Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States AT&T Communications Verizon

5G Auction Shatters Record as Bidding Tops $66 Billion (wsj.com) 32

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The Federal Communications Commission's ongoing sale of wireless licenses has fetched more than $66.4 billion after three weeks of bidding, a record sum that could alter cellphone carriers' prospects for the next decade. From a report: The auction proceeds have already topped the $44.9 billion raised in 2015 by an earlier sale of midrange cellular licenses, which U.S. cellphone carriers used at the time to enhance their 4G service. Those companies are now investing billions of dollars in the next wave of fifth-generation coverage. The 5G standard promises to speed the flow of data to phones and other wireless devices like personal computers, cars and industrial machinery. The recent bids have blown past Wall Street's highest forecasts, suggesting that several companies are fighting over the most valuable wireless rights. The 5G auction kicked off Dec. 8 and will pause for the holidays until Jan. 4, when total bids could move even higher. Each bid is swathed in secrecy until the auction process ends. Analysts expect big names like AT&T and Verizon Communications to walk away with a large share of the licenses to match assets that rival T-Mobile captured with its February takeover of Sprint.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

5G Auction Shatters Record as Bidding Tops $66 Billion More

5G Auction Shatters Record as Bidding Tops $66 Billion

Comments Filter:

  • Makes sense (Score:4, Funny)

    by swilver ( 617741 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @11:57AM (#60860092)

    Who wouldn't want to control millions of people with 5G rays

  • They should take half of that money and fund (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @12:04PM (#60860122)

    Starlink connections and satellite launches for rural areas.

    • Socalism!! - Those areas should either pay the market rate or pay more tax if they want that service !
      • The market has failed rural locations when it comes to high speed internet. The reason they need this connection is because the market does not serve them at all at any price. It is not profitable to run lines out to these rural locations so dedicated satellite internet connections* makes sense. It just needs government support to get it off the ground. You know, just like the whole internet thing needed in the first place.

        *Current TV satellite internet has terrible latency and is not a viable option for ma

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        If you live in an urban area I hope you don't mind paying more for your local mass transit. It would be a shame if those rural people actually demanded that none of their tax money went to subsidizing your transit system (this would also hold true of any of the other numerous urban projects that rely in part on federal and/or state funding). There was/is probably some state funding that went/goes into the nice Internet links that urban dwellers are currently enjoying too.

    • Re:They should take half of that money and fund (Score:4, Funny)

      by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @01:03PM (#60860338)

      satellite launches for rural areas.

      It would cost a LOT more than 33 billion to launch rural areas into orbit!

  • Not sure how AT&T can even be considered in the running for this spectrum considering they are ~$150B in debt already.

    They are selling real estate and laying off employees like it's a contest to get that debt down.
    They are also looking to sell DirecTV and probably Digital Life for the same reasons.

    Most recent tactics are making existing employees miserable enough to leave on their own.
    ( https://techstaffer.blog/2020/... [techstaffer.blog] )

    Understandable if you're a new employee to the company, but they're not targeting n

    • They're targeting the 20+ year folks in an effort to force them out

      People who have been around that long have higher salaries and benefits. Also, considering this is America, they cost the company more in health expenses.

    • they are ~$150B in debt already.

      Don't sweat it, it's all funny money, Zimbabwe dollars. The hyper inflation up there is going to trickle down real soon now.

      And that 66 bil is less than three months of "quantitative easing" inundating Wall Street, worth pennies

    • Looks like AT&T cut post-retirement healthcare benefits, and reducing the pension plan, both of which sadly most of us lost long ago (if we ever had them).

  • Wait, how are they going to get back the 66 billion?

    It's gonna be from us, mobile data users.

    Rather than paying the government $66 BILLION to waste on hookers and nukes .. why not the FCC make the requirement that they spend the $66 billion on telecommunications infrastructure? THAT would have a benefit to the consumer. Free money for Trump to spend on hookers is a massive waste. He can make do with lower cost hookers like the rest of us.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 )

      Check the dates - this money wouldn't come in until Biden is president. It's to cover the lost income from Hunter's kickbacks.

