pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| NY Times Misses the Point Does the NY Times not know what the purpose of an auction is? It is for the seller to get the highest possible price for the item being sold. Auctions have nothing to do with allowing for newcomers to enter the field.
If a newcomer could outbid any of the established companies, then said newcomer would cheerfully have access to said item.
From the government's perspective, the auction was quite successful, netting in billions of dollars. Why did the NY Times not focus on how the government made out like a bandit as a result of this auction?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: NY Times Misses the Point said by pnh102  :Does the NY Times not know what the purpose of an auction is? It is for the seller to get the highest possible price for the item being sold. Auctions have nothing to do with allowing for newcomers to enter the field. If a newcomer could outbid any of the established companies, then said newcomer would cheerfully have access to said item. From the government's perspective, the auction was quite successful, netting in billions of dollars. Why did the NY Times not focus on how the government made out like a bandit as a result of this auction? Yup... In this case the rich get bigger and the poor go out of business..
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
 | 
corrected
@verizon.net | Re: NY Times Misses the Point the rich get richer, and the piss poor satellite companies get to screw (I mean raise price$) the customer again, and again, and again.... | |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | Was wondering.
Does the money go directly to the treasury or to the FCC for their department to spend? | |
|
| 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: NY Times Misses the Point I have all ways wondered my self where the money went.. | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | It goes directly to the Treasury's general fund. The FCC gets nothing.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | 
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: NY Times Misses the Point said by RadioDoc :It goes directly to the Treasury's general fund. The FCC gets nothing. Dammit, RadioDoc, you got in before I could finish my Google! 
As always,
Cheers.
--
"Gimme a 'C'! A bouncy 'C'! There once was a boy from Nantucket whos 'Da Da Da Dee Dee Dee' whatever the hell else you want..." | |
|
| | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: NY Times Misses the Point The FCC's budget is about 2% of what this one auction brought in. While I am sure there is some budgetary consideration when/if the FCC asks for out-of-ordinary expense items, the auction process is all about Congressional money grabbing. The FCC was mandated to do it, and has no choice in the matter.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
|
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Zoder :Was wondering. Does the money go directly to the treasury or to the FCC for their department to spend? »wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/defaul···auctions
I found this on the FCC site, "Omnibus..." and "...public benefit..." jump out at me, but I did not investigate further.
/Me thinking the proceeds go into a "General Fund"... this fairly screams, "SLUSH!!!" But I could be wrong...
Cheers and good question... Inquiring minds want to know. 
--
"Gimme a 'C'! A bouncy 'C'! There once was a boy from Nantucket whos 'Da Da Da Dee Dee Dee' whatever the hell else you want..." | |
|
| | FLA05
join:2006-01-11
Panama City, FL | Re: NY Times Misses the Point The money is going to fund the war in Iraq......for about a month | |
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | Hmmm or the NY Times is doing the usual "SPIN" about big evil corporations, etc. | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :Does the NY Times not know what the purpose of an auction is? It is for the seller to get the highest possible price for the item being sold... Exactly! That's not what the FCC is supposed to be about, but that's the way spectrum auctions have been set up.
The FCC should be using a process that ensures new entrants WILL win licenses, to foster competition and benefit consumers. Who the hell do you expect to win these licenses when highest bidder wins? No-name Wireless, Ltd or ATT?
If this is the way spectrum continues to be auctioned, there will never be significant competition in wireless broadband and all spectrum will be owned by the current incumbents with few possible exceptions. | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: NY Times Misses the Point Tell that to your Congresscritter. They set the rules. The FCC just carries the water.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | short09
join:2006-07-21
| Re: NY Times Misses the Point said by RadioDoc :Tell that to your Congresscritter they wont listen unless u give a congressman $25000 | |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by pnh102 :From the government's perspective, the auction was quite successful, netting in billions of dollars. Why did the NY Times not focus on how the government made out like a bandit as a result of this auction? While revenue-generation was the mostly widely reported aspect in the press, and the one politicians like to talk about, that's not the "real" reason why the FCC does these auctions. After all, $10-20 billion is almost the rounding error in the yearly Federal budget, and these are for long-term, multiyear licenses. The fees they generate are a drop in the bucket.
Rather, these auctions are supposed to be an extercise in classic free-market-based economics. By selling to the highest bidder, the intent is to put the spectrum to its "highest and best" use; i.e., by giving the license to the entity that values the spectrum the most, the idea is that it will go to the party that can generate the most earnings from it. According to free-market ideologues, maximizing earnings == maximizing "utility" == maximizing the use of a public resource == maximizing the public good.
Whether this actually turns out to be the case remains to be seen. Critics contend that the incumbents may now just sit on the spectrum and do nothing with it, and only bought it to lock competitors out. 'hardly the "highest and best use" the gov't had in mind. Time will tell. | |
|
|
|
|
·