@TIS, since my original post for the suggestion, I checked the actual FCC documentation and it dictates a number of extensions, some explicit and some are conditional. The shortest extension (30 days) provided was for one provider. Some extensions are actually longer (1 yr). Some are conditional like 90 days after a carrier announces migration ready. As such this prediction will not be as easy to judge. That said, in light of the prediction as it currently states, there should be a date placed on criterias 1 and 2 where to consider the criteria not met. My suggestion is to tighten this prediction up.

@Shiv, the likelihood of the scenario you describe happening between now and 26 is 0%.

@Eric, I am recommending that the criterias be clarified/modified as follows:

1. The FCC makes an official announcement of Sprint's failure by end of August 2008.
2. Sprint acknowledges it has failed to meet the FCC imposed deadline by end of August 2008.
3. Another deadline extension is publicly requested by Sprint on or before July 26, 2008.

If none of the criterias are met, then an UNFAVORABLE judgement can then be made.

This was automatically put into "being judged" mode due to the "bet closes" date that was chosen.

We didn't do anything, the system did it on its own based on the original setup.

I was able to reopen it for another month.

So which set of criteria are you using? If its the one in the comments section, could you change the prediction's wording?

@Eric, thanks for the update.

Is Sprint still using the spectrum?
* If so this should be judged a success.
* If they were out of the spectrum by July 26th it should be judged a failure.

If the FCC has publicly announced an extension of Sprint's time, as indicated by David, that would seem to fulfill criteria 1*, even if there's some reason to use tangential judgement criteria such as those listed.

* Assuming, of course, that the FCC didn't make a completely moot announcement of an extension for a deadline when such an extension wasn't necessary.

Just to reiterate that this order (2nd extension) is not a judgement of failure, excerpts of the order shown below ...

1. In this Order, on our own motion, we extend for an additional 30 days our prior waiver of the deadline by which Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) is required to vacate its spectrum holdings in the 800 MHz Interleaved Band (809-815/854-860 MHz), Expansion Band (815-816/860-861 MHz), and Guard Band (816-817/861-862 MHz) (collectively, Mid-Band). This waiver will extend until August 25, 2008, to enable the Commission to further consider Sprint’s Petition for Relief filed on June 17, 2008. We take this action without prejudice relative to the merits of the Petition.

4. On June 17, 2008, Sprint filed a Petition for Relief requesting that the Commission authorize it to clear its spectrum holdings in the Mid-Band in stages based on the region-by-region progress made by public safety licensees in retuning their systems to the new NPSPAC block. On June 20, 2008, we waived the deadline by which Sprint must vacate the Mid-Band for a period of 30 days (i.e., until July 26, 2008). Today, we extend this deadline by an additional 30 days to provide the Commission with additional time to consider the issues raised by the Sprint Petition.

5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392, Sections 4(i) and (j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R. §§ 154(i) and (j), Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, and Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, that the deadline by which Sprint must vacate the Mid-Band is waived for a period of 30 days until August 25, 2008.

The way I see it, if FCC sees the Sprint's petition does not hold the merit for additional waivers, then they would make a judgement on Sprint and possibly imposing fines (then criteria 1 would pass). If there are merits and FCC grants additional waivers (then criteria 1 would fail). Either way, this determination will take place no earlier than August 26.

@Shiv, I disagree. All 3 criterias have been stated in the original prediction. The recent update by TIS was to bound criteria 1 and 2 with a specific date (so that a judgement can be readily made by September 1 without any doubt or prejudice). Regardless of what the prediction heading may say, the criterias for judgement are the ones that matter.

The 800MHz rebanding process is a very complex one and it is not a burden that Sprint carries alone. The mandate also imposed on carriers affected to cooperate. Criteria 1 is specified to provide for FCC to make a judgement on Sprint's failure. FCC may deemed Sprint to be at fault or not (i.e. it was carriers, hardware, other local/regional complications that caused the delay).

@Bradley, when I suggested the prediction, I listed the 3 criterias to be used for favorable judgement. None of the criterias have NOT been met for a favorable judgement. When the first 30 days waiver was granted (which forms the basis of this prediction, there were carrier specific waivers that were included which extends to 2009 and 2010). As such, we cannot use complete vacate of spectrum as criteria as the basis itself allows Sprint to continue using the spectrum until 60 days before the intended carrier needs it (which is beyond June 26). That would nullify the prediction as it would have been 100% as soon as it gets into bet play.

