Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Slams Google Over Open-Access Wireless
Robert writes with a CBROnline article on AT&T's objection to opening up a nationwide wireless spectrum. Their statement is made on the grounds that it will aid Google in their bid to get bargain-basement broadband prices. Google is just one company asking for open-access requirements on wireless signals; Skype, DirecTV, and EchoStar are others. From the article: "Yesterday, AT&T weighed in. In a letter to the FCC, AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving because it would encumber licenses in the forthcoming auction 'with a laundry list of intrusive 'open access' requirements that would, perhaps, entice Google to participate in the auction. By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses, thus preventing wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and clearing the path for Google to obtain them at below-market rates.' AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country."
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country.
Isn't it good to know AT&T is looking out for us?
"AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country."
And by "taxpayers", they mean Randall Stephenson and Richard Lindner.
Is there any reason why Google just doesn't get in on the auction? I'd love to see a more tech minded wireless company competing against Verizon and AT&T.
What, me worry?
Google sucks because AT&T smells like roses and shits rainbow sherbet.
Practically every company is trying to oppose anything Google does since it's a risk for them. Google has a cash cow with adsense similar to what MS has with Office/Win... with billions of $ in unused cash AT&T probably thinks with some justification it's only a matter of time before they get bored and move in on their markets with some VOIP services that could hurt their core business.
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive AT&T of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of AT&T in this country.
Anything that's bad for AT&T is probably good for everyone else. I know that comes off a bit prejudiced but Ma Bell pt. II is alive and well in this country. (Love the kinder, gentler death star logo, too.)
I know that google is just another corporation, but honestly, does anyone believe they're more 'evil' than AT&T?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heaven forbid that people can have access to bargain basement cost wireless access, or god forbid...FREE INTERNET ACCESS! Why...why...that would cut into AT&T's profit margins! We can't have that, now can we?!?!?
Evil monopolistic empire vs. evil all knowing empire. This is gonna be entertaining!
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Only in corporate newspeak could bargain basement broadband prices be a bad thing.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
"[...] an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars [...]"
Speaking as a taxpayer, it seems to me that a nationwide open-access spectrum would be a very worthwhile thing to get by forgoing those "billions of dollars".
(Nice to see that AT&T is looking out for my interests, though.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
And then he has the gall to claim that the oligopoly of telecoms has not failed consumers.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Dear Congress,
Please do not allow others to compete in communications. We are a monopoly and like it.
Sincerely,
AT&T
This is the same BS talk that these telecoms use in the net neutrality debate. "Innovation" and "creativity" seem to be the new corporate-speak for "monopolize" and "profit".
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
So... when I first signed up with Cingular, like 10 years ago, they were a pretty good company with flexible policies and good plans, I have the same plan as when I signed up in fact and you still can't beat it today. All in all, while they were cingular they didn't do anything too evil.
But within like 3 weeks of them becoming AT&T they've turned into AT&T. Bad service, bad policies, bad politics. It's like the AT&T trademark requires a company to be assholes and give out terrible service.
I don't get it. Cingular wasn't like this last year, or at least they were so blatant about it.
an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars..
:-P
Right.. because all those "billions of dollars" would have definitely been spent on something useful. Especially if it was a totally unregulated system.
I mean, look at what fees for telephone service did for us! They helped fund the Spanish-American War up until last year.
Well, those are totally unrelated. This slashdot, so maybe it is close enough.
AT&T forgot to mention how open access would increase competition and reduce their stranglehold on the market. We have been down this path before when AT&T was broken up, anyone old enough to remember having to essentially rent your phone from Ma Bell? AT&T and SBC managed to gobble up Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, Pacific Telesis, Bell Shouth and after merging themselves we are right back were we started, yet they have the nerve to call Google's request self-serving. Maybe its time for the FCC to wake up and realize that open access isnt going to inhibit growth, it will enhibit AT&T's version of growth which has always been expand and strangle out competition in markets they want to be in and own enough spectrum to make expansion into area's they may not even see as worthwhile difficult for anyone else to grab a foothold in.
