FCC Sets Deadline for Opposers of Verizon's Spectrum Grabs
Reinstate the Spectrum Screen FOR REAL
The FCC needs to protect competition in the wireless marketplace. The best tool at it's disposal to do that is to re-instate teh hard spectrum screen with language similar to the following:
Such calculations would exclude consideration of airwaves that "could" be used for wireless services, but currently are not implemented, such as LightSquared's L-band spectrum and the AWS spectrum Verizon has been hording and doing nothing with for all these years. Only spectrum for which end-user devices exist in the mass market would be included in the determinations
...
(continues)
No single entity or corporation shall be permitted to own more than 30% of the actively used, currently consumed spectrum in any given market area.
Such calculations would exclude consideration of airwaves that "could" be used for wireless services, but currently are not implemented, such as LightSquared's L-band spectrum and the AWS spectrum Verizon has been hording and doing nothing with for all these years. Only spectrum for which end-user devices exist in the mass market would be included in the determinations
...
(continues)
...
"We have to make sure that there are never fewer than 3 STRONG players in the wireless carrier marketplace."
Why stop at three? Why not 4? 5? 10?
Once we have established that it is the proper role of government to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, why not go all out and not just preserve the status quo, but try to create something better?''
Of course, I am being sarcastic, but I don't see how someone can start from the premises you start with and draw precisely that conclusion.
It's not the government's job to ensure that ANY company stays in business, or to ensure that it goes bankrupt.
Why stop at three? Why not 4? 5? 10?
Once we have established that it is the proper role of government to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, why not go all out and not just preserve the status quo, but try to create something better?''
Of course, I am being sarcastic, but I don't see how someone can start from the premises you start with and draw precisely that conclusion.
It's not the government's job to ensure that ANY company stays in business, or to ensure that it goes bankrupt.
...
He never said that its the government's job to ensure ANY company stays in business. What he is referring to is to stop allowing a couple of companies to hoard all of the available spectrum. VZ buying up all the spectrum available is no different than ATT trying to hit a homerun with the purchase of TMobile. While it is not the governments job to ensure X or Y business stays in business, it is their job to make sure that when they are licensing PUBLIC airwaves that they make sure that the market is highly competitive and full of choices.
...
ygbhen said:
He never said that its the government's job to ensure ANY company stays in business. What he is referring to is to stop allowing a couple of companies to hoard all of the available spectrum. VZ buying up all the spectrum available is no different than ATT trying to hit a homerun with the purchase of TMobile. While it is not the governments job to ensure X or Y business stays in business, it is their job to make sure that when they are licensing PUBLIC airwaves that they make sure that the market is highly competitive and full of choices.
Exactly. The government should have no input on the pricing or competitive behavior of the firms EXCEPT to set adequate policy ensuring that competitive pres...
(continues)
...
For the life of me, I can't find any of that in the constitution and or the original intent when the FCC was created.
Maybe someone can point me to those instances.
Maybe someone can point me to those instances.
...
dlmjr said:
For the life of me, I can't find any of that in the constitution and or the original intent when the FCC was created.
Maybe someone can point me to those instances.
The Communications Act of 1934, in which Congress created the FCC, contains clauses pertaining to application of antitrust law and preservation of competition:
"All laws of the United States relating to unlawful restraints and monopolies and to combinations, contracts, or agreements in restraint of trade are hereby declared to be applicable to the manufacture and sale of and to trade in radio apparatus and devices entering into or affecting interstate or foreign commerce and to interstate or foreign radio communications."
"...
(continues)
...
There are no monopolies in the cellular industry and none looming on the horizon, despite all the cries of such lately.
Even if ATT had acquired TMobile, it wouldn't have created a monopoly by definition.
Substantially decreased competition? Intrepretative at best.
The rest of any of that wording is ambiguous.
The act was passed under FDR and probably grants the FCC ultra constitutional powers with vague broad, undefined mandates, but at the time the country was scared to death.
It's original intent is excellent.
It's wording and subsequent implementation has overstepped its bounds in certain areas.
Even if ATT had acquired TMobile, it wouldn't have created a monopoly by definition.
Substantially decreased competition? Intrepretative at best.
The rest of any of that wording is ambiguous.
The act was passed under FDR and probably grants the FCC ultra constitutional powers with vague broad, undefined mandates, but at the time the country was scared to death.
It's original intent is excellent.
It's wording and subsequent implementation has overstepped its bounds in certain areas.
...
There you go with your presumptive rhetoric again!
"...and to combinations, contracts, or agreements in restraint of trade..."
Cartels and oligarchies are just as damaging to the free market as a textbook "monopoly" would be.
I'm not worried about a monopoly forming. I'm just worried about loosing so many competitors that the remaining firms stop fighting each other to win over customers.
With fewer than three or four COMPARABLE service providers, that's a clear and present danger.
"...and to combinations, contracts, or agreements in restraint of trade..."
Cartels and oligarchies are just as damaging to the free market as a textbook "monopoly" would be.
I'm not worried about a monopoly forming. I'm just worried about loosing so many competitors that the remaining firms stop fighting each other to win over customers.
With fewer than three or four COMPARABLE service providers, that's a clear and present danger.
...
Or how about companies are not allowed to purchase additional spectrum until they're using at least 80% of what they own.
...
GettingSleepy said:
Or how about companies are not allowed to purchase additional spectrum until they're using at least 80% of what they own.
That logic breaks down because of the way spectrum is auctioned. If you look at the AWS spectrum that VZW is trying to acquire compared to the AWS spectrum they already had, it's obvious why they weren't using it: They only had AWS spectrum assets east of the Mississippi, but in the auction, the CableCo outfit bought all the SAME spectrum rights in the Western USA.
It is basically IMPOSSILBE for VZW to deploy AWS service without having the western US spectrum, because handset makers would have to create different antennas for east-coast and west-coast customers...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
