5G Auction Shatters Record as Bidding Tops $66 Billion (wsj.com) 32
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.
Makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
Who wouldn't want to control millions of people with 5G rays
They should take half of that money and fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Starlink connections and satellite launches for rural areas.
Re: (Score:1)
Ignorance!! (Score:2)
*Current TV satellite internet has terrible latency and is not a viable option for ma
Re: (Score:3)
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)
satellite launches for rural areas.
It would cost a LOT more than 33 billion to launch rural areas into orbit!
AT&T (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Correction! That 66 billion is less than three days of quantitative easing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you missed a third choice.
3) Compete to win the spectrum and when you win realize that you can't cover the expense and have to declare bankruptcy => most/all employees lose their jobs.
8^)
Great news! (Score:1)
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)
Check the dates - this money wouldn't come in until Biden is president. It's to cover the lost income from Hunter's kickbacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever wins, the users will pay (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is wrong with that? Why shouldn't it be like that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a Libertardian the complaint is that the money didn't go into anyone's pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
I have been watching ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
How about $65bn for public infra, $1bn for bribes? (Score:2)
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