Matt,

Is there a grassroots effort being organized yet to tackle this?

"But 3G ain't free -- the winners, AT&T, Verizon, Orange in the U.K., and the like just passed along the costs as higher prices to customers. It was just a game of having the deepest pockets to outbid mere mortals. Customers would eventually pay. It was hidden tax on us peons"

Interesting post, I had never thought of it that way. The consumers also lose out even more since only one phone company can use this spectrum (ATT/Cingular). It seems this amounts to some kind of luxury tax, but only for those who are 'lucky' enough to be with that provider. I wonder exactly where the money raised in these auctions is sent.

We also get screwed in this country with broadband internet. We pay much more than users in Europe or Asia with even faster and better connections, despite the fact that we invented the technology.

If the Democrats can get anything accomplished now that they control congress I hope they put a lot of attention onto helping out American consumers, who are being screwed six ways from Sunday by these monopolistic capitalist pigs who seem to have more influence with OUR representatives than we do.

Freebox in France costs about half of what the similar ATT U-verse or Road Runner deluxe "packages" cost in my service area (SATX), and is more extensive, more reliable, and treated like a real public utility in France.  

Glad to see another post on spectrum policy.  Though I don't want to sound like a broken record on this, I want to repeat my earlier comments noting that the FCC's pending "white space" proceeding (Docket 04-186) involves a lot more broadcast spectrum (150-200 MHz+) than the planned auction (a max of 60 MHz and probably 10-30 at best, practically speaking).  The "white space" (a.k.a. "guard band" channels dating back to the 1930s) also has equally good or better propagation characteristics than the 700 MHz spectrum up for auction.  And freeing this spectrum up for "public access" may be easier to accomplish administratively than the spectrum to be auctioned (which is on a fast track and is viewed by Congress as a "money maker" to help pay for the feds' bloated and distorted spending priorities).

The point I wanted to add here is that a compelling argument can be (and has been) made that "exclusive spectrum licensing" is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment rights of non-licensees when "spectrum sharing" is feasible.

According to this argument, the 1934 Comm Act (and all the FCC licensing policy that's followed it) was only constitutional in light of the technical constraints associated with the perception of "spectrum scarcity" at that time (i.e., technology hadn't evolved to a point where we could all share the same spectrum).  This argument was made back in 1998 by law professors Yochai Benkler and Larry Lessig in a New Republic article: (http://thadk.net/ideas/lessigcopyright.h tml).  Similar arguments were made in recent "white space" filings by a consortium led by New America Foundation and including a wide range of consumer and public-interest groups, and others interested in unlicensed "public" spectrum and muni-wireless efforts.

Here's a few excerpts from the 1998 Benkler/Lessig piece:

The First Amendment...is strongly opposed to a system of licensing or prior restraint...When the state creates a regime where all speech must be licensed; when it establishes monopolies over valuable speech resources; when it erects a framework that concentrates, rather than decentralizes, opportunities for speech, then the state needs a very strong justification.

Necessity would be such a justification. If the only architecture for broadcasting that could work were the architecture of allocated spectrum, then spectrum allocation would be justified. But, when technology advances such that this concentrated architecture is no longer required, then "necessity" disappears and...the reason for this state-sponsored monopoly--abridging the freedom to speak without a license from the state--vanishes.

In my view, this argument is pretty clear and compelling, though it hinges on a determination that spectrum sharing is feasible and reasonably efficient, which is something the FCC is starting to test for the white space, using prototype gear provided by Microsoft, on behalf of a "high-tech" consortium whose other members are Intel, Google, Dell, HP and Philips Electronics.  This coalition's positions on the white space issue are very much in line with those of the "end user" coalition led by NAF.

Though it could come down to somewhat technical debates, it would be nice if there were some ways the netroots could weigh in on this to help insure the FCC isn't bullied by by broadcasters and other incumbents, which are arguing that they'll be subject to harmful interference if the white space is opened for unlicensed use.

While the immediate benefit of unlicensed white space is a whole bunch of high-quality spectrum available for unlicensed operation and better quality muni-nets, this issue has broader implications, as the Benkler/Lessig quotes suggest.

But 3G ain't free -- the winners, AT&T, Verizon, Orange in the U.K., and the like just passed along the costs as higher prices to customers.

AT&T, Verizon, Orange, etc would charge the same prices if the government had given them the spectrum for free.  The operators cost has zero impact on your willingness to pay for services.  Only unsophisticated business do cost plus pricing.

The driver of pricing power is the cellular market is limited competition.  The FCC licenses a maximum of 4 providers in any market.  4 is not enough to provide true competition.