  • Whoever wins, the users will pay (Score:3)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @12:43PM (#60860252)
    This is a lot like a tax. The "lucky" winners of this auction will be the companies that can pass on the cost to their customers.
    So while some people will regard this as a windfall for the government, in the end it is simply a transfer of money from users of a service to the government.

    • So what is wrong with that? Why shouldn't it be like that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        If you're a Libertardian the complaint is that the money didn't go into anyone's pocket.

    • This is a lot like a tax. The "lucky" winners of this auction will be the companies that can pass on the cost to their customers.
      So while some people will regard this as a windfall for the government, in the end it is simply a transfer of money from users of a service to the government.

      That's an interesting view. You say this as a negative so I ask the follow up question:
      a) Why is this bad given how literally every shared resource works like this?
      b) What do you propose as an alternative?

      • a) Why is this bad given how literally every shared resource works like this?

        It acts as a barrier to entry for new wireless providers. Those with the deepest pockets will win the auction - rights to wireless spectrum will not be distributed in a way that promotes competition. The price will be determined by the amount providers expect they can get people to pay. So forget about low-cost wireless any time soon.

        b) What do you propose as an alternative?

        I would propose a weighted auction where the bids are scaled based on how much spectrum the bidder currently owns. This would assist in preventing a few companies from m

        • Interesting idea. But your proposal allocates the most resources to the least capable developers. That's a good an fine approach for a large resource, but outright destructive to do with something as limited as spectrum.

          Also you're begging the question. The reality is spectrum cost is a small cost to a *new* provider. You need existing infrastructure to make use of a spectrum, and in the USA that infrastructure is owned privately. You literally need mega deep pockets before you even have to start worrying a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stikves ( 127823 )

      As it should be.

      We pay tolls and fuel taxes so that we can have road to drive.
      We pay property taxes so that we have benefit from local schools and security services.

      We could easily pay for 5G taxes for its benefits. By your admission, it will be paid by the people who use it anyway.

      • Unlike roads and schools, spectrum licenses don't actually cost anything. They can just say Alice gets to use 3.3Ghz and Bobb gets 24Ghz and that's it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by stikves ( 127823 )

          You are right. It is not like roads, but more like real estate.

          There is a limited amount of viable spectrum for cellular communication. Hence it could be taxed similar to properties.

  • ... our local broadcast television frequency reshuffles with great interest. It seems that the reverse auctions the FCC has been conducting to buy back television licenses might explain the presence of quite a few independent (primarily Christian) low power TV stations who have a few hours a week of some crazy guy that nobody watches preaching and a test pattern the rest of the time. It seems that in anticipation of the next buy-back, these stations have been horse trading licenses to get to the top of the

    • It's not strange at all. The TV stations can either pay to build, power and maintain transmitters, or get paid by cable and satellite companies to have their content distributed that way. Which will an MBA choose?

      As I'm in the country, the local airwaves have been dark since 2004. Digital has a much shorter range. Satellite isn't worth the price they want. But Netflix DVDs still work. And I do have the internet obviously.

      And to be honest, the chances of me driving two and a half hours to Spokane to buy some

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        or get paid by cable and satellite companies to have their content distributed that way

        That only works if they are still broadcasting. Once they lose their transmitter in a certain market the 'must carry/pay me for my content' game breaks down. We don't have net neutrality, so the ex-broadcasters will have to scramble to find ISP/telecom partners. And it won't be on their terms anymore. Internet/5G streaming isn't cable, so the cable must carry rules break down anyway.

        I think the whole '5G, we need bandwidth' ploy was aimed at flipping the market around on broadcasters. You want access to yo

  • So that's $66bn that could have been spent on lots of great things. If 5G is intended to become infrastructure critical to society and the economy then I am not sure I understand why this massive incentive for rapacious business methods. These companies will need to make $66bn plus costs just to break even. But spectrum while apparently a limited resource is mainly limited in the short term by how quickly the network can be built out. The "need" for a spectrum auction seems to be nothing more than a case of

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close