Verizon

Nation's largest carrier claims T-Mobile and Sprint have plenty of money to bid openly on 600MHz spectrum

Verizon isn't taking too kindly to proposed regulations on an upcoming spectrum auction, and is hoping the FCC will change its ways before the sale opens next year. The auction, which will have extremely valuable 600MHz spectrum up for grabs in mid-2015, is expected to have restrictions imposed on it to limit big players like Verizon and AT&T from taking it all for themselves.

The FCC is proposing that the auction have rules that will limit any one company from picking up more than a third of the spectrum available in any given market. The goal is to open up the doors for smaller players like T-Mobile, Sprint and regional carriers to pick up the much-needed low-band spectrum, which is usually unobtainable because of the high bids larger carriers can put in.

Verizon has spoke to members of the FCC this week to express its displeasure with the potential rules, saying that it's putting unfair restrictions on larger carriers, even though the likes of Sprint and T-Mobile have the means to place large bids for spectrum:

"T-Mobile and Sprint are large corporations with established, well-financed corporate parents. They and their parent corporations are more than capable of paying substantial amounts to acquire spectrum in the incentive auction if they choose to do so."

Verizon claims that Sprint and T-Mobile, owned by SoftBank and Deutsche Telekom, respectively, could easily pay what Verizon and AT&T have for these airwaves. Though the FCC's goal is to distribute some of the low-band spectrum to smaller carriers, it also has to consider the fact that it needs to raise at least $7 billion in the auction to pay the broadcast companies that are giving up the spectrum. An auction without Verizon or AT&T may drastically limit the amount of money raised by the auction, even though it is putting up 30MHz of spectrum for grabs.

Source: Reuters

 

Reader comments

Verizon pushes FCC to reconsider restrictions on upcoming spectrum auction

67 Comments
Sort by Rating

Nexthis thanks for the link, it makes sense now lol

Brendilon, How is it I am an idiot because out of over several hundred thousand movies ever made since the history of cinematography I happen to have not seen this particular film? ;)

They just want the smaller carriers to pay a larger percentage of cash on hand and revenue to cripple them. it's not even subtle. Verizon does not like competition from the small guys.

In economics we say this would create dead weight loss BUT in actuality Monopolies/Duopolies create even more dead weight loss so I support the FCCs decision.

Bingo. Market dominance by one or a few is even worse than government ownership. A healthy, competitive environment is best for innovation and for consumers.

Posted via Android Central App

Ok. That's a step too far. Market monopolies have one feature that government monopolies don't have: exit. If Verizon were allowed to become the one and only wireless carrier in the US, they still wouldn't have the ability to arrest me if I chose not to pay them. If we stop paying the government, someone with a gun comes and arrests us. (To wit: Wesley Snipes)

Sure, I get to vote, but as Arnold Kling puts it, exit is a more important freedom than voice: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/ignorance-exit-and-voice/

I really hope the fcc doesn't give in. Smaller companies(including t mobile and sprint which are small compared to att and verizon) need more spectrum to widen their availability and customers. But what happens happens.

Posted via Android Central App

although i agree on the FCC not giving in.. Wouldn't it make more sense that the spectrum is divided according to the market share of each?!
or perhaps even better by those who need it - this being revised every 6 -12 months. ie. if T-Mobile gains more customers then they should get more spectrum to satisfy the gain. but if they lost customers, perhaps some spectrum should be favored to the ones that gained more customers.

I think that maybe even a better deal is for the FCC to hold some spectrum available for "rent", but that sounds like communism and i don't think they'll go for that.

This wouldn't work. devices are designed with radios for each carrier's spectrum. Those won't get revised every 6-12 months. If spectrums change, it'll essentially kill the device.

Posted via Android Central App

So you are ok with the rich just getting richer? No room for competition?

Posted via Android Central App

I don't see how that works. How does T-mobile, Sprint, et al gain market share if they can't first increase spectrum share?

I don't understand, doesn't all of the companies have the same restrictions? Verizon is making it sound like they can only buy 30% but T-Mobile and Sprint can buy as much as they want

Posted via Android Central App

"The proposed auction plans expect to restrict any single buyer from picking up more than one-third of the spectrum up for grabs in any given market — once they bid and control that amount, the other two-thirds will be up for sale to other carriers." Quoted from their earlier article about the restrictions.

I'd love to see Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint get a fifth of the spectrum each and the last fifth go to the who ever the regional carrier is in the area. Then we can get some real roaming agreements.

what a larger company should be penalized for making the most money? Not their fault Sprint and T-Mobile suck

Posted via Android Central App

I love your condescending comments whenever someone speaks the truth. I see them all over this site. Shape up.. you're not as smart as you think you are

Posted via Android Central App

If I were 1/10th as smart as I think I am it would still be twice as smart as you are. Your comment was rote, idiotic drivel. The sort of mindless droning you get from idiots who think a wholly uninhibited business market is actually healthy and that corporations actually have consumers interests at heart in any way. Profitability and market dominance have nothing to do with quality or value. Often it's quite the opposite, just look at Walmart or any fast food chain. Cheap shit at high volume with low overhead (I.e. crappy wages).
Posted via Android Central App

The government has no business intervening in the private industry like this. Let the strong be the strong and the weak be the weak. Sprint should be left to die and tmobile is picking up more than enough steam to one day be a big carrier. They don't even have the resources right now though to implement new spectrum.

