Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4262)	11/9/2001 3:46:33 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Hi, Frank - I'm a little foggy on the latest moves in the Great American Wireless Game, but I see this as a significant shift from previous policy, including the Telecomm Act of '96. "The FCC will sunset the spectrum cap rule effective January 1, 2003. The transition period between now and the sunset date will afford an opportunity for the markets to prepare for the FCC's shift from an inflexible spectrum cap rule to reliance on case-by-case review of CMRS spectrum aggregation. The transition period will also permit the FCC to consider what guidelines, procedures and resources may be necessary for the FCC to perform case-by-case review of transactions involving transfers of control of CMRS spectrum in an effective and timely manner. The FCC raised the spectrum cap to 55 MHz in all markets during the transition period. This change is intended to address certain carriers' concerns about near-term spectrum capacity constraints in the most constrained urban areas." fcc.gov Underneath it all, one can see the success of some long-term lobbying, and in a more transparent sense, a response to some (perceived) needs. 1 - The decision of the Clinton administration to have the FCC re-allocate spectrum was a non-starter. There is a need to find other ways to address the spectrum issue. 2 - The spectrum cap was designed to create, and protect smaller competitive wireless businesses. These businesses were supposed to propagate wireless in less dense areas. The FCC regulations, and the underlying thought, were a direct outgrowth of the Telecomm Act: the communications equivalent of Mao's "Let ten thousand flowers bloom." Legislating, or mandating successful business, and market penetration has not been a success. There is a need for a better way. Is the subtext in this news, "Bigger may* be better..."* ? Perhaps. I'm sure many will holler that they see SBC (for instance) written all over the change. Given the current malaise in the sector, perhaps this is the only way that sufficient funds can be attracted. But will the "winners" enhance wireless penetration in the States, or will they use their newfound advantage simply to increase profits, and stifle competition? I think the phrase "...the FCC's shift from an inflexible spectrum cap rule to reliance on case-by-case review of CMRS spectrum aggregation..." will give many people sleepless nights. I fear the real policy is unwritten. But who knows? It's all in the execution, isn't it? Best regards, Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4262)	11/9/2001 7:54:33 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi, I echo the comment someone made about an airline asking the FAA for more gates to increase capacity, when they were flying DC-3s. Why not fly 757s, 777s and carry more passengers per flight? The current AMPs and TDMA-based operators are flying DC-3s ;-) and rather than insist, like the Australian government, on conversion to modern modulations, the FCC responded to the markets.[Commercial success is regulatory success] I think the FCC is operating on year-by-year continuations to the act that defines it, (which expired in 1992), and Congress is late on revising the FCC's charter. So who is driving the role and responsibility of the FCC - look in the House. petere