Verizon Nabs Most Valuable 700Mhz SpectrumAT&T, Verizon together spend $16.2 billion out of $19.5 billion auction total 04:19PM Thursday Mar 20 2008 by Karltags: competition · fcc · business · wireless · alternatives · Verizon Wireless BroadbandThe FCC today announced the winners of the 700Mhz auction, and not too surprisingly, Verizon Wireless came out as the auction's biggest winner, nabbing a significant portion of the treasured C-Block spectrum. That spectrum was considered the last great chunk of wireless real estate, and some (including search giant Google) had hoped it could be used to build a network that would rival those of incumbents AT&T and Verizon. The company, which is jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC., won six large licenses that effectively will give it a national license to provide next-generation wireless broadband service in the so-called C-Block of the spectrum being sold. In addition, it was the largest winner of licenses in the A-block, which are medium-sized licenses, and won 77 more in the B-Block, the smallest licenses that were being auctioned off. After all of the noise and fury made by Google, the company won absolutely nothing. Many will argue Google "won" by effectively convincing the FCC to attach "open access" conditions to the spectrum Verizon won, but given the loose wording of the conditions and Verizon's cozy lobbying relationship with the FCC, those stating the conditions are game changing are over enthusiastic. AT&T was another big winner -- failing to net any huge licenses (they didn't need them), but grabbing 227 licenses from among the "B" block of regional licenses. All told, AT&T spent $6.64 billion and Verizon spent $9.63 billion at the auction -- making up $16.2 billion of the nearly $20 billion Uncle Sam made. Frontier Wireless, partnered with Echostar, did grab some spectrum in the "E" block, but all in all it was an auction dominated by the major players.
Related:- Broadcasters Attack 'White Space' Broadband
- Frontline Asks FCC to Ban Verizon from Spectrum Auction
- Google: Verizon Watering Down 700Mhz Rules
- Product Spotlight: EV-DO Showdown - Verizon vs. Sprint
- So Much For The Talk of Open Wireless Networks
- 700Mhz Auction Winners Finally Talking
- 4G Technologies Should Merge, Not Compete, Says Intel
- FCC Proceeds Cautiously With White Space Testing
|
 
Vertickle
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL | Boo! Damninit!  | |
|  | 
oroper
Patriots Rule
join:2004-06-01
Beverly, MA
| Re: Boo! said by Vertickle  :Damninit! agreed.
Google failed me | |
| | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: Boo! What did google promise you?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | |
Vertickle
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
| Re: Boo! said by RadioDoc :What did google promise you? Where did he state google promised him something? | |
| | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Boo! The claim is that google failed him.
Google is a very large commercial enterprise. I don't remember them promising anyone anything about this. Their "open access" ramblings were to their potential benefit, nobody else's.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | 
Karl
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Boo! But they have to be nice. Their logo has colored letters in it. | |
| | | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: Boo! And on holidays it gets real purty.
-- B | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
edit:
March 20th, @04:46PM
| I hope the FCC and Congress learned that they shouldn't allow one company to control the wireless spectrum, so that we can have competitive pricing and services.
Next auction they should deny previous winners from bidding.
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Boo! I agree. Companies with deep pockets can 'sit' on the spectrum for a while, unless they're pressed to deploy.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| So next auction AT&T will win the majority of the licenses? How does that benefit anyone.
Problem is because we have 2 competing technologies GSM\CDMA we see no direct competition. Plus since about 90% of the potential market is already locked up getting another company to step in is tantamount to telling them to go bankrupt trying.
You would have to offer a very lucrative offer to get any customers plus the network build out required would cost billions just to cover the top 20 markets. | |
| | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
edit:
March 20th, @09:00PM
| Re: Boo! Just keep draining their cash with more and more auctions till they get the picture ...
It's not like theres a shortage of spectrum. | |
| | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | As Predicted... No surprise here, and nothing gained for US consumers.
Verizon and at&t. Big surprise. Sometimes I hate being right. | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: As Predicted... said by KrK :No surprise here, and nothing gained for US consumers. Ridiculous statement. Do you think they're going to sit in a dark cave admiring their spectrum? "My precioussss"
No, they're going to develop technology that uses it, and sell that to CONSUMERS. It's expected, according to basic economics, that people who give Verizon money to use the spectrum will benefit from it.
 | |
| | | 
factchecker
@cox.net
| Re: As Predicted... said by jester121 :said by KrK :No surprise here, and nothing gained for US consumers. Ridiculous statement. Do you think they're going to sit in a dark cave admiring their spectrum? "My precioussss" Considering in the past, bidders have placed bids just for the purpose of locking out competition by denying them valuable spectrum, it is a distinct possibility.