...are very good at avoiding handing over billions of dollars to taxpayers. I seem to remember companies like Microsoft have avoided doing so through clever balance sheet manipulation.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
AT&T looking out for people...now theres a joke. *cough*IPHONE yup their really looking out for americans.
AT&T is whinning because it and the two other dominant mobile carriers will no longer be able to charge exhorbitant amounts for service. What Google is doing will not inhibit mobile broadband growth but greatly increase it. AT&T is really saying that it will be unable to compete with Google's rates.
people wouldn't work so hard to find wireless alternatives. AT&T has a nice idea with their U-verse service (Internet and IPTV) but they choked it by going with FTTN (Fiber To The Node, existing copper to the home) so there's only enough bandwidth to watch 1 HDTV channel at a time and Internet access tops out at 6M/1M. They're going to have to come back and put in fiber in a few years anyhow so why not get it right the first time?
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars
AT&T's just cranky that the feds extorted $billions from them and the rest of the cellphone companies in prior spectrum auctions and it wouldn't be fair if everyone else didn't get screwed just as hard. Actually, they have a point. I only take issue with the pretension that taxpayers aren't ultimately paying for that spectrum in higher service bills.
I'd like to see that 700MHz spectrum opened up using 2.4GHz spectrum rules and skip the auction bit entirely, but there are certainly good alternatives to that. We don't necessarily need to set up the entire block of spectrum with the same rules. Maybe reserve an open chunk for directional antenna use only for fixed long-range wireless use?
No kidding. Google are a freaking company, every request they make will be self serving in some way, even if it's not immediately apparent why.
Or perhaps AT&T would like to suggest that they provide telephone services out of the goodness of their black little hearts?
But the auctions have serious flaws that allow the incumbents to rig them. Google is trying to reduce ATT and Verizon's ability to co-operate and screw others like Google. It would lower the price of spectrum to something more like a free market value. What you have now is more like a monopoly price from the people who fought tooth and nail against analog modems. I can correct the assertion of ATT reps to make it more like reality:
A fair auction is in everyone's best interest.
A better system would completely eliminate government interference, because it there is not spectrum scarcity and it's regulation no longer serves a purpose.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
When's AT&T gonna stop depriving me of my billions of dollars?
OK, I am all for fair competitive practices. But right now, in this country, there is nothing fair or competitive about wireless broadband. You have large monopolistic companies working in tight collusion with one another, fixing the price of "air". What AT&T (and Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, et al) are afraid of is someone (like Google) coming in over an "open" spectrum and offering the latest generation in broadband access without having to pay for legacy compatibility (ie, they don't have to maintain a network of antiquated technology just to service customers who are too cheap to upgrade). Just look at the standard wireless service model here in the US. If you want to access the latest generation of broadband, you have to buy the latest generation of phone and sign your name to a one or two year contract, since the wireless provider is obviously subsidizing the phone you are buy (obviously), because buying the phone from your wireless provider is prohibitively expensive unless you sign up or renew your contract, and if you do happen to buy one of those grey market unlocked phones you can find on the internet, you mysteriously don't have access to broadband through your wireless company, and they won't offer any support unless it's hardware you buy from them. Who is stifling innovation in the wireless broadband industry? The industry itself is stifling innovation under it's own model of capitalize once, and run it for profit until the public realizes they are getting peanuts at caviar prices compared to what they could be getting otherwise. This is why we are seeing emerging markets like Southeast Asia and China with better wireless networks than our supposedly developed US market. Stifling innovation? Why is Europe already using 3G technology and we have yet to roll out a comprehensive 2G technology in most major regions? Maybe it's about time to open up bandwidth to entrepreneurs who can make the wireless industry finally sit up and realize just how transparent their real intentions are.
