Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

700 MHz Auction: Bidding ends early on glitch

It turns out the hold in the auction was a technical delay. The FCC canceled the final round of the day, round 31, but will resume its regular 5-round bidding schedule in the morning.

700 MHz Auction: Bidding on hold

The auction mysteriously went on hold this afternoon, an we’re still waiting on the FCC for an explanation. Could it be that the auction is winding down? In round 30, the auction generated only 158 new bids as the bidding slows down on many of the licenses. Those bids result in only a 0.26% increase in the total bids so far, which reached $18.8 billion today. (more…)

700 MHz Auction: Open access one bid away

The C-block package license was bid up to $4.29 billion in today’s opening round. If someone takes the bait in round 14, the provisional winning amount will break the open-access barrier, paving the way for the first wireless network with a government mandate to support any application or device. Of course, that’s only if someone bids in round 13. If the bidders follow their current pattern, they’ll skip a round in between bids, which will drop will the minimum bid necessary. Right now the minimum bid is $4,865,795,000. The reserve price set by the FCC to activate open access is $4,637,854,000.

For a full analysis of the open-access race see Telephony’s wrap-up story for Day 4. For the full auction results see the FCC’s Auction 73 page.

700 MHz Auction: C-block bidding slows again

The further hiccups in C-block bidding we predicted yesterday turned out to be right on the button. The competitors for the nationwide open-access license didn’t submit bids in today’s opening round, leaving the license at its $2.98 billion provisional amount at the end of round 9. The lack of activity not only slows down the license’s advance to the $4.6 billion reserve price, which would unlock Google’s coveted open-access provision, but it also serves to lower the minimum bid for the next round from $3.42 billion to $3.38 billion.  (more…)

700 MHz Auction: Day 3, the status quo remains

The FCC upped the intensity of the auction today, hosting four rounds of bidding today instead of the two daily rounds of last week. Despite the doubling of activity of Day 3, nothing too startling occurred. Except for a slight hiccup in C-block bidding in round 6, the auction is essentially in the same state as we left it at the end of week one: bidding ramped up leisurely on the C-block open-access license, the D-block public-safety license was untouched and the really nasty fighting occurred over regional and market licenses in New York, Southern California and Chicago. In total, the auction has no generated $6.1 billion in high bids. (more…)

700 MHz Auction: Bidders take a breather on open-access block

For the first time in six rounds, no one bid on the open-access C block in Auction 73. After attracting a single bid in every round bringing the price up to $2.15 billion, the unnamed bidders competing for the large block of commercial spectrum stepped back in round 6, drawing into question the demand for the nationwide block that would support the country’s first government-mandated open-access network.  (more…)

700 MHz Auction: Round 3

The new bids are in, and the D-block public safety band has yet to attract another bid since the opening round. Its opening bid of $472 million is still far below the $1.3 billion reserve price set by the FCC. The auction is still far from over, but the more rounds go by without the license being bid, the more worried the FCC and the public safety community may become that their long-dreamed of national emergency network won’t have a commercial backer. As Current Analysis’ Bill Ho told us for an earlier post, such a predicament could be awfully embarassing for the public safety community. (more…)

700 MHz Auction: And they’re off!

The 700 MHz auction kicked off today with two rounds of bidding, racking up a total $2.425 billion. Unlike previous auctions, the FCC is keeping secret the leading bidders’ names, revealing them only after the auction concludes. But the bids themselves are public and the biggest bid so far is for the C block, a package of 8 regional licenses covering all 50 states. The open-access spectrum block attracted two bids in two rounds, ending at $2.25 billion for the day.  (more…)

Buying on the rumor

“Buy on the rumor, sell on the news.” So goes the old Wall Street saying, and so go investors, in large numbers. One of the problems with that notion, of course, is that it encourages rumors in all sorts of unhelpful ways. Take for example the story of Carrier Access, an equipment vendor that put itself up for sale last summer and was acquired by another vendor, Turin Networks, in December.

In early August, just days after Carrier Access announced it was seeking strategic alternatives, a news story in one prominent online publication, citing anonymous sources, claimed Tellabs was “close to acquiring” Carrier Access for nearly $7 per share, having been in discussions on the subject “for a while.” According to information filed only recently by Carrier Access, the company had had discussions with numerous potential suitors in the months during which it was seeking strategic alternatives, but in all that time, it had received (or in one case, sent) non-binding “indications of interest” from only four companies: Turin Networks, a private equity fund, a small-cap public company and a company that is publicly traded outside the United States. None of those sound like Tellabs to me. With a market cap above $2.6 billion, it’s a bit of a stretch to call Tellabs “small cap,” since the term usually refers to companies with market caps between $250 million and $2 billion. But even if it was, the small-cap company in question didn’t send Carrier Access a letter of interest until November 15, 2007. And even in mid-November, Carrier Access said, the small-cap company had not yet begun due diligence on its would-be target.

So how could Tellabs have been “close to acquiring” Carrier Access back in early August? I’m not sure.

At the end of September, the same online publication wrote again of the supposedly imminent Tellabs deal, claiming, “One source says the board was set to vote on a number of proposals [this week], with Tellabs being the front-runner.” The board did meet that week to discuss potential deals, but again, at that point, Carrier Access hadn’t received a formal offer (even a non-binding one) from any company matching Tellabs’ description, so being “the front-runner” seems doubtful, to say the least. According to Carrier Access, the board decided at that meeting to send its own letter of interest to the non-U.S. publicly held bidder, to express an interest in acquiring it in an all-stock transaction, while continuing discussions with the other three parties. (According to the filing, that non-U.S. firm wanted to execute a reverse-merger, in which Carrier Access would technically acquire it but end up owning the minority of the combined company, so that the resulting company would trade on the NASDAQ.) Carrier Access sent that letter on October 1, 2007 and spoke with management at the non-U.S. company shortly thereafter, continuing discussions with the other bidders.

Meanwhile, the vendor’s joint product partnership with Tellabs–perhaps the main justification for a Tellabs acquisition–had dissolved.

In early November, the aforementioned online publication claimed Carrier Access was getting acquisition offers “in the $5 to $6 range,” again citing anonymous sources. That would be interesting if true, since the company agreed to be acquired for $2.75 per share later that month.

I’ll leave it to others to speculate as to the motives of those anonymous sources or how their assertions came to be reported as truth. I’ll simply say: Don’t believe everything you read. And don’t buy on the rumor.

Congress can debate telecom immunity but not jurors

As I write this, members of the U.S. Senate are debating whether to forward legislation that would grant some measure of immunity to telecom companies such as AT&T and Verizon for allowing the federal government to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants.

Much of the rationale offered by telecom immunity supporters is that telecom carriers rightly saw the need, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, to prioritize national security and rapid action over bureaucracy or even civil liberties. But recent reports suggest this activity started even before Sept. 11, 2001.

Some say the carriers shouldn’t be punished for this activity because they were assured by the administration that the program was legal. AT&T and Verizon “are not experts on Article II of the Constitution,” Senator Diane Feinstein said on the Senate floor today, arguing for telecom immunity.

I have a short answer on this issue. I will happily listen to supporters of telecom immunity enumerate all the various arguments justifying and mitigating carriers’ actions in this case. And when they’re done, I’ll simply say this: “If your arguments are so reasonable, why don’t you trust a jury to see them?”