Mobile. That's probably his last choice right now.

 

But if Marcelo decides to sell some of Sprint's 2.5GHz spectrum to let's say Verizon, Charlie's spectrum will instantly lose most of it's hype. In my opinion that's about the only scenario that would force Charlie to seriously evaluate acquiring or partnering with T-Mobile.

Interesting. I'll chew on that one for awhile.

 

Using Tapatalk on BlackBerry Z30

[cdk]

Charlie is looking to cash out on his spectrum position right about now, not sure if he's interested in spending more money on T-Mobile. That's probably his last choice right now.

 

That maybe the case, but he must be insane. If he is looking to cash out and his only plan is to buy more spectrum he is setting up a potential bubble that might explode in his face...

 

But if Marcelo decides to sell some of Sprint's 2.5GHz spectrum to let's say Verizon, Charlie's spectrum will instantly lose most of it's hype. In my opinion that's about the only scenario that would force Charlie to seriously evaluate acquiring or partnering with T-Mobile.

 

This could be the pin that burst his bubble! Even the possibility of this has to hurt Charlie's position. (Not that I am a big fan of Sprint selling any significant amount of its 2.5 spectrum)

[bigsnake49]

That maybe the case, but he must be insane. If he is looking to cash out and his only plan is to buy more spectrum he is setting up a potential bubble that might explode in his face...

 

 

This could be the pin that burst his bubble! Even the possibility of this has to hurt Charlie's position. (Not that I am a big fan of Sprint selling any significant amount of its 2.5 spectrum)

 

Just remember that Sprint does not own EBS spectrum, they're just leasing it. If they sell they will sell the leasing rights. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by bigsnake49

[lou99/maximus1987]

Just remember that Sprint does not own EBS spectrum, they're just leasing it. If they sell they will sell the leasing rights.

Expect Charlie to bid up the leases when they're due.

[bigsnake49]

Expect Charlie to bid up the leases when they're due.

Charlie wanted the 2.5 GHz spectrum. Maybe Sprint can still trade the leasing rights for the 2000-2020MHz spectrum+ PCS Block G+hosting charlie's spectrum.

[Fraydog]

I don't get what sense it would make for Ergen to poison the water with a potential host for his spectrum like Sprint, but maybe Ergen is industrial grade stupid.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Charlie wanted the 2.5 GHz spectrum. Maybe Sprint can still trade the leasing rights for the 2000-2020MHz spectrum+ PCS Block G+hosting charlie's spectrum.

You mean sprint would buy aws4? Unnecessary. Sprint already has boatloads of 2.5 so why would it complicate itself by adding another band merely to placate Charlie?

What would Charlie do with some 2.5? Only thing would be rural fixed wireless but for that a wholesale deal is sufficient. Charlie doesn't need to own spectrum for that.

[WiWavelength]

Just remember that Sprint does not own EBS spectrum, they're just leasing it. If they sell they will sell the leasing rights. 

Expect Charlie to bid up the leases when they're due.

 

Do not assume that Ergen will get that opportunity.  In its lease contracts, Sprint likely holds exclusive negotiation rights.  Sprint would have to walk away before any other interested party would get a crack.

 

AJ

[lou99/maximus1987]

Do not assume that Ergen will get that opportunity. In its lease contracts, Sprint likely holds exclusive negotiation rights. Sprint would have to walk away before any other interested party would get a crack.

 

AJ

But if the lessors know they could get more, they could stonewall sprint. Charlie could make a public statement of how much he'd pay. Nothing illegal about that.

[S4GRU]

Sprint has the ability to renew its EBS leases in most instances automatically. Most of them have a clause that if the lessee meets all the conditions for renewal, renewal is automatic. However, it's going to be messy. Schools who want to see a windfall are likely going to fight. How successful will the fights be? I have no idea.

[mhammett]

To the guy that said (I forget now and don't want to scroll back) that AJ knew more than me, I don't know how much AJ knows, but I guarantee you that if he does know more, it's not a landslide.  ;-)  No offense meant to AJ, just saying that I know more than your average bear.

 

 

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"

 

UTOPIA, so like in Provo where after spending tens of millions of dollars, they just hand it over to Google for a buck because they can't make a go of it?

(I may have said some of this already) My state was quite successful in getting grant money from the ARRA. In my county, all schools, libraries, healthcare, non-profits, etc. were sucked out as potential clients. This came just as I was approved to provide those very connections. It may sound like sour grapes, but now I don't have that strategic anchor customer that has the bargaining chips with the village for me to use their infrastructure. I don't have that big customer to justify the monthly expenses in expanding to that community. Unlike if they were with a private company, if I use the new infrastructure in any way, I have no agree to a non-compete regarding all non-profit and government entities. The county has to waive its right to sell that customer first. I couldn't steal those customers away if I wanted to because the county surely isn't going to give them up. Okay, but I can use it to sell to others, homes small businesses (few of these towns have any businesses other than small), etc. I could, except the cheapest connection to a home is $90/month. That's just the connection from me to the home. I have to then connect me to the Internet, connect the things within the home, support that customer and of course profit enough to do it again somewhere else. The prices for commercial grade 100 meg and GigE services aren't bad except that the GigE service really isn't GigE. They only guarantee 600 megs.

 

Another project in the area has been operational now for a year, year and a half? I still can't buy lit services on it, only dark fiber. Providing a 100 meg to a customer 40 miles away would require a massive up-front cost to buy all of that fiber.

 

One that encompasses more of the state, but only really hits major towns does okay on GigE pricing. However, anything more than or less than GigE is expensive. 100 megs? $800/month. 200 megs? $1,500/month. GigE? $1,200/month (so not much more than 100 megs and less than 200 megs). 10GigE? $9k/month. 10GigE available from another operator (available in different areas of the state, though not all of the former project, but some areas the former isn't available in)? $2k - $3k/month. It's unrealistic pricing for anything other than GigE.

 

That's some very stiff (or getting stiffed) competition paid for with tax dollars.

 

The ISPs wanting municipal broadband or TItle II are so very small in numbers, they're insignificant.

 

Let sprint team up with Google fiber to subsidize rollout and in exchange sprint would get marketing like "google fiber + sprint spark = blah blah blah" I don't know but SOMETHING.

 

6) Google MVNO sounds good except for what is publicly known: Sprint said "if you get too successful, we get to reign you in". MVNO can't properly compete against its host so that's not real competition.

 

You assume that Google Fiber is profitable. It isn't. It's losing money and not garnering the signups they were hoping for.

 

Never seen an introductory rate before? We give you a special deal where we're not actually making any money for the PR, but eventually we have to make money at this.

 

For mom-and-pop shops, I would somewhat agree. (Although if any meaningful number of them could afford licensed spectrum, Ubiquiti would probably make gear for them)

 

Agree, 100%. Not to mention rural WISPs who could do some amazing things with licensed spectrum.

 

Which is why most people are advocating for Title II + Municipal Broadband. Which would give independents equal footing on every one of those networks, enforced by law. It's not free money like the ARRA's mess.

 

When there is competition, I'd agree. For instance, mobile is (currently) fairly competitive, in my opinion.

But in other areas (landline broadband) -- there's zero competition in almost every market. It makes a lot of since to me for local municipalities to be allowed to build their own last mile, so long as it's protected by Title II. Especially since they often do a good job with it.

 

Ubiquiti won't. They haven't committed to supporting TVWS, so getting their support for licensed bands would be pretty much nil.

 

We could do great things, and some are.

 

It would not be equal footing. It would be taxpayer subsidized hacks.

 

Yes, there is plenty of competition in mobile. No need to do much there.

 

There are thousands of independents that don't appreciate you calling them zeros. To me it makes a lot more sense for local municipalities to embrace the independents that are already there. I had a village looking at my service to connect all of their buildings. I was going to provide 100 megabit+ of diverse entrance building-to-building goodness. I'm already on their towers, so it was not difficult for me to do so. They opted for a non-diverse Comcast setup. *facepalm*

 

My expectation is that mhammett does not want municipal broadband because he does not want that added competition.  That is understandable if his WISP is his livelihood.

