Can Dish Blow Up the Spectrum Market?
Since acquiring permission last year to use 200 MHz of spectrum in the S Band (slightly longer in wavelength than the WiFi bands at 2.4 GHz) to link Dish satellite service with a high-capacity Internet pipe, Ergen has been stymied in his search for partners, TeleGeography reports.
Dish made a run at MetroPCS, but that company was bought by T-Mobile. Dish turned its attention to Clearwire (CLWR) , but that company combined with Sprint (S) and Japanesse businessman Masayoshi Son. Dish offered a premium for Clearwire, but Sprint already owns 51% and has rebuffed Ergen's advances.
Now Ergen has told an AllThingsD conference in California, according to Bloomberg News , that if he can't find a partner, he'll sell the spectrum. He claims the spectrum could be worth "billions of dollars."But is it?
Spectrum is worthless unless it's used. In throwing in his hand, Ergen would be admitting he can't use the spectrum profitably. If DISH can't create something worthwhile with those 200 MHz, even combined with its own satellites, who else can?
AT&T has the cash to be a buyer, but there are anti-trust worries. Verizon Wireless has been dropping cash lately and may be unable to secure financing. Plus, again, there are anti-trust worries. Sprint, combined with Clearwire, would seem to have more than enough spectrum for its own needs. T-Mobile, the fourth player in the market, seems tapped-out after its acquisition of Metro PCS -- it will need to spend heavily to unify the two networks.
There has long been an assumption that spectrum is scarce, that it's a license to print money. The industry is now gearing up to fight Federal Communications Commission plans to "unlicense" new WiFi spectrum, the Baltimore Sun reports , arguing it would be better off selling those rights to incumbents.
But if Ergen can't draw a bid for his 200 MHz, what is that claim of spectrum's value to the government worth? If that claim really is worthless, why shouldn't the FCC just define the use of our spectrum through the licensing of devices, as companies including Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) have suggested, rather than by selling it to carriers?
I have written about wireless telephony for many years now, and this claim of spectrum's inherent value and scarcity is a con. It takes billions of dollars of investment to make spectrum valuable, to produce a service with a nationwide footprint. This is over and above the cost of buying the spectrum from the government. It's supposed to be public property, not private.