Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: Spectrum squatting

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottE92 View Post
    That is exactly what I advocate. That any carrier who has a monopoly of an entire spectrum block in any given area must divest from this and it be allocated to other carriers.
    That's a vague statement "entire spectrum block in any given area". T-Mobile owns the spectrum block A in many areas. So now they would have to divest under your plan? It's obvious you haven't though this through.

    As far as divestiture goes, why would you advocate taking away spectrum from carriers who are actually already providing good service and giving it to carriers like T-Mobile which you often complain about. How do you know that free charity spectrum is going to improve their coverage.

    While this has no bearing on the original point being made, pretty much every single carrier out there is adding users. Therefore, based on your own logic, they too are doing awesome.
    No, not every carrier is doing awesome. T-Mobile in their press release specifically stated: "T-Mobile Delivers Industry-Leading Customer and Financial Growth in Q3 2015." That means that they are competing and it shows that your statement of "AT&T or Verizon amass entire low band spectrum blocks in various markets, with no competition. " is just completely wrong.

    whether I can use my phone at an airport, at time square, or within any sort of structure. You know, the sort of places that you have stated T-Mobile works great. Oh wait, your knee-jerk response to this is usually to tell someone to leave T-Mobile

    Right. Instead, you seem to think that whining and complaining in a forum that you can't make a call in "time square" is going to make it all better. If the service doesn't work for you then switching to another carrier is a far better handling than writing some more negative posts.


    Surely you must be against the 30 Mhz being allocated to smaller carriers in the 600 Mhz range.
    I'm not against it. From what I know, it's not going to change much. Sprint won't bid. T-Mobile estimates it will spend $1 billion to $1.5 billion only. And the way the auction works, if bids from the small carriers don't meet a minimum threshold, then AT&T and Verizon can swoop it up anyway. And you better believe they will.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    590
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    nd the way the auction works, if bids from the small carriers don't meet a minimum threshold, then AT&T and Verizon can swoop it up anyway. And you better believe they will.
    Which makes me wonder why T-Mobile appears to not be bidding for nationwide spectrum. Once AT&T and Verizon get that spectrum T-Mobile can't decide later "oops, we really need more".

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,453
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Which makes me wonder why T-Mobile appears to not be bidding for nationwide spectrum. Once AT&T and Verizon get that spectrum T-Mobile can't decide later "oops, we really need more".
    It might be a strategy.

    Sure they'll bid $1-1.5 billion, but that doesn't mean they won't bid more.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,635
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Here's the definition of a lease:

    "a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc., to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment."

    In this case there is no specified time and no periodic payment. So your use of the term lease is incorrect.



    They seize real estate in certain cases with compensation. That's true. But we're not talking about real estate here. We're talking about a license that has been purchased from the government per terms given by the government. Then the company has constructed an entire business around that operation including having millions of customers who use this licensed spectrum. Now you come along and at a whim and say, we are going to shut down that entire portion of your operation and we're going to give that license to a competitor. There is no local, state nor the federal government which does anything close to that. The only comparison, as I previously stated, is some third world dictator who seizes control of a private asset like that and reallocates it while completely ignoring the previous agreement made by two parties.

    So yes, you are clearly an advocate for such harsh totalitarianism.



    No, it's not what I consider bad to the carrier. What is bad is your idea that the government should makes a written agreement with another party, take the financial benefit of such an agreement, and then unilaterally and underhandedly changes the terms. The agreement could have been good or bad. But to not follow an agreement made, is the sign of a third world country type of action and not of a large, thriving economy where businesses are protected by rules and laws.



    I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing. It was a decision made by those in authority to extend those terms. And it produced an asset for certain businesses which they are using per the terms of the original agreement. As long as they follow the terms of the license, there's no option in the agreement to take it away as you advocate.



    They are getting a "bit of a break". Ever read the rules to the 600MHz auction? Ever heard of the 30MHz reserve? And how is Sprint responding to this break offered by the Federal Government? By already declaring that they aren't even going to participate! They don't even want this spectrum. If this low band spectrum is as important to them as you're claiming, then they would be bidding for it. But the fact is, it's not.
    You cherry pick your definitions - it meets what a lease is, from dictionaryDOTcom:

    a contract renting land, buildings, etc., to another; a contract or instrument conveying property to another for a specified period or for a period determinable at the will of either lessor or lessee in consideration of rent or other compensation. It can be at the will of those involved, not a set time and other compensation. So, a one time payment meets that part of the definition too.

    The companies paid, in some fashion, the FCC for the use of the airwaves and the government retains ownership. Most common folks would see that as a type of lease.