There is absolutely no guarantee that anything will be done with the spectrum. | |
| | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: As Predicted... You're right, but those weren't multi-billion dollar, geographically diverse, very useful frequencies that everyone has been salivating over. Different animal entirely here. | |
| | | | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| Re: As Predicted... said by jester121 :You're right, but those weren't multi-billion dollar, geographically diverse, very useful frequencies that everyone has been salivating over. Different animal entirely here. I'll grant you that point. The fact that this spectrum is so sought after makes it far less likely that they will sit on it and do nothing, but past behavior by some of these companies certainly does weigh in on people's opinion of who won. | |
| | | | Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
·AT&T CallVantage
| said by factchecker :
Considering in the past, bidders have placed bids just for the purpose of locking out competition by denying them valuable spectrum, it is a distinct possibility.
There is absolutely no guarantee that anything will be done with the spectrum.
Agreed. There is no guarantee that they will do anything with these licenses. But they will be sorely pressed to use, instead of shelve, the assets forthe following reasons (among others) :
•Consumer demand for advanced services
•Shareholder demand for ROI (which won't come from simply locking out competitors by 'shelving' such a license
•Consumer demand for "more bars in more places", which should be possible at this frequency
Rhetorical question: If not the incumbents, who has the cash to compete with them on the license purchase, besides Google and Microsoft? WHY would Google or Microsoft compete against the incumbents if the asset isn't at the core of their business model?
Those of us on the sidelines can probably think of numerous reasons Google should have bid to win, but the only discussions that count are those that occur in Google's boardroom, and the 'nays' clearly prevailed. | |
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: As Predicted... And how long has Sprint 'shelved' its spectrum for WiMAX ? Its been years. With Sprints stock in the toilet, they may actually have to sell of Xohm.
I don't expect much different from AT&T.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | MichaelWacey
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon FIOS
| In most auctions of public assets, there is a requirement to make good economic use of the asset for the public good in a specified time. If the winner does not, they loose both the asset and the money they payed for it. Land auctions typically work this way.
Does anyone know if this auction has such a provision? If it does, do they define 'economic use' and 'public good'? | |
| | | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: As Predicted... Yes, these auctions contain build-out provisions. I do not know the wording; I do know that it is based on covering a certain percentage of the population with service. | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
March 20th, @06:04PM
| No, they will use it to sell the same services they already sell, albeit maybe better coverage, or expanded reach, but at price points and with features and limitations they impose, not what consumer want. I was hoping for an expansion in competition, maybe a third broadband front (Widespread wireless from another player)... but while I was hoping for it, I expected this result.
This will not be a win for consumers. Sure, you might get sweeter tasting Kool-Aid, but it will still be Kool-Aid.
For many more rural areas, this auction was a hope that someone would step up and use this spectrum to provide wide ranging broadband over a large area.... Even if it wasn't that fast, it would beat the 26.4k or 33k dial-up they're stuck with. Unfortunately, the auction didn't come out that way. Looks like much of the USA will remain unserved or underserved for decades to come. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| No Competition, no hope of any... ... welcome to the Internet third World. We'll be there soon.... Caps, throttling, "Traffic Management, Filters, DRM, packet inspection, and per byte billing. All these things are the great future Americans have to look forward too.
Such BS. | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: No Competition, no hope of any... said by KrK :... welcome to the Internet third World. We'll be there soon.... Caps, throttling, "Traffic Management, Filters, DRM, packet inspection, and per byte billing. All these things are the great future Americans have to look forward too. What do you mean FUTURE? we have all that crap now!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: No Competition, no hope of any... Yeah, but as time moves forward, these practices will spread and become universal here, and the rest of the world will advance and we shall fall by the wayside. | |
|
Karl
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 |  (topic offline) well good, that should pay for another week of w
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.
stated reason was: | |
| keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Vonage
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| I puked. That is just one of the most disgusting things I have seen in a while. You know what I would like, good competition.
What would have been nice is having more spectrum for wireless ISPs. They are the best solution, right now and for some time, to competition and servicing rural areas. Verizon will just continue to rape us.
Thanks for the auction. Get all your steak dinners in, cigars over brandy, and some cool jokes from the verizon joke writers? | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: I puked. said by keyboard5684 :What would have been nice is having more spectrum for wireless ISPs. They are the best solution, right now and for some time, to competition and servicing rural areas. Verizon will just continue to rape us. Never heard of a wireless ISP that doesn't
(a) charge more for service
(b) have more restrictions and/or caps
(c) turn to crap in bad weather
(d) operate like the shoestring operations that they are when it comes to tech and billing issues
Not saying there aren't some out there that don't fit this mold, but most do. | |
| | | | | | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: I puked. It's "shoddy". Unless you misspelled "shitty".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| ydoucare
join:2003-03-12
Rensselaer, IN | ... *vomits* | |
| battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Oh Geezz That's a shocker. I guess the only thing we didn't know is how much they actually spent on this. | |
| ck8
join:2001-07-20
Virginia Beach, VA
clubs: | Google a $100 billion company Google is a big boy. They have a higher market cap than Verizon and no debt. If they wanted, they could have ponied up some cash but instead they would rather someone else build the network for them. | |
| | | | 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
·Time Warner Telecom
·ygnitionnet
·Comcast
| No more foreplay! Let's get to the penetration! Where's this all headed? Verizon and AT&T should merge and absorb the cable companies and rename the company VATT. Then rather than paying a bill to VATT, the government will just automatically tax you 8% out of your paycheck which will go straight to VATT. VATT will provide all of the nice neighborhoods with fiber, the middle class with dsl and the lower class will get dial up. It also comes with television, phone, cellular, long distance, CB radio as well oral communicaiton. However, if you do not pay your taxes than VATT forbids you to speak outside of your residence.