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Google is absolutely angelic next to ATT and friends. Really though, the problem is not capitalism so much as it is corporate government interference. There would not be a problem if auctions were not rigged or did not exist to begin with.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Clearly, no one's ever pounded YOU in the ass.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
>AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country.
Yeah, well, if AT&T doesn't pay me $20897678937 per year for being a smart guy, they're depriving the employees of a bunch of airplane and bicycle companies *enormous* incomes, which is immoral and unethical. I'm sure AT&T will see the righteousness of this stance.
If Google manages to get the value of licensed spectrum licences reduced, then at value *is* the market value, right? They're not trying to get something at below-market value, they're trying to reduce the market's evaluation of the value so that they can get in the game. That's the very basis of an economy-based market, right?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
AT&T is like the RIAA of telecommunications: always behind the times, never wanting to change their business model, always trying to monopolize something.
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive AT&T of billions of dollars, and encourage the growth of wireless broadband in the country
AT&T: fyp
Your world, delivered... to the NSA
Probably a dumb question, but I read TFA, and I'm still not clear on what the bottom-line is on how "open access" makes a whit of difference to me as a consumer? This is a serious question, if anybody has any references they can share about what the differences are, I'd really like to see them -- can't have much of an opinion if I don't understand the issue.
Not that I keep up on the telecom industry that much but what innovation have we seen from ATT lately? Other then the fact that they seem to be buying up smaller telecoms and essentially reasserting their monopoly I haven't seen a lot about them in the news lately.
Like it or not we have Verizon at least developing and pushing FIOS but what R/D is ATT doing that will suffer so much if people have more and better access to wireless?
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Goliath is getting angry. Brace yourselves, here comes the FUD!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Then release many more channels in a second auction. Of course that won't happen.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Of course not. They simply want fewer rules which apply to them so they can squeeze more money out of the consumer. Open markets just cut into profits and force them to compete on quality instead of having a monopoly.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You got that right. That's why we call them Assholes Through & Through.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This is really about the same as MS embedding IE to kill off other companies who were solely browser developers (Netscape?).
I think the big different here, and I may stand corrected, is that google isn't doing it as a lost leader to lock someone in, but to better their product. So if that's the case I support it. Only time will tell though as things roll out.
It smells like self-interest. Could it be that AT&T sees a chance to gouge consumers potentially fleeing?
If AT&T wants to bitch about frequency licenses, it should be stated that the first few "channels" on the wifi spectrum are actually licensed to HAM operators. Part of the 2.4ghz spectrum is for amateur radio use.
And from where those billions dollar are suppose to come from ?
Billing customers for it. Plus expenses.
Not selling it gives you access to it, and forbid them to charge prohibitive extras for
something they would control.
since the head of the FCC is a former AT&T lobbying professional, I'm sure they will be able to see the evil in Google's willingness to compete and provide better services. Poor AT&T keeps facing new competitors every year. Its a tough playing field when other people keep bringing out new and better services. The FCC needs to put an end to Google's ideas and bring us back to the old telephone and online pricing models.
"AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving"... AT&T's rebuttal was self-serving... Everything AT&T does is self-serving, they're a business, not a non-profit.
I am so dam tired of seeing public interest sold to the highest bidder. (including payed for legislation) Look around.. everything that should be for the public good is bought, monopolized, and ends up milking the public. I dont even read the articles any more.. I just figure out who has the most money or who has paid the lobbyist the most and that decides the issue. Follow the money and you will find the answer. I guess thats capitalism. Yay.
Black is white, up is down, left is right.
If you want to know the true meaning of a corporation's PR or marketing, just translate it to the opposite of what they say.
Fixed versions:
"AT&T also said an open-access network would SAVE taxpayers of billions of dollars, and ENCOURAGE the growth of wireless broadband in the country."
Easy.
Cheap internet is bad? Did I misunderstand the post, or is AT&T retarded? Or both?