    Next, the government has intervened and stepped in beyond just eminent domain cases. Honestly in discussions, do I have to come up with 50 examples to prove a point? The government stepped in to save AIG - we have many insurance companies, surely we didn't need to keep them. They stepped in to save banks - we've always need more banks! They also stepped in to save GMC and car makers. That's very totalitarian and dictator like. The federal government stepped in and essentially told them all how it was going to go.

    Your argument made the spectrum given for free was a good thing - you pointed out all the 'hard work' and 'effort' Ma Bell took as a risk and that the spectrum being essentially free was a small token from the government as a sign of good faith. It was crony capitalism at best and that's hardly ever good.

    Once again, the 600mhz isn't free. There are some markets where Ma Bell will be excluded from bidding, but that's it. Tmo and Sprint will still have to pay and/or compete in bids with companies. Ma Bell was literally just given the CLR spectrum in many cases or they bought up companies that were given it. It had no waiting periods, it wasn't shared with other operations, they didn't have the issues like 700A or such.

    Also, the lowband spectrum is important. Look at the billions Tmo has been spending to acquire 700A - junkier spectrum compared to CLR as it's a smaller amount and has interference issues. I'm guessing a company spending billions on something doesn't view it as unimportant. Sprint sitting it out is for financial reasons and the fact they cannot even fire on all cylinders with the spectrum they already own. They own more spectrum than any other single carrier in the nation, yet they are in last place and have an atrocious network. Buying more spectrum isn't really their top priority. Also, they have a history of sitting out most auctions. They didn't do the 700, they didn't do the AWS3, and more back in the day I'm not aware of. The only recent one they did was the PCS G block because nobody else would have use for it.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,309
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CkZX2 View Post
    I don't think you understand what a shell company is. Since USCC has tangible assets (and employees, stores, network, etc.) it isn't a shell company. A wholey owned subsidy is quite different. USCC has been owned by TDS since 1983, so this isn't like it is some short term get rich quick scheme.
    TDS doesn't own USCC. USCC is a public owned company on the stock market where TDS is the majority stock holder of over 84% of the stock. TDS is a public owned company on the stock market where the controlling stock holders are the same people as King Street Wireless that is a private LLC partnership. The same group of people including the Carlson family that own most of the controlling stock of both USCC and TDS are the major partners in King Street that owns the licences for a lot (maybe not all) of their spectrum they lease to USCC.

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defines a "shell" company to refer to a publicly held company with no or nominal assets other than money. I contend that USCC only owns nominal assets of their business which makes buying USCC with out buying TDS and King Street almost worthless to T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T or Verizon to aquire. Fact the vast majority of the assets that USCC is using to provide their wireless service network is outside the directly owned assets that USCC owns under their shell.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lower Earth Orbit
    Posts
    4,437
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    TDS doesn't own USCC. USCC is a public owned company on the stock market where TDS is the majority stock holder of over 84% of the stock. TDS is a public owned company on the stock market where the controlling stock holders are the same people as King Street Wireless that is a private LLC partnership. The same group of people including the Carlson family that own most of the controlling stock of both USCC and TDS are the major partners in King Street that owns the licences for a lot (maybe not all) of their spectrum they lease to USCC.

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defines a "shell" company to refer to a publicly held company with no or nominal assets other than money. I contend that USCC only owns nominal assets of their business which makes buying USCC with out buying TDS and King Street almost worthless to T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T or Verizon to aquire. Fact the vast majority of the assets that USCC is using to provide their wireless service network is outside the directly owned assets that USCC owns under their shell.
    I'm not going to argue over semantics when it comes to ownership, TDS claims ownership (their webpage is pretty clearTDS offers wireless voice and data services and products across the United States through our publicly traded subsidiary, U.S. Cellular, head-quartered in Chicago,.) TDS also has wireline services, cable services, IT services, and a printing company. You can see it here: http://www.tdsinc.com/our-businesses.html

    This whole thread is about spectrum, USCC owns a TON of spectrum, are you saying that spectrum is not an asset? Based on your definition, the majority of corporations, and companies are shell companies (and all of the wireless carriers). The fact of the matter is that they own properties, equipment, etc. I'm guessing you've never actually seen a cellular switch, or a cell site, as the carriers in some fashion, own their own tech.
    Worn out retail warrior. Now retired on the golf course.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    Honestly in discussions, do I have to come up with 50 examples to prove a point? The government stepped in to save AIG - we have many insurance companies, surely we didn't need to keep them. They stepped in to save banks - we've always need more banks! They also stepped in to save GMC and car makers. That's very totalitarian and dictator like.
    All of these examples are in regards to companies that would have went bankrupt and out of business anyway. The government decided that it would benefit others to keep them afloat a little while longer.

