RE: [wg-c] capital idea

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Not at all, I was answering Kent's specific statements, in all cases,
which was concerning a mandatory re-bid model. The context was NOT about
the general case, at all. A context that got left on your cutting-room
floor. Please be more than usually careless with your cuts. In the
proper context, my statements were accurate.

What is also fallacious is implying that I support the converse case.
Also not true. If you will more carefully read my recent messages, I
suggest an annual solvency/SLA  review. One that is much more palatable,
from an investors stand-point, and also more potentially stringent than
Kent's mandatory re-bid scheme. I might add that,  IMHO, it would be
vastly more effective, not to mention enforcible.

Mind you, I am not terribly fond of this, but I feel it is a necessary
step towards some sort of compromise.

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 12:08 PM
>
> At 12:16 PM 8/22/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >That's a very poor mix of metaphores. For one thing, as others have
> >pointed out, FCC licenses are not presumed to be recinded at
> >renewal-time. That is not at all what is being proposed,
> under mandatory
> >re-bid. If this were the case, the PCS licensees would not
> have bid each
> >other up the way that they have.
>
> You are confusing the basic model with the implementation details.
>
> You made a flat claim that no provider would or could deal
> with a re-bid
> model.  Now you are saying that a re-bid model is ok, if
> there are certain
> constraints.