While some hate Verizon other love them because you get what you pay for. They have the best coverage and are rated as having some of the highest customer service ratings in the industry.

Posted via Android Central App

"The government has no business intervening in the private industry like this."

Eh? These are US airwaves. It has every right to control what uses what frequency so that shit doesn't hit the fan.

Let the strong be the strong and the weak be the weak. "

And let our carrier system become a monopoly like Canada's (up there, there is no competition. The "big three" up there have agreements so that they don't take customers from each other. Rogers, Telus and Bell nearly shat there pants last year when Verizon was considering entering the market up there) where ~$60 gets you 500MB of data, 1000 local minutes (unlimited on weekend or after 6PM) and unlimited text. And that's the BEST plan.

http://globalnews.ca/news/676741/whats-the-best-cheapest-canadian-cellph...

However, the links from last year, but prices have actually gone up since then

http://o.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/big-three-wireless-carriers...

"Sprint should be left to die and tmobile is picking up more than enough steam to one day be a big carrier. "

If the Government didn't regulate, T-Mobile wouldn't be here right now.

"They don't even have the resources right now though to implement new spectrum."

SoftBank is a huge company. It has plenty of money (due to being very popular in japan).

"While some hate Verizon other love them because you get what you pay for. They have the best coverage and are rated as having some of the highest customer service ratings in the industry."

Can't argue with that. Though, they only have that coverage because they have some of the best spectrum. That's, why, you know, the government wants to make sure more than just 1 or 2 companies get some of that spectrum.

What it boils down to really, is that the haters want a $20.00 unlimited everything plan per month but still want ultimate service..so they bitch about how the big companies charge to much even if the coverage and the service is the best. I have Verizon, love my plan, love my phone and I wouldn't bounce to the other companies because ironically I like getting my calls and texts.

Posted via Android Central App

Even the comments in this thread make sick. "I hate Verizon but I'm still a subscriber because they are the only ones that give me coverage." No crap, your getting what you pay for, better service.

Posted via Android Central App

Thanks to Canada's Strict Regulations and No BS, Verizon found out that the Canadians weren't going to let them make up their own rules like they do in the states, and that's why Verizon decided against Canada.

Because of heavy regulations in Canada, is the main reason why the 2008 economic crisis didn't even phase them or their economy.

so the government should have let att buy t-mobile? yeah right. Att and verizon lower prices are because of t-mobile.

So naive... So because one or two companies are dominant, they should be able to throw that dominance around and become more dominant? Monopolies and duopolies are bad for consumers and the marketplace. The only people they're good for are the rich pricks who use those situations to fleece consumers and destroy competition.

Posted via Android Central App

This is a handout? This is akin to the government making sure the west was divided up among many settlers, not bought up by one big a-hole who then sold off at a high markup.
VZW and ATT have the cash to buy this entire block simply to deny it to anyone else (which they would do) or drive the price so high as to be crippling to any smaller carrier. What are smaller companies supposed to do in the face of something like that? Big Business is not your friend. While the government is broken in many ways, what a government is SUPPOSED to do is look out for its citizens. In some cases the government goes too far, this not one of those cases though.

Posted via Android Central App

They don't just auction the spectrum off in one big block. They do it in sections. T-Mobile and Sprint both have the money to buy at least one section. They have to weigh the opportunity cost for using the majority of their on hand cash with whatever else they had planned on using it for.

Considering both T-Mobile and Sprint aren't even close to optimizing their networks the consumer wouldn't even feel the benefits of them buying this spectrum for years.

And yeah it's a government handout when you claim to be too weak and ask the government for assistance. That's kind of the definition. T-Mobile and Sprint are saying they can't compete and expect assistance from the government. Kind of reminds me of the auto industry a few years back. This move could cost the government a lot of tax payer money sine the way this auction is setup now it's not going to make as much money.

Posted via Android Central App

Pure capitalism can harm the consurmer, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Such as the automotive industry. Cutting corners in those industries because you can afford to can KILL consumers. Nothing hear involves consumer safety. While capitalism does need a certain blend of government intervention this is a highly debated topic with no clear answer. It's my opinion the less is better. I do not believe in socialism.

Posted via Android Central App

So the government shouldn't have told sprint to use the spectrum they had when they were forced to roll out wimax or else lose it?

Posted via Android Central App

Since there are more than 4 companies buying, limiting to 1/3 of the total doesn't seem unfair.
Verizon just wants to make sure that they get more than they need so that other's can't get enough.
Note to Verizon: other companies want to build out their network too, jackholes!

As a long time VZ customer and an overall hater of .gov getting involved in business my normal reaction would be to just let VZ bid on it like everyone else. But for some reason my give-a-fuck meter is pegged on zero. Suck it VZ, you asked for it and now you've gotten it. Be smarter next time, huh?

If a Verizon exec can give me any one good/real/legit reason they need more than 1/3rd of this spectrum and back it up with the truth of the numbers I might listen to them. Frankly it will never happen, and I just don't buy their song and dance, although I do buy there service because they have better coverage where I need it than AT&T and the others.

From the article " Though the FCC's goal is to distribute some of the low-band spectrum to smaller carriers, it also has to consider the fact that it needs to raise at least $7 billion in the auction to pay the broadcast companies that are giving up the spectrum".

Posted via Android Central App