    None of these examples apply to what you're advocating. There is no current bankruptcy pending by any of the major carriers. Yet you advocate that the government to break the terms of licensing agreements that were legally purchased and whose terms are being followed. And you want them to do this despite the fact that these companies have set up their businesses around these licenses and these licenses provide service to millions of Americans each day.

    And then you want the government to then extend those licenses to other companies which may or may not even use them just because you think it's a nice thing to do.

    Yes, that's exactly what is done in third world countries by totalitarian governments run my dictators. It's not something that's done in America.


    Your argument made the spectrum given for free was a good thing - you pointed out all the 'hard work' and 'effort' Ma Bell took as a risk and that the spectrum being essentially free was a small token from the government as a sign of good faith. It was crony capitalism at best and that's hardly ever good.
    You're rewriting history. Each market had two licenses. Only one was given to the landline company in that area. The other was purchased by a competitor. The government wanted competition and introduced it in this manner. And yes, neither company was in a position to pay a lot for such a license as there was no existing market for such service. All of it had to be built from the ground up. Something that you are completely ignoring.

    If you were smart enough to take a chance, build a network, and market and sell the service, you may have made out. Not everyone was successful. It had nothing to do with "crony captialism".

    Once again, the 600mhz isn't free. There are some markets where Ma Bell will be excluded from bidding, but that's it.
    Ma Bell no longer exists and won't be bidding on anything in the 600 auction. You can rest easy about that.


    Ma Bell was literally just given the CLR spectrum in many cases or they bought up companies that were given it. It had no waiting periods, it wasn't shared with other operations,
    So called Ma Bell had to compete in EVERY market. Straight from the FCC's website, here's what really happened as opposed to your revisionist history:

    "The Cellular Service dates back to 1981 when the FCC set aside 40 MHz of spectrum for cellular licensing. To issue cellular licenses, the FCC divided the U.S. into 734 geographic markets called Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and divided the 40 MHz of spectrum into two, 20 MHz amounts referred to as channel blocks; channel block A and channel block B. A single license for the A block and the B block were made available in each market. The B block of spectrum was awarded to a local wireline carrier that provided landline telephone service in the CMA. The A block was awarded to non-wireline carriers. "

    https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cellular-service

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,635
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    All of these examples are in regards to companies that would have went bankrupt and out of business anyway. The government decided that it would benefit others to keep them afloat a little while longer.

    None of these examples apply to what you're advocating. There is no current bankruptcy pending by any of the major carriers. Yet you advocate that the government to break the terms of licensing agreements that were legally purchased and whose terms are being followed. And you want them to do this despite the fact that these companies have set up their businesses around these licenses and these licenses provide service to millions of Americans each day.

    And then you want the government to then extend those licenses to other companies which may or may not even use them just because you think it's a nice thing to do.

    Yes, that's exactly what is done in third world countries by totalitarian governments run my dictators. It's not something that's done in America.




    You're rewriting history. Each market had two licenses. Only one was given to the landline company in that area. The other was purchased by a competitor. The government wanted competition and introduced it in this manner. And yes, neither company was in a position to pay a lot for such a license as there was no existing market for such service. All of it had to be built from the ground up. Something that you are completely ignoring.

    If you were smart enough to take a chance, build a network, and market and sell the service, you may have made out. Not everyone was successful. It had nothing to do with "crony captialism".



    Ma Bell no longer exists and won't be bidding on anything in the 600 auction. You can rest easy about that.




    So called Ma Bell had to compete in EVERY market. Straight from the FCC's website, here's what really happened as opposed to your revisionist history:

    "The Cellular Service dates back to 1981 when the FCC set aside 40 MHz of spectrum for cellular licensing. To issue cellular licenses, the FCC divided the U.S. into 734 geographic markets called Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and divided the 40 MHz of spectrum into two, 20 MHz amounts referred to as channel blocks; channel block A and channel block B. A single license for the A block and the B block were made available in each market. The B block of spectrum was awarded to a local wireline carrier that provided landline telephone service in the CMA. The A block was awarded to non-wireline carriers. "

    https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cellular-service
    The examples I pointed out with GMC, AIG, etc are exactly 'dictatorship things'. They told the banks and such they were going to take the loans and that was that. They were running GMC, a private entity. They weren't just guiding it through the courts like a chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy either, it was MUCH more involved. Ford or another car company could view it as totally unfair and it wasn't even close to cellular spectrum, which at least belongs to the people and the government should be looking out for us vs. the corporations.

    Neither company was in a position to pay a lot for a license? Boo hoo, most of the landline companies are/were monopolies or at least regional ones. My concern for their well being isn't high and the fact they might have to spend money and compete is quite OK in my book. You also point out in your FCC link, it was given to the wireline carriers - so 2 non wireline carriers couldn't even compete in the same market. Wireline carriers that were basically split off from Ma Bell and already had a huge infrastructure built to make calls. Even so, only 1 of those licenses were given to them - that's PRIME spectrum and if you compare it to similar auctions lately, that 1 license would be worth billions across the nation. Look at how much VZW paid for the same amount of similar spectrum at the 700mhz auction.

