Google Pledging to Bid $4.6bn to Open Spectrum 99
csuftech writes "According to an article posted on vnunet, Google is pledging to bid at least $4.6bn for the FCC's upcoming auction of the 700MHz spectrum. However, Google would only be willing to pay said amount if the FCC agreed to a few conditions, namely, 'the wireless spectrum would allow consumers to download and use any software apps and content they want; allow handhelds to be used with any carrier; enable resellers to acquire wireless services at wholesale costs; and mandate that third parties such as ISPs interconnect at any point on the 700 megahertz band.' All this was disclosed in a letter [PDF] to FCC president Kevin Martin written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt."
Familiar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
Yea, this reminds me of the guy form "Thank You For Smoking"
That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while. Wow. I guess this really is rocking the boat, and has a couple of carriers pretty scared.
Kudos to google, way to not be evil!
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that
Is it really that hard to imagine a situation where the regulations go in a different direction?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. It's pretty hard to imagine the FCC making any decision that doesn't involve the public getting screwed. History has taught us that they will accept restraints on freedom with alacrity, but will release those restraints only under force of law.
I'd love it if Google won this battle, but I'd just about place bets against it.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The requirement that the highest bidder open part of their spectrum is not part of Google's business plan beyond the fact the open access is good for the net in general. That's why the claim is false.
2) Almost all of the tariffs in telco land are custom-fit goverment regulation tailored to their business plans. That makes the claim very hypocritical.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, it is not custom-fit to Google. It's a generic fit for a large number of people. There are plenty of other business plans that Google could implement that would be much less free, and would be a "custom-fit," such as requiring everything that any user or piece of software does be able to be indexed by Google.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment goes to the heart of the matter.
The GP claims that "It's a generic fit for a large number of people."
What he seems to be forgetting is that Google is not going to buy up all the spectrum across the country.
Their $4.6 B bid isn't just buying them 1/6th of the country, it's also going to get them access @ wholesale cost to the other 5/6ths.
And that is actually worth a lot more than $4.6 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My initial post was about how hypocritical it was for the CTIA spokesperson to make that statement, and act like Google was doing something new, drastic, and evil, when in reality the people he represents would take the same steps that he so vigorously condemns.
I never said anything about this not fitting in with Google's business plan, or that they were being altruistic. Just that it seems like their plans are shaking things up a bit and scaring some of the typical teleco's.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it would be better if the regulations were primarily concerned with the public interest, but if we don't have that, this is certainly a better alternative than how it would have played out had Google not gotten involved.
government regulations (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that /. likes the terms Google is trying to impose does nothing to change the fact that they're buying government regulation.
Google's plans for access to the airwaves is less of a regulation than regulating who can determine who and what can access the airwaves. These telcom insiders only want to prevent competition, whereas Google wants to introduce competition.
FalconRe: (Score:1)
Sure, Go
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't just being a saint, either, and fighting for our rights, which apparently are at the mercy of corporations with lots of money (fun!). Google's business strategy is breaking up the current monopolistic industries as a whole so that it can compete in all those markets with it's own software.
Oh, I agree. Google is a business not a charity. However they are pressing for an open market against the incumbents businesses, which benefits the population. Just because an entity makes profit doesn't
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I agree. Google is a business not a charity. However they are pressing for an open market against the incumbents businesses, which benefits the population. Just because an entity makes profit doesn't mean it's bad. Google got big in part because it gave searchers relevant search results as well as "do no evil". However with new leadership Google can turn out the same as other businesses. If they do though another startup can just step up and do the same. Such as "Jimbo" Jimmy Wales from the wikipedia, he's working on a collaberative search engine.
Yesh, that was what I was trying to say, was that they have done and are doing a lot of good, even though getting money is high on their agenda. They still put many consumer-friendly and anti-monopolistic ideals ahead of a lot of other things.
Thanks for the info about Jimbo, I wasn't aware of it and am very happy that someone is working on such a project. I remember when Wikipedia started out as this strange project on the net which many thought seemed like a silly idea. Collecting information?
SEs About, Teoma, and Mooter (Score:2)
It was disappointing when Ask bought out Teoma, that was a good search engine.
Yea, I used to use Teoma a lot, when I didn't get a result or not what I was looking for from Google. Another I use a lot also is Mooter [mooter.com]. Alta Vista still returns good text search results, though I don't use it much. Another I use, for specific searchs, is About. Actually it was Google that led me to using About. I googled for some archeology and anthropology searchs and Google returned About's Archeology and anthropology [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan.
That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while.
What, precisely, makes the statement false?
Just because Google's ambition happens to align with desires of the common consumer doesn't make the statement false. Google is attempting to use money to influence a regulatory body in its favor. Google would love to establish a precedent for their model. The benefits to Google are obvious.
Don't discard reason by denying the truth of the assertion. Instead, rationalize your wishes like so:
Dear CTIA,
Someone you don't own can now afford to compete with your bribes to obtain regulatory favor.
Enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I've been saying that for years. Then I finally stopped, because it's been, up to this point, like waiting for the apocalypse: every few years, people start screaming about the end of times, then nothing happens, and people are quiet for a little while.
When the hell is it going to happen? I've been waiting for it to happen for a long time. I'm sure someday i
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a fine point but in addition opinions and controls over Google today don't have to be the same tomorrow. If they turn evil then we have some measured control we can exert. How effectively we exert it is a different question but theoretically they couldn't start dumping toxic waste into Seaworld so there is no point in fearing the impending apocalypse which involves my porn viewing habits being leaked to the press because I opposed legislation that Google later wanted. So far they seem to want to play nice. I say encourage this corporate attitude, embrace it! Ben and Jerry's was quite successful while holding onto corporate ethics, I see no reason why Google couldn't do the same thing.
The particular language Google wants added seems counter to their interests but creates a free market where you compete on quality of service which sounds good to me and sounds good for them given the nature of their products. It adds risk to the process but Google is acting as if it has nothing to fear from a little friendly competition and in reality, they don't. If only the big telecoms of the world would see this as a good thing. Unlike Sprint buying sprectrum and not even using it thus preventing others from using it.
Ditto (Score:2, Funny)
+1 karma (Score:5, Insightful)
To preclude those decrying false philanthropy, yes, of course Google will benefit. There is, however, such a thing as a mutually beneficial agreement. And this really looks very nice from where I'm standing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Sorry for me that just doesn't cut it. I am not saying that Google is evil incarnate but judging them by their ideal of "Don't be Evil" I just can not equate the two.
On the plus side they haven't turned in any Bloggers I know of to the Chinese government.
Re:+1 karma (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact that statement doesn't even scan.
There are no free speech sites in China. There is no free speech in China.
Google can't censor someone's site.
What Google does is restricts their search results as per the guidelines of the Chinese government. They could have decided that the search results were too important to censor, but had they done that, the only difference would be that Google wouldn't be available at all in China. They're doing much more good by offering some service in China than they would be by offering none. If they had a better negotiating position, then I'd agree with you, but they literally had none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:+1 karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. [google.com] Access to the 700 mhz spectrum is key to their ends. If they do not acquire it either outright or by leasing it from a third party, they will have failed in a major way. The argument for the rule change is insurance against that failure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not even a mission statement. It's a cute quip that got bandied about and became an "informal corporate motto".
If you're talking about the "don't be evil" line, then you're deeply wrong. That phrase has tremendous legal importance to Google because it appears in their S1. An S1 (AKA a "red herring") is the document you file with the SEC that tells investors what your company does and what risks it takes. If you say, "we sell bottled water, but only to the criminally insane," in your S1, then your investors know up-front what business they're getting into, and have no grounds to complain when you don't make as much
Re: (Score:2)
The motto is not "Do no evil". It's "Don't be evil".
Re: (Score:2)
While Google not indexing these things might keep word about pro-freedom sites from getting to the people so quickly, it's also going to make it harder for the government to find them in order to shut them down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Regards,
Steve
Re:+1 karma -1 = 0 (Score:1)
IT seems to me that Google IS supporting the Chinese government's internet CENSORSHIP.
The Chinese government controls the routers and IP traffic thereby keeping people from reaching the sites they find objectionable. Google keeps people from finding out about the existence of those sites by striking them from their search engine results. Last time I checked, aiding and abetting was a crime in this country.
What does no evil mean to you?
God's busy right now. Can I help you? {-: Muahahahaha!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "this country", I assume you are not referring to China? The Chinese government would hardly make it a crime to aid and abet the Chinese government. I can't off-hand think o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, aiding and abetting was a crime in this country.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe my hyperbole is matched only by your whitewash. You are correct, of course, in that there has been no crime committed in the sense no Chinese law was broken. However, there are U.S. laws broken by Google, Yahoo and Cisco regarding bribery. They are not out the millions of which you speak because those laws are difficult to enforce, even when the IRS has direct evidence. All that aside, aiding a repressive government is at best questionable and at worst wrong in every sense I was taught.
I'm
Free Market Implications (Score:2)
Just because it goes to the high bidder doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be Verizon or
Is it just me, or (Score:2, Funny)
RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They've probably got a bit of good exposure, and managed to weed out the companies who would flirt around the issue without ever throwing their hat into the ring, so to speak. The bar has been set at $4.6B, and that's going to be the admission price to play with th
End run on Net Neutrality Opposition (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me, or (Score:5, Funny)
ATT: Cool... (Crap! I know we can't beat them with cash reserves so I'll bid high and force them to spend their fortune for it!)
*The very next day*
Auctioneer: Here we are with a block of airwaves. Starting bid.... One billion dollars....
ATT: $10 BILLION DOLLARS!!
Auctioneer: $10 billion is the current bid. Do I hear $11 billion dollars... Going once...
Google: *yawns*
Auctioneer: Going twice...
ATT: Hey wait a minute!
Auctioneer: Going three times! Sold to the gentleman from ATT for $10 billion dollars.
ATT: But! But! But!
Google: Hey ATT if you don't want those airwaves, give us call us after the opening bell after your quarterly reports and we'll talk.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though the Google proposal is the only one that actually creates a level playing field for any concerned service providers. The problem the other companies have is that it allows for other companies to compete with them instead of granting them government approved monopolies. I hope the FCC wakes up and sees Google's proposal for what it is a sensible solution for all parties concerned
Market failure at work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google won't bid if evil business models are allowed, so I guess they are tacitly admitting that their open access business model has no hope of competing against the telcos' "lock 'em in, and then lock 'em in some more" business model. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
No, you've got it exactly wrong. What they're saying is that their open access model can compete effectively against the locked-in model. The problem is that there currently isn't any spectrum available for open access. They are requesting that this change.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if Google buys some 700MHz spectrum in the auction they can set the rules for that spectrum to open access.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is in the service provider's (AT&T, etc.) best interest to charge you as much as they can for as little service as possible. The final content provider's (Slashdot, etc.) only get revenue if they can convince you to go to their site instead of other sites. But Google doesn't have to compete; they get payed more when more people go more places (and thus see more ads) regar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is a link to an entry in Google's Public Policy blog explaining their answer to the "put up or shut up" comment from AT&T. It also explains quite nicely how the auction is slanted from the beginning to favor the incumbents.
Don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be just one winner of the auction. Google is saying they'll bid only if the rules are that every winner must provide certain types of open access. They are basically attacking the premise that not requiring open access serves the public interest, at a minimum, by increasing the willingness of purchasers to bid for the spectrum.
Single buyer ? (Score:2)
a) stealing the resource (the FCC don't own the band, they're not selling it they are holding it hostage for a ransom)
b) selling it as a whole, making it possible for a inefficient monopoly t
Re:Single buyer ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't buy a cell phone that works in San Fran but not in New York.
In fact, you'd have a hard time getting me to buy ANYTHING that doesn't work country-wide, and I imagine that a lot of people feel the same.
Not to mention all the technical issues with interference near the boundaries, etc. It would just be a total mess for no verifiable gain, especially since there are a large number of frequencies which can do nearly the same things (though not identical) which renders your monopoly argument moot.
Re: (Score:1)
Excellent quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) has dismissed Martin's plan as "Silicon Valley welfare", claiming that it gives Google an unfair advantage.
John Walls, vice president of public affairs at the CTIA, said that the pledge re-affirms his organisation's belief that the proposed deal smacks of foul play.
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
-- end excerpt --
I think John Walls might want to add, "except Baby Bells of course." Its so not fair when a brand new billion dollar company gets into your game.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Google (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish Slashdot paid more attention to wireless goings-on. For instance, just this week, Sprint announced it is forming a 20 year alliance with Clearwire. The two companies are rolling out WiMax phone and broadband services, and together spent billions to control spectrum that reaches nearly everyone in the U.S. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to lower their price to consumers because of open-access competition in the 700mhz band?
Robert X. Cringely's latest article is a good read, too. "When Elephants Dance: Get ready (finally) for faster Internet speeds at lower prices" [pbs.org]
I live in a rural place that is lucky to have one broadband provider, a cable company. (Nope, no DSL.) If open access succeeds, small wireless ISPs will sprout up in places like this, which big companies always seem to neglect. Those ISPs would be paying wholesale prices for their spectrum, too, so regional monopolies like my cable company will finally face some pressure to lower their prices, or else to compete on speed and service.
Yes, yes... (Score:2)
Is there any word on whether the FCC is going to go for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Ramones (Score:2)
nine to five and five to nine
ain't gonna take it, it's our time
we want the world and we want it now
we're gonna take it anyhow
we want the airwaves
we want the airwaves
we want the airwaves baby
if rock is gonna stay alive
oh yeah
well all right
let's rock tonite
all night
where's your guts and will to survive
and don't you wanna keep rock & roll music alive
mr. Programmer, I got my hammer
and I'm gonna smash my, smash my radio
we want the airwaves
we want the airwaves
we want the airwaves baby
if ro
How does Google make money again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads. If you read their K-1 filing, you'll see that their only real expenses are people, servers, and real estate for people and servers. They make money hand over fist. Check out their cash flow.
selling YOUR personal information (Score:2)
capitalist pig-dogs (Score:1)
finnish spectrum (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)