Fibertower Corp fka FBBT

[wirelessman77]

Verizon Response to Petitions to Deny Available

As usual these are a good read. Fibertower and AT&T are mentioned many times. Basically Verizon and AT&T will have a stranglehold on the 24/28/39 GHZ Bands but currently there is no 5G markeplace to dominate and the options being explored for 5G include a multitude of other bands and options.

I think the FCC is walking a slippery slope perception wise. With StraightPath the FCC with their poor oversight allowed a $3B fraud to occur under their watch against the American Taxpayer. No equipment, no network, no proof whatsoever of anything being provided. Simply swept under the rug to get the licenses away from STRP and over to someone more suited to use them. Even in that based on the final numbers the FCC screwed up negotiating their take for the American Taxpayer.

With Fibertower they would be enabling a fraud against the Secured Creditors and Common Shareholders as well as the American Taxpayer. I think we all agree our fate lays in the hands of ATT needing to remove all doubt that they can advance with their 24/39 ghz plans and not hit a snag with the courts. For perception and the public good will the FCC have ATT clearing all hurdles in order to make the deal happen including resolving the outstanding issues of the unsecured and common shareholders?

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp;JSESSIONID_APPSEARCH=nqGcZZfTCNTfMltJVkWqBLfK269XdRbprTr5vNKrjTcRnpBvvBz2!-77661977!-345075396?applID=10322286#

From the Response to Petitions to Deny:
Finally, Opponents present no evidence that AT&T and Verizon are anything but separate competitors, independently attempting – just like CCA’s and INCOMPAS’s members – to determine how to enter and compete in the nascent 5G world. Concerns about a duopoly market structure arise when two firms hold a dominant position that can preclude other firms from entering a market, disciplining prices or countering anticompetitive behavior. But no firm has any market position in the broad, undefined world of 5G, let alone a dominant one. And Opponents have no basis to allege (let alone show) how AT&T and Verizon would be able to suppress competition. To the contrary, as discussed above, many firms are aggressively developing their 5G market strategies and are employing a broad range of spectrum bands (not just mmW spectrum) in those plans. The claim of duopoly is a fiction that the Commission can quickly dismiss.

Fourth, in criticizing the Consent Decree, Opponents ignore the deliberate and sound policy choices the Enforcement Bureau made adopting it.71 The Consent Decree is premised on the explicit policy to “ensure that [Straight Path’s] licenses are put into beneficial use as quickly as possible, promoting the rapid and widespread deployment of innovative wireless technologies to the public’s benefit.”72 The Commission thus determined that “the public interest would be served by” permitting Straight Path to retain and sell its licenses rather than terminating them and leaving the associated spectrum unused indefinitely.73 That decision advances the Commission’s objective to expedite the availability of spectrum for 5G uses, and Opponents’ arguments would only tie up this spectrum in perpetual litigation for years to come.74 In short, by directing that Straight Path sell its licenses, the Consent Decree fulfilled the Commission’s broader 5G goals while permitting Straight Path to satisfy its corporate obligations and providing a significant payment to taxpayers through the combination of a percentage of the sale proceeds and a civil penalty.75 Opponents are thus not only in the wrong proceeding to attack the Consent Decree – they are wrong on the merits. For these reasons, the Commission should reject the notion that it should undo the Consent Decree and thereby prevent this transaction from going forward.