Criterias listed are very clear. If FCC faults Sprint between August 26-31 or Sprint admits inability to meet the order (which now goes to August 25), then favorable judgement can be made. Otherwise, unfavorable judgement can be made.

@David: If Sprint failed to vacate spectrum that, as of July 22nd (creation date of the prediction), they were to have vacated by July 26th the prediction should be judged successful. Whether there are ADDITIONAL things that they don't have to do until 2009 or 2010 is completely irrelevant as CLEARLY those items aren't what this prediction is examining.

So modify my first statement to "Mid-Band" rather than "spectrum." Has Sprint vacated the Mid-Band (as of July 26th)? Yes? Failure. No? Success. Have they managed to convince the FCC to give them an extra month? Great, no whomping big fines. They're still using the spectrum and the FCC publicly giving them permission to do so is official confirmation.

And the first of those has occurred. By extending the extension the FCC has publicly announced that Sprint hadn't cleared the Mid-Band spectrum by July 26th.

Talking about OTHER requriements with which Sprint must comply in the next two years is a complete red herring.

Saying that the FCC giving an additional waiver means that Sprint hasn't failed to do what they -- as of July 22nd -- were required to do by the 26th is.... questionable logic at best. Shifting goalposts, clear and simple.

Some news ...

http://tatools.800ta.org/PublicTaTools/WaiverDocumentation/1620/NonConfi...
http://www.bces.wa.gov/WA%202008.pdf

I think, overall, Bradley has the most compelling argument here, frankly. According to the criteria (and, obviously the title), #1 appears to have been met already. That being said, technically Sprint didn't publicly request the delay nor did the FCC make an official announcement.

So, you see, the prediction titles are the most problematic aspect of most predictions as you all already know. If a title is taken literally, as a criteria (which happens to many people) but the fine print is incredibly specific (which most people demand) there can occasionally be a disconnect. Then, disagreements begin, like in this case.

What we want to have happen is an event to be predicted, where the community bets in favor or against. In a case like this, when confusion seems to be based more off of the technical parameters of the language more than the actual event, we have a couple of options.

1) I can make a judgment call (and, right now I believe - because of the title - that this already occurred).
2) I can try to "kill" the prediction, and pay both sides S$50. No winners, no losers - sort of. It's not a perfect system, really, but kind of meets everything half way.

It's not an easy call. I am dealing with the same issue with the Kindle prediction right now.

@Eric et al, I am in agreement that the verbiage and title of the prediction could have been better. I am also open to TIS making the ultimate decision one way or another. I can only state the original intention of the suggestion.

As for the Kindle, my original suggestion did not include a redesign as part of the criteria. I am in agreement that the verbiage and title of the Kindle prediction when made playable could have been improved.

@Shiv, if you need/want an infusion of funds, let me know. We can reset accounts, etc., too. We'll be launching the Team Blog later today. We can discuss things over there, if you prefer, or you can reach me at eric [at] thestandard.

That's nice of you to offer, but I'll do it the hard way. Besides, resetting will make risks meaningless. Thanks anyway. You could consider loans, though.

@Eric, loans feature eh? Can I borrow a few millions? I am constantly over betting and running low on $. That might be the only way I can ever catch up to our supreme leader Bradley.

I'll tough it out, till loans is a feature available to all. But there's got to be an interest rate charged on the loan- at least 25%. I've been traveling for a while now (holiday!), so I wouldn't be able to use it much anyway. In fact that's why I bet how I did - putting my cash in a risky autopilot. I couldn't see any other way, seeing as a lot of gains are made due to the first-mover advantage (which is why I'm all for non-50% starting odds). Oh well.. prediction: I'll have a million by the end of the year :)

"BTW, it would be nice to be able to see the trending of one's networth over time (monthly at least)."

Seconded.

Especially since I don't bother to track my results as carefully as David appears to track his.

Even better if we could drop in 2-5 names and have them charted on the same graph. But now I'm just getting feature-greedy.

Awesome ideas, guys. By the way - behold: http://www.thestandard.com/blog

Finally!