 

But some jobs and businesses have to fall by the wayside in the name of progress.  Sorry.  And broadband progress driven by WISPs is not going to be sufficient.

 

Wireless spectrum is too finite.  Only investment in fiber -- to the premises or at least to the node -- is adequate for the future.  It must be run everywhere and offered at utility level prices.

 

For profit incumbents/entrepreneurs are generally not willing to make that longterm investment -- except in select locations.  Municipal broadband may be the only way to fill that digital divide.

 

See Chattanooga, TN and Lafayette, LA.

 

AJ

 

See the first part of my post about that supposed progress. This spring I'm rolling out 50 megabit service for under $100/month (so same ballpark as Comcast, only without their BS) and actually cheaper than Comcast on some of their lower speed services... over wireless. No government subsidies of any kind. Dozens if not hundreds of my brethren have started building their own fiber networks, again without government subsidies.

 

Landline has to get more competition with Title II and Municipal Broadband. That's pretty clear. That isn't addressing wireless, however.

 

What about the existing independents getting rolled over?

[lou99/maximus1987]

The reason why title ii is gonna pass is because the ISPs are dicks. The ISPs are dicks because they don't have competition.

So how do we get more competition? I live in a WOW! Cable overbuild area but from Wikipedia, most over builders failed.

Wheeler just said that he won't implement last mile sharing but this is only thing to truly enable competition.

 

 

 

Regarding google fiber: one reason why they're not getting as many sign ups is because some people don't wanna pay $70 for internet no matter the speed.

I have comcast $40 25/5 + basic tv and I'm about to switch to comcast $20 25/5 no tv.

It's me and my wife and at the price I'll be paying for comcast, I'll never be switching even if google fiber comes.

[Fraydog]

Mhammet, here's a question that pertains to IBOP Southern, since we're in the same state. I know that business clients and carriers like Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon use that fiber, but is it something that could ever be run to homes as a Google Fiber like competitor to Frontier here? Is that even legal for Clearwave to do here? (Not to be confused with Clearwire that Sprint bought. )

[bigsnake49]

Sprint has the ability to renew its EBS leases in most instances automatically. Most of them have a clause that if the lessee meets all the conditions for renewal, renewal is automatic. However, it's going to be messy. Schools who want to see a windfall are likely going to fight. How successful will the fights be? I have no idea.

 

Personally, I'd rather the schools and catholic church get stripped of that spectrum. They were given that spectrum in the early 70's for remote learning classes. There is nothing educational or remote learning about Sprint or anybody else using that spectrum for mobile data. They have no right to that spectrum anymore. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by bigsnake49

[lou99/maximus1987]

Personally, I'd rather the schools and catholic church get stripped of that spectrum. They were given that spectrum in the early 70's for remote learning classes. There is nothing educational or remote learning about Sprint or anybody else using that spectrum for mobile data. They have no right to that spectrum anymore.

Yep. Reauction it as brs. Sprint keeps its existing brs. Bye bye advantage. Don't think you want that.

[Fraydog]

If there's a reverse auction of EBS/BRS wouldn't it bring band 7/38 rebanding out of the woodwork?

 

Now if the U.S. rebranded 700 I wouldn't mind that. Go to APT band 28. But you know AT&T and Verizon would go absolutely apeshit if the FCC put that on the table.

[lou99/maximus1987]

If there's a reverse auction of EBS/BRS wouldn't it bring band 7/38 rebanding out of the woodwork?

 

Now if the U.S. rebranded 700 I wouldn't mind that. Go to APT band 28. But you know AT&T and Verizon would go absolutely apeshit if the FCC put that on the table.

Why would there be a reverse auction? They were given the spectrum for free and they got use if it. Why should they get money for it?

[bigsnake49]

Yep. Reauction it as brs. Sprint keeps its existing brs. Bye bye advantage. Don't think you want that.

I like spectrum that is fully utilized not warehoused.