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 : Nextwave Telecom Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (665)	2/3/2002 4:28:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1088

PCSTEL, if the bidders in the fake auction expected to get their money back if the judgements went in favour of NextWave, which they did, then the FCC decides to keep the money, it looks to me like a fraud. But maybe the FCC included a clause that the FCC would in their sole discretion decide whether to keep the money or not. If the FCC decides to keep the money throughout the litigation process, they might succeed in keeping it for several years. It looks like a booby-trap to me. <Nextwave does not OWN anything. They were granted the use of Federal Property for a given amount of time. This Grant of Use. was contingent upon meeting certain regulatory and financial rules. They did not meet the convenant's bound by these Grants. Therefore, they lost the use of these grants. Some group of bonehead judges didn't seem to understand that concept.. A matter which I expect the Supreme Court to straighten out.> Actually, NextWave does own something. They own the right to use the spectrum under certain conditions. It's like owning land. We bought a house sitting on some land which we bought in fee simple. We don't actually own the land. The state lets us use it in perpetuity under certain conditions, including that they might change their mind if they decide they want to do something with the land. We are tenants. Nevertheless, there are rules that the government has to comply with in confiscating it from us and we could seek court judgement for more compensation for example. Or, as Maoris are doing, seeking judgement that land was illegally taken; they had certain rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. A leaseholder [say a gas station] leases land, signs a contract and agrees to certain financial arrangements. If they fail to make payments, that doens't mean that the owner of the land [leased from the state] can then kick the tenant off the site. They are another creditor in the queue. Maybe the FCC has special rules. That's what the judges decide and so far, the FCC appears to be a creditor. Judging from the agreemeent which Hollings didn't think he'd had a chance to examine, the FCC, NextWave and a bunch of lawyers all think that the Supreme Court is likely to swing NextWave's way too. So, while you and Hollings might think that NextWave doesn't have a leg to stand on, some judges, NextWave lawyers and FCC lawyers [and SI lawyers] have shown that they think NextWave does have a very good case. The underlying mess was caused by Congress coming up with the stupid idea of small businesses bidding for multibillion dollar assets and favouring women and melanin-rich people. Not only that, but they had the stupid, hypocritical idea of limiting alien ownership. I get sick of hearing Yanks whining about not having access to markets in Japan, China and elsewhere and then stopping lamb imports, charging high tariffs on steel imports, subsidizing farms and all sorts of stuff like that. The hypocrisy is world-class. They are of course in good company. I'm not aware of any freely-traded place [maybe Hong Kong]. The new telecommunications rules were to take effect and the USA was still limiting foreign ownership. That obviously wasn't a big deal for the FCC or they'd have pursued that issue with NextWave. The problems come from the wacky ideas that Congress comes up with, such as racist and sexist bidding rules, limiting the size of companies which can bid, approving subscriber price plans, dictating that the called party pays, selling ratty little bits of spectrum all over the place with restrictions on technological use, not requiring cash on the barrelhead. The bottom line is that the law is what the Supreme Court says the law is. So, we'll find out soon what the law is and we can stop wearing out the ends of our fingers. If Congress doesn't like the laws that the Supreme Court creates, then they can always invent another one. Heck, they could even disestablish the Supreme Court if they want to. I suspect a politician promoting that idea would find the electorate unsympathetic and would go the way of Condit [what a creep he is]. Despite the fun over hanging chads, the electorate seems keen on hanging judges. Mq