Contract with the assholes was up today. Guess how fast I already switched! The girlfriend did it last week without my preaching.
AT&T, the worlds longest running communications monopoly, doesn't want ANYONE to have free communication.
Hold on while I give myself CPR.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
All your wireless bandwidth are belong to us.
Well, if you accept his premise, then you really don't know, do you?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Google states its position very clearly in its Public Policy Blog.
People here keep mentioning the cost of broadband, so here's a recent chart comparing costs worldwide. (Example: 34 cents/Mbps in South Korea versus $10/Mbps in the U.S., if it's even available where you live, which is why Open Access really matters.)
I relate the FCC's position to all the news about Dick Cheney a few weeks ago, how he relentlessly pressures political appointees who ought to be impartial. Could it be happening again?
The Wall Street Journal complained yesterday that the winner of "open" spectrum would either try to get out of the requirements or leave it idle as the buyer would be financially or technically incompetent to build it out. But surely those contingencies can be managed with some kind of buildout requirement, ie use it (or at least have spent X% of the auction price on buildout) in [7] years or lose the spectrum.
So the risk is delayed usage. But without some evidence that the current licenses are headed into unmanageable congestion (and it's certainly possible), the loss to public from delay doesn't seem catastrophic. And that risk has to be balanced against the possible gains from an open license. Maybe the risk is greater than the upside, but why reject the whole idea before Martin even releases the draft?
(I suppose one problem with an open license is restrictions on wholesaling. If a restricted license service needs spectrum to relieve congestion, could they lease access on an open license for their restricted services? On the one hand, forbidding such leasing closes a backdoor to restrictions. On the other, such leases could be a desirable use of otherwise idle spectrum. Maybe a solution could be to allow such leases but require that they be assigned lower priority than open services? You'd still need rules to keep the open licensee from gaming this into de facto restrictions.)
I don't see why smart people like the WSJ are so quick to judge this. I too worry about the property right / deal compliance problems of net-neutrality, but none of that applies to a _new_ license. Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction? Maybe the net-neutrality arguments have gotten so emotional people can't think about them? I suppose many readers here will think the WSJ is just a corporate shill, but I actually think that's one the less likely (and least interesting) explanations.
Caveat lector -- I know nothing about this field at all!
So Google is asking to make the spectrum cheaper. And AT&T is complaining about that. Why? Nothing is stopping AT&T from competing in the auction. If they can compete in the auction for expensive spectrum they can compete in an auction for cheap spectrum. You know what this really sounds like? AT&T is whining because what Google is suggesting means that AT&T actually has to compete for a change.
Oh, I think their argument against Google was fairly innovative - oh, sorry, you meant technological innovation.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Y'know, with all of these 'freedoms' that the people like and enjoy so much it must be difficult to make laws.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
I had to click the link after seeing the 'googleisevil' tag, posted by some lefty groupthink tool. Evil as defined by a moral-relativist is always a moving target target!
/. reminds me: this place is becoming less about technology and intelligence, and more about the lowest common denominator, bitter partisanship, and attracting the diggers.
/Saw 'republicansarefuckingfascists' as a frontpage tag the other day. Petulant children running amok here.
The lack of critical thinking applied to economic, social, and political topics on
Anyone recommend a new tech site or two?
"inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country"?
It didn't think it could get much more inhibitted than it already is.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Yesterday, AT&T weighed in. In a letter to the FCC, AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving because [bleat, bleat, bleat]
Google, you scamps.
Say it ain't so! I'm ashamed of you. Do no evil, indeed. How can you not follow the example of fine, upstanding, generous, social-minded, humble, helpful, concerned, responsible, AT&T?
AT&T - now there's who you should take your cue from. They've never had anything other than the general welfare and the good of the little guy in their warm, altruistic hearts. I can't believe the FCC would even deign to hear the recommendations of anyone else, since AT&T has proven time and time again that all they want - all they've ever wanted - is what's best for everyone, even at great peril to their bottom line.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Let us not forget that Google has been quietly constructing a massive network that would put most telecommunication companies to shame: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s tory.html?id=0d0fa453-8a22-4dd0-b244-53f03146da8e& k=11216
Google just needs permission to illuminate all of that dark fiber.
I hate this about /.
/.ers don't like invisible hands that Create or Intelligently Design things, but are downright chummy with other invisible hands.
Capitalism is basically financial engineering: figure out a way to get "the most buck for your bang/product." In a lot of instances, the most cost-effective way to do that is to rig the playing field in your favor. Capitalism is premised on a Free Market; however, once a company is successful beyond a point, it gains the power to tie up the Invisible Hand (with monopoly practices, collusion, government interference, subsidies, etc.) and thereby destroy the Free Market*, which is how they rig the playing field in their favor. It is actually in the best interests of a corporation to not have a free market. They all want captive markets where they can wring as much profit as possible. Capitalism is the problem because it is capitalism that brought about corporate government interference in an effort to maximize profits. The other problem is that corporations do not give a fig about consumers (beyond the fact that they must be kept happy enough to keep consuming); it is, however, the government's sworn and bounden duty to protect its citizens, at least according to the principles espoused by John Locke, whose thinking, coincidentally, greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the US.
I'm so sick of all this libertarian "The Government Scares Me" tripe. The government scares me too, but when I look at what's bad in the government, it has all been brought about by powerful lobbies, the vast majority of which are corporations or industry groups. Those scare me so much more because in this day and age, they are (almost) effectively puppet-masters.
However, I completely agree that this problem wouldn't exist if we didn't have auctions or we had completely fair auctions. And also that Google is much much better than AT&T. It's just the tired, fallible libertarian claptrap that gets to me. I'm sorry for venting on you; believe me, it's not personal.
*As an aside, I find it ironic that
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
.. does requiring their use to be done in an open manner prevent AT&T from bidding on them?
That AT&T doesnt want to do anything open is THEIR problem, and if they choose to spurn new spectrum if that is part of their requirement then that is there choice.
We, the public, WANT open access wireless, we WANT there to be healthy and robust competition
Take the iPhone. Now why Apple chose to let it be locked (at least until its hacked) into AT&T only for service I dont know. But there is no question why AT&T wanted it. And as far as I'm concerned it reduces the desirablity of an iPhone to below zero (at least until its fully hacked, *maybe*[ becuase maybe I'd like to get a device that is supposed to be open, as opposed to one that had to be hacked to be so])
AT&T (and Verizon, and all the other monopoly-bells, and hell Microsoft, and Yahoo[although they are in bed with AT&T anyway]) only whine about Google becuase Google might actually have the balls and the cash to do what people want, and to begin to put just the tiniest crack into the monopoly telecom and computing monopolies.
And Google is NOT a monopoly. I cant think of any instance where one person (or company) choosing to use any of Google's services or products makes it impossible for someone else to communicate or do business with them to use anything other than Google (Im talking about proprietary non-standard undocumented MS file formats and network protocols here), nor are there any cases where Google has exclusive control over some critical resources that the existence of was financed by regulated non-competition (I'm talking about last mile copper here) that prevents anyone else from using it.
Gave up the asshole? Good girl!
With or without the lube?
google or att?
This is all and good. Except for the fact that you seem to think that Libertarians are Republicans.
Libertarians do NOT support the corruption of government by lobbying groups and cartels and other vested interests. This should be obvious from the fact that they don't support an overt government at all, and certainly not one able to enact laws strong enough to give megacorps an advantage.
Your problem stems from the existence of a government that has no socially-minded principles at all, and yet which is strong enough to provide a torrent of laws to benefit the lobbying vested interests. Well that's not Libertarianism, it's normal Republicratism at its finest, and exactly what Libertarianism is trying to fight, with near zero success because of zero media support.