    Additionally, I'm quite aware Ma Bell isn't the same huge monopoly as in 1981 - but basically it's reformed into our current duopoly. VZW and ATT are directly from 1 or more baby bells that had the same culture and business and attitude as the original Ma Bell. They own a lot of the CLR spectrum from that through originally holding it or buying competitors that were given it as well - making them cheaper targets to acquire because they didn't spend billions or take billions out in loan to buy spectrum. Also, as your own story points out, the FCC wanted competition and new companies to enter the market with the CLR spectrum. In many markets today, it's either ATT or VZW that owns it solely. Time to regroup and use the spectrum as it was intended, make some fair competition.

    Heck, you could argue the only 2 national carriers left standing, Sprint and Tmobile that aren't directly descended from Ma Bell have had a harder go. They had to buy their spectrum at auctions AND build out networks. All while having heavily established providers in the market because 15ish years before companies were dumped with free spectrum.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,618
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    The examples I pointed out with GMC, AIG, etc are exactly 'dictatorship things'. They told the banks and such they were going to take the loans and that was that. They were running GMC, a private entity. They weren't just guiding it through the courts like a chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy either, it was MUCH more involved. Ford or another car company could view it as totally unfair and it wasn't even close to cellular spectrum, which at least belongs to the people and the government should be looking out for us vs. the corporations.
    Again more completely irrelevant examples. Why didn't Ford have to take a loan? Because they weren't in danger of going bankrupt. The government invested near bankrupt companies to keep them afloat and in turn got a piece of equity. So what? The companies could have folded if they really wanted to.

    But again, none of that has anything to do with stealing a rightfully owned and used license such as you advocate. As I said, none of the carriers are near bankruptcy which you don't dispute. You're also not talking about investing in the companies as your example shows, you're taking about ripping away their assets.


    Neither company was in a position to pay a lot for a license? Boo hoo, most of the landline companies are/were monopolies or at least regional ones. My concern for their well being isn't high and the fact they might have to spend money and compete is quite OK in my book.
    So what is your point about all of that? The market pricing that now exists didn't exist back then! Those companies weren't going to pay 2015 prices for spectrum back then, any more then they would pay 2030 prices today. If you don't like the deals that were done then, tough! They are done. Can't turn them around now. You have to live with them---unless you and your revolutionary friends want to rise up and start nationalizing this and that. And maybe you do.


    Heck, you could argue the only 2 national carriers left standing, Sprint and Tmobile that aren't directly descended from Ma Bell have had a harder go.
    Again, so what? That's business. Some companies will always have a "harder go". The problem is the arrogance of some that think they know how to level the playing field. Maybe you're trying to follow in the footsteps of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Look how well that work out for their economy.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,877
    Device(s)
    ZTE Axon 7, iPhone 6+, Galaxy S5
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Again more completely irrelevant examples. Why didn't Ford have to take a loan? Because they weren't in danger of going bankrupt. The government invested near bankrupt companies to keep them afloat and in turn got a piece of equity. So what? The companies could have folded if they really wanted to.
    Bad Example. Ford didn't have to take bailout money because of 2 reasons:

    1. They were already in dire straits before the collapse in 2008 and mortgaged everything to get loans from banks. When I say everything, I mean everything, including the name on the building, car names, etc. They lucked out on timing.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/30134908
    http://business.time.com/2012/05/25/...lue-oval-back/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/bu...ford.html?_r=0
    http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/auto...estment-grade/

    2. Had they taken the government money, the Ford family would have lost control of the company. While Ford is a publicly traded company the Ford family still has LOTS of voting power (~40%). That would never have been allowed to happen so see #1.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmul...ly-in-control/
    http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/10/f...voting-rights/

    It's a good story of being in the right place at the right time and a little family drama thrown in for good measure. But a very poor example of any cell phone company.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Baja California / Sinaloa
    Posts
    22,364
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone XS Max / Apple iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you want to talk about TARP and political systems then I'm just going to move this to thread.
    Let me know if you want to get back on topic.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2002, 10:34 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-10-2002, 08:26 AM
  3. FS: Siemens Digital Spread Spectrum 2.4GHz Cordless Phone
    By mikelee in forum GSM phone Buy/Sell/Trade Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2002, 12:48 PM
  4. U.S. Frequency Spectrum Info
    By emag*rad in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-24-2002, 01:18 AM
  5. Nokia 2190 locked in Sprint Spectrum
    By Leoplugged in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2002, 10:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks