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: axial who wrote (35476)	9/4/2010 11:24:45 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

The article puts quite a spin on it. Another case where fragments of truth allow quite a range of stories to be created, "based on a true story" as Hollywood says. Even if truth is only 1%, it's still "based" on a true story. M2Z was just a sideline issue/proposal (a "distraction" in the eyes of many) in the larger issue of the AWS3 spectrum. It was the press that made it into the headline issue, because it contained controversial topics that were easily reduced to polarizing bumper-sticker form. It has been essentially DOA since the start (and all the subsequent re-jiggers of the initial proposal notwithstanding). Most of the (active) time and effort the past several years has been in trying to resolve the AWS3 spectrum based on all the standard but arcane debates over various bandplans and interference issues that always come up in spectrum reallocation and assignment proceedings (i.e. regardless of M2Z). Those don't make good press though. This hasn't been a continuous 4 year debate in any case, and most of that period, the issue was inactive (sitting idle). Contrary to the article's characterization, opposition to M2Z was not limited to incumbent cell operators. Opposition was very broad, and included potential new entrants (objecting to M2Z getting a spectrum handout when they are just as deserving), civil rights advocates, and privacy adovcates. As far as I can find, the FCC did not release any official statement terminating once and for all any consideration of M2Z's proposal, and I don't think they are obligated to. That alone should tell you these press accounts are hyper-exaggerating the significance of M2Z in the larger AWS3 issue. If you'd like to read more history, here is a link to the M2Z/FCC case in the DC Circuit Court from about a year ago, which describes the history of M2Z's actions in some detail: hraunfoss.fcc.gov Of note, if you read this court decision, but replace "M2Z" with "AT&T" (or any other incumbent) you'd probably find M2Z's actions and tactics pretty distasteful. My point being, people hate incumbents so much they often lose track of "what" they hate and focus on "who" to the point that "anybody else" gets a free pass for the same lame actions. The bottom line in the Court decision: "Although M2Z presents a number of creative arguments, none of them has serious legal merit. The FCC Order should therefore be affirmed in all respects."