That's because one "invisible hand" is a poorly-constructed 18th-century metaphor for emergent systems, and the other "invisible hand" is a God who's evidently too stupid to think of creating evolution.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Why the hell not? It's time for these monolithic dinosaur companies to stop doing business as usual and start growing up to accept change. This is America, and we have a little something called competition and capitalism. When you start bitching about other companies trying to come in and steal your turf, you only make yourself look like an ass. ATT has done this, again.
If you ask me, this has a lot to do with a little something that begins with the letter i....
-50 DKP for lame post!
What the ... OK two questions:
1. Why are you painting Google as the bad guy here, when they're in the process of trying to wrest control of spectrum from AT&T... which Slashdot has endlessly complained about... by adding provisions for open use... which Slashdot has endlessly screamed for.
2. Why on earth was such an empty comment modded up?
That wacky AT&T, keeping prices high and passing the savings onto us!
-Todd
Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.
"Self serving" is a term that DEFINES at&t. was at&t spokesperson doing psychological projection or what ?
Read radical news here
AT&T TOTALLY NEEDS THIS SPECTRUM, because they're obviously really good at rolling out low-cost consumer-oriented wireless broadband with their existing airspace!
Oh wait...
Every time you ________ in Soviet Russia, kitten kills God!
The incumbents (AT+T, Sprint and Verizon) cry and scream every time anyone says anything about opening up the spectrum. They will lie, cheat and steal to make sure that no one can set up shop on that spectrum and not pay the incumbents for it.
There is a perfect example of their outright lying right in this quote. The incumbents say doing it Google's way will devalue the spectrum itself. They say that it will cost the taxpayers billions if Google gets it way.
Wrong.
Every time, they say this very same thing in an effort to scare the committee into thinking that they won't get those billions from the incumbents, knowing all the while that the committee has strong political pressure to get the most money out of the auction that they can (even the US governement notices 15 or 20 billion dollars).
Not only is it a lie about devaluing the spectrum (after all, if it is devalued, why would they care to buy it?) but it is a lie about who is going to lose money. The money for the auction goes to the government, not the taxpayers. The "taxpayer" in the end gets nothing but higher cellular bills due to lack of competition...in fact, the incumbents aim is to buy up all the spectrum and pave over it with a parking lot, which makes sure no one will ever be able to use it.
Take it from me, a guy very close to this industry. Google is certainly not the evil ones here.
Holy suffering mother of Wal*Fart -- an American company taking action to get its supplies for less money?!?!?!?
Goddamn, that rips it -- I'm exercising my dual citizenship with a UE country and hauling ass out of this rathole.
*As an aside, I find it ironic that /.ers don't like invisible hands that Create or Intelligently Design things, but are downright chummy with other invisible hands.
Evolution and natural selection have an invisible hand that guides a process which creates order from chaos. Capitalism and the free market have an invisible hand that guides a similar process.
Intelligent design is an immediate and atomic occurrence. It's an invisible hand that pops out of the sky, puts something down and disappears. If intelligent design defined a measurable and observable process for creation and adaptation, then that invisible hand might have a lot more traction here on slashdot.
Google's goal is to get EVERYONE online, because they make revenue on search ads. If there are more people online, they get to charge more for ads. It must appear to them that providing internet access will cost less than the improved ad-income they will earn.
AT&T, on the other hand, sells internet access -- not advertising space. All their income comes from the cost to join an infrastructure. They want to maintain barriers to entry that keep the industry a monopoly/oligopoly rather than a more open market.
Ultimately -- both firms are looking out for their VIPs, the shareholders.
for a change
Oh, the FCC will do it's job, give megacorps control. I'd rather see the FCC abolished, banned, or otherwise gotten rid of.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I agree with you but the real fix to this mess is to fix the larger problem, the core problem.
It ought to be illegal for a corporation (a made-up entity) to lobby the government. There ought to be a seperation of corporation and state clause in the consitution, because they're just as