Every 3 years, the CEO of VAT retires and is given a country in Central America to live in and own. Yet magically, the stock value of VATT will never change. | |
| | jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | Re: Google a $100 billion company *************exactly***************
Everyone fails to recognize that google is as large if not bigger than verizon and at&t. Why has google passed on buying spectrum? Google knows it's easier to trash the incumbents than to become one....... | |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Good! Can't wait to see that LTE! In just what, three years? (Hey, they can't even use all that expensive spectrum for another year)
Though, I wonder if they'll try to shift some other services currently using higher spectrum bands to 700MHz, and then deploy LTE on higher bands- supposedly higher bands are supposed to be better for data carrying (and don't have that pesky open-access). On the other hand, moving their existing services means all those devices already set up for those services being on the cellular or PCS band are useless.... | |
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Comissioner Adelstein plays politics & race/minority card This has to be one of the strangest criticisms ever... Especially since most of the companies were publicly-owned with a massive number of stock-holders, which probably includes a lot of women and minorities.
Yes, the new Democratic argument is now apparently to give away spectrum rather than auction it off- after all, it's not like the government needs the money, the Democrats don't have any plans to expand the government, and we're running a surplus anyway... | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | He's one of those big "The Digital Divide" types. He's probably just PO'ed that the same big players won.
His focusing on race/sex is well, pretty silly, but then again, he believes there's a massive digital divide, so.... | |
| | 
needforspeed59
Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ |  Difference between A, B,C and E?
--
Great success! High five! | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
March 20th, @06:53PM
| Re: Difference between A, B,C and E? said by needforspeed59 :Can someone explain the differences or provide a link to a place that does? Why is C better than A, B or E? Thx! See here:
»wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/defaul···et&id=73
Basically, each band was carved up differently.
C gives the ability to use the same frequencies nationally.
The others result in smaller areas where the same frequencies can be used.
The different bands all operate in the same general 700 MHZ spectrum. Which means all these bands have the same ability to go thru trees, walls, etc. That is why this auction drew so much money and interest.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Difference between A, B,C and E? said by TK Junk Mail :Basically, each band was carved up differently. C gives the ability to use the same frequencies nationally. The others result in smaller areas where the same frequencies can be used. The C block was offered two ways - As a single National Chunk and as a series of local chunks. If the sum of the high bids for the local chunks was more than the high bid for the Nation Chunk (as it was) the Chunks go to the local chunk bidders. The bids were gamed to prevent the National Bid from winning and the local bids went to more than one bidder so nation wide support on a single frequency is impossible without Roaming Agreements. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
March 20th, @11:27PM
| Re: Difference between A, B,C and E? said by RARPSL :The C block was offered two ways - As a single National Chunk and as a series of local chunks. If the sum of the high bids for the local chunks was more than the high bid for the Nation Chunk (as it was) the Chunks go to the local chunk bidders. The bids were gamed to prevent the National Bid from winning and the local bids went to more than one bidder so nation wide support on a single frequency is impossible without Roaming Agreements. Verizon ended up the winner of the C block - no matter how they bid on it. They won the lower 48 states and Hawaii. The only one they didn't win in the C block was Alaska.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_···_winners
Verizon Wireless won enough of the C-block licenses to cover every state but Alaska. The company said it was very pleased with the results, which will allow it to "continue to grow our business and data revenues." --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| not bad Google bid what they said they would bid. I don't have any problem with them at all, they may encourage some application competition in the new spectrum that is missing from the current spectrum.
Verizon and AT&T have a little less cash to spend on lobbying now. I think Verizon and AT&T will actually use this spectrum instead of sitting on it, since they paid so much.
The US treasury gets a nice influx of cash... which our budget desperately needs. | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Google cellphone Was our last chance to actually get something fair. | |
| jellybean
join:2006-07-15
Shreveport, LA
| why an auction? Ok explain it to me like I'm 4 years old.WHY bid on any of this?Why not jsut build the network on the new spectrum? Never understood all this crap anyway.This is my area - this is yours- someone please explain WHY not just have each company compete with each other? | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| 700mhz uses Well, this can expand the number of frequencies that push-to-talk services use and lower their latency lag because they use higher frequency spectrum now. Just another notch forcing Sprint into bankruptcy. Once Verizon lowers some of their other wireless calling plans.. Sprint is going to be in BIG trouble. Then google can buy Sprint on the cheap and get into the wireless business. That is, if one of these foreign investors doesn't snatch 'em up sooner (think exchange rate). | |
| | | |
|
|
