NAB Criticizes TWC's Spectrum Hoarding

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#1
"NAB President Gordon Smith has written to four members of Congress expressing his concern over an article that appeared in Friday’s Communications Daily that said Time Warner Cable is warehousing spectrum that, Smith said, 'could be deployed to help build out wireless Internet service to unserved markets.'...

...'In finding real solutions to real problems,' Smith continued, 'we hope you would agree that ‘spectrum speculation’ suggested by the Time Warner Cable COO in the Communications Daily article is the wrong approach. If there truly is a ‘spectrum crisis,’ then allowing companies the size of Time Warner to hoard airwaves should not be permitted.'"

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2011/01/31/48764/nab-criticizes-twc-spectrum-hoarding
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#2
If Time Warner Cable owns that part of the spectrum, why does it matter? Seriously? I'm sure there are some broadcasters who are not efficiently using their spectrum or maybe not using all of it, does that mean they're hoarding too?
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#3
With TV you're either using your 6 MHz channel or your not. That's true if your bit stream is 3 Mbps or 19.4 Mbps. But Time Warner, a competitor to OTA broadcast TV is sitting on spectrum, neither using it or leasing it to someone else, and then encouraging the FCC to take more broadcast spectrum. It's kind of hard to say there is a spectrum crisis if the crisis is being caused by people not using what they have. "There is much food in the fallow land of the poor."
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#4
With TV you're either using your 6 MHz channel or your not. That's true if your bit stream is 3 Mbps or 19.4 Mbps. But Time Warner, a competitor to OTA broadcast TV is sitting on spectrum, neither using it or leasing it to someone else, and then encouraging the FCC to take more broadcast spectrum. It's kind of hard to say there is a spectrum crisis if the crisis is being caused by people not using what they have. "There is much food in the fallow land of the poor."
I thought it was the wireless companies that were screaming for more spectrum?
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#5
Let's see here, way back when the NBP was announced Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg was talking about the cable companies buying and hoarding spectrum. Who is going to benefit from taking broadcast spectrum? Anyone who competes against broadcast TV. So, if the cable companies can buy spectrum and sit on it, then why wouldn't they? That seems to be what TWC has done. If anyone should use it or lose it, it should be TWC.
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#6
Let's see here, way back when the NBP was announced Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg was talking about the cable companies buying and hoarding spectrum. Who is going to benefit from taking broadcast spectrum? Anyone who competes against broadcast TV. So, if the cable companies can buy spectrum and sit on it, then why wouldn't they? That seems to be what TWC has done. If anyone should use it or lose it, it should be TWC.
That's not hoarding. That's smart business. Wireless companies should have bid higher on the spectrum if they really needed it. Instead, it's much easier for them to bid low and lose, and complain about not having enough spectrum.
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#8
IMHO, I think that TWC - and others - bought spectrum for no other reason than to hold onto it until the value rises and they can sell at a huge profit. And by holding onto it, they add to the shortage, and up goes the prices... Like De Beers does with diamonds - speculation and manipulation of markets.

A little education on the history of the De Beers cartel is in order: GranneBlog » The diamond scam

Of course, the difference between diamonds and spectrum is that diamonds are plentiful and privately owned. Spectrum is limited and *supposedly* publicly owned.
 
Last edited:

Tim58hsv

DTVUSA Member
#9
That's not hoarding. That's smart business.
Smart business? Sure, but it's still hoarding. Who said hoarding wasn't a smart business practice?

Wireless companies should have bid higher on the spectrum if they really needed it.
Maybe they don't really need it or they couldn't afford to out bid Slime Warner?

Instead, it's much easier for them to bid low and lose, and complain about not having enough spectrum.
If that's the case then it sounds like they weren't too sure about being able to make money from the spectrum in the first place. I don't see how it would be a smart business move for them to deliberately lose a money making opportunity.
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#10
I don't see how it would be a smart business move for them to deliberately lose a money making opportunity.
They may not make any money short term, but when they sell it, YES. In the meantime they are helping to create a "shortage" that will result in the FCC taking TV spectrum. All around, in TW's best interest - see my post above.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#11
People buy stuff with the hope that it is going up in price all the time. I made the equivalent of 14% interest on the silver I bought in the 90s. I wish I still had the silver, it would be worth a lot more now. (That's just another thing I lost due to being dumb enough to marry crazy woman.)

Another thing is land, people buy land all the time, not to use it for anything, but to hold it till the value goes up. They pay property taxes on it each year planning on making it up when they sell it. So, Time Warner's hoarding isn't without precedent.
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#12
People buy stuff with the hope that it is going up in price all the time.
I have my own investment strategy. After the Zombie Apocalypse, I plan on trading my home grown peaches for 1 gold bar each.
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#15
Smart business? Sure, but it's still hoarding. Who said hoarding wasn't a smart business practice?



Maybe they don't really need it or they couldn't afford to out bid Slime Warner?



If that's the case then it sounds like they weren't too sure about being able to make money from the spectrum in the first place. I don't see how it would be a smart business move for them to deliberately lose a money making opportunity.
Think of it as speculation rather than a business venture in this case. Who knows what Time Warner Cable plans on doing with the spectrum. I really don't care. I just think it's funny that NAB is crying about Time Warner buying and holding on to it.
 

Tim58hsv

DTVUSA Member
#19
Yea. Back in 1979 there was a gas shortage and talk of rationing the fuel. President Carter asked that everyone cut back on driving and turn down the thermostat in their homes to to conserve the fuel. Meanwhile John Denver decided to have a filling station sized gas tank installed at his home and had it filled with thousands of gallons of petro.l Word got out and John's image as a good ol' country boy was tarnished.

Not sure if he got rid of the tank or not but it could have been a handy place for him to store his marijuana in. :)
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#20
Yea. Back in 1979 there was a gas shortage and talk of rationing the fuel. President Carter asked that everyone cut back on driving and turn down the thermostat in their homes to to conserve the fuel. Meanwhile John Denver decided to have a filling station sized gas tank installed at his home and had it filled with thousands of gallons of petro.l Word got out and John's image as a good ol' country boy was tarnished.

Not sure if he got rid of the tank or not but it could have been a handy place for him to store his marijuana in. :)
In the malaise days during the dreadful, pathetic Jimmy Carter presidency I had a 55 gallon drum in my garage I filled with a couple gallons of gasoline every other day. In my State, being 'allowed to wait in line to fuel up' was based on the license plate on your car: odd or even numbers.

Get ready folks, the same is quite likely to happen again. A repeat of Jimmy Carter's policies.

Obama said during his presidential campaign he would stop any new (clean) coal projects, he has killed new US Gulf oil exploration (but he cannot block the Chinese working with Castro in the Gulf) and he refuses to allow oil exploration and development in Anwar, Alaska: a desolate frozen desert.

Expect $7-10 per-gallon gasoline, soon. Think about it ... how will Obama's policies help our collapsed economy? Get ready for the cost of shipping and mailing items/products to double or more, including the food you buy to eat.

Jim
 
Top