Are LightSquared still trying to get some value from their contributions?
Of course they are. Lightsquared ("LS") bought low-valued spectrum at fire-sale prices, speculating that with rule changes and waivers they could use it for a terrestrial broadband network, in which case its value would increase by a factor of 100, 1k, or 1M. If there is any chance whatsoever to still reap that windfall, LS will press it.
The spectrum LS bought is allocated to the Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS"). Until relatively recently, this spectrum could only be used for satellite networks. Because mobile satellite service has never caught on due to the high cost of the space segment and some technical limitations of delivering good broadband performance by satellite, the value of MSS spectrum has been much lower than the Commercial Mobile Radio Service spectrum now used for mobile broadband services (pennies on the dollar, or less).
The FCC is convinced that the US will founder as a backwater and will be unable to climb out of the recession if it doesn't have more mobile broadband spectrum, and soon. (I believe this is a faulty notion at best, trending toward absurd, and have articulated my reasons here a number of times, so I won't repeat them now. Check the archives if you are interested.) So, the FCC is racing to make more spectrum available for mobile broadband service. It thought that the relative wasteland of underutilized MSS spectrum would be low-hanging fruit, so it indicated in its National Broadband Plan and some later decisions and Orders that terrestrial use of the spectrum should be considered.
Seeing the opportunity to buy cheap MSS spectrum (including buying some MSS companies out of bankruptcy) and convert it to a much, much more valuable use, thereby reaping a windfall, LS did just that. However, as we have seen, the technical problems surrounding repurposing satellite spectrum have thrown a spanner in the works of the initial plan. As I have commented here before, how the FCC and whoever did the LS due diligence all missed the obvious problems with putting powerful terrestrial transmitters adjacent to receivers listening to satellites is beyond me, particularly when the issue of SDARS (satellite radio) ancillary terrestrial transmitters interfering with mobile networks should have been fresh in everyone's minds.
To summarize -- LS bought cheap spectrum that nobody much wanted because of the difficulty of providing MSS services. The spectrum is still worth about what LS paid for it, *as MSS spectrum.* But LS apparently feels entitled to receive not just the value of the spectrum *as MSS spectrum,* but rather the value it would have *if it could be used for mobile broadband service.* Put another way, they want their speculative gamble covered. By whom? Well, that would be us, the folks who are still in the middle of bailing out the speculators of the last decade. LS now wants to swap its spectrum for government spectrum that would be useful for mobile broadband service.
Now, on the one hand, I think having available the "wholesale only" service LS says it wants to provide would be a Good Thing. On the other hand, I do not think we, the people, should subsidize it. LS took a gamble, and lost. That should be the end of it. But there any number of politicians who, like the FCC, are panicked that the US is "behind" in the mobile broadband race and think more mobile broadband will restart the economy (again, I say, Dream On). So, LS has allies that want to cover its bet for their own reasons.
Only time will tell how it works out. If you want to have input into the process, at this point lobbying your congressional delegation and the appropriate House and Senate committee members appears to be your best bet.
Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
