
The Big 4 wireless carriers have created bottleneck to innovation that keeps coolest phone features unavailable to users - nickb
http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/08/wireless-fcc-auction-tech-intel-cx_bc_0611wireless.html
======
bilbo0s
OK everyone, calm down.

Let me explain what these internet companies are asking for. Essentially they
want the telecoms to pay us, the American Taxpayers, BILLIONS for access to
wireless spectrum. Subsequently, they want these telecoms to be obliged to let
them use the same wireless spectrum for free.

Did I mention that the wireless spectrum is OURS? That it is the sole property
of the American Citizenry?

Start standing up for your rights people. Either EVERYONE pays US for access
to OUR spectrum, or NO ONE does. Look at it this way, on average, many would
say a black guy is more cool than any other guy. That said, if one comes into
MY store and wants MY product, he will pay the same price as everyone else.
Any other method of operating is known as DISCRIMINATION. If Google wants to
use OUR spectrum, they are welcome to bid on it like everyone else.

But come here Google . . . a little closer I have to tell you a secret. WE are
probably going to charge you a good deal more for usage rights to that
spectrum than the telecoms want to charge you to sub-lease it. It's because
our government needs the money and . . . Oh who am I kidding . . . I just love
sticking it to huge companies like yours. I don't care what the other reasons
are. By the way, we also have laws that limit your ability to pass those costs
on to the consumers, typically us. That's because WE want to be able to access
the spectrum as close to free as possible, even after we sell the usage rights
to it. You know why? That's right . . . because it is OUR SPECTRUM!

I apologize for this rant. It just seems to me that when a company like
F@#K!^& GOOGLE is whining about something like this, the cult of victimization
in this nation has officially reached its farcical zenith. The people who
started that company, AND the early employees for that matter, have more money
than 99.9999999% of us. Yet STILL, they want us to give them even more of the
few of our resources that they don't already own for FREE!!!

I have to stop working Sundays...

~~~
nostrademons
That wasn't the proposal in the article. It was for a _segment_ of the
wireless spectrum to be auctioned off with the restriction that it be open to
any device that meets certain specifications. The big-4 wireless carriers can
keep their allotted bands; this is a new part of the electromagnetic spectrum
that is scheduled to be auctioned off shortly anyway.

If the wireless spectrum is OURS (as in, the U.S. peoples'), it makes sense
that we can restrict its usage in whatever way would benefit the people most.
It also makes sense that one such way would be to restrict its usage so that
the buyer cannot restrict other firms' usage of it.

It's essentially an easement. You know what an easement is, right: the owner
of the property sells off certain rights and restrictions to a third-party.
For example, power companies will buy an easement to run high-tension lines
over a field. Wealthy individuals will sell an easement stating that their
land will become conservation land after their death, and the owner will be
prohibited from developing certain areas. In this case, the government is
giving an easement for open-access to the general public, and selling off the
remaining rights to that portion the EM spectrum to the highest bidder.

There is no economic reason why this chunk would sell for higher than the
existing telecoms' slices. Its usage rights are restricted: generally, an
easement lowers the value of the remaining property rights, since you can do
less with it. Also, if you read the article, you'll notice that it's being
_auctioned_ off, which means the government isn't setting a price, it's
selling it to the highest bidder, who will presumably be responsible for
developing the network and putting up cell towers.

Actually, if I had a few billion dollars in funding and a plan for putting up
cell towers more cheaply than the established carriers, I'd buy it. This could
be a game-changer on the same order as Intel's invention of the
microprocessor. Before Intel, the minicomputer field was much like the
wireless field, with many vertically-integrated carriers stifling innovation.
Because Intel (and Microsoft) decided to focus only on one area and
relentlessly lower costs, letting others innovate in the app sphere, the PC
market exploded. We all know how it worked out for Intel and Microsoft...

Even if the government doesn't grant this easement, a savvy investor should
swoop in and make that portion of the spectrum open-access anyway. There's
potentially a _massive_ market there. Too bad I don't have a billion
dollars...

~~~
bilbo0s
Alright, firstly if you read my post I said Google is free to BID on the
spectrum like everyone else. It is my hope that these bids run into the
BILLIONS, we should get our cut.

Secondly, an easement brings down the price for the reasons you outlined.
However, there will be NO restrictions on HOW the winners use this spectrum.
Only a provision that they let other cheap bastards who are not paying us use
the spectrum as well, for FREE. Now as long as EVERYONE pays I am happy. Yet
when ONLY the telecoms have to pay, and the internet companies ride for free,
the American People are losing money. I spend the summers in Paris, and I can
tell you that the American People can ill afford to give things away for free.
1 Euro is about US$1.34 right now.

The fact that the price would be lower for this spectrum is EXACTLY what
INCENSES me. These people will make BILLIONS, and you want us to let them
weasel out of the spectrum fees. They already have a myriad of different
options for weaseling out of our ability to tax them on the back end. With all
due respect, sir, we must agree to disagree.

To everyone else, believe me, I'm wealthy enough. If the majority of us wish
to continue to give more and more to the wealthy in exchange for less and
less, then that is democracy and I will go along with it. It will benefit me
after all. I am simply stating my belief that it is contrary to the interests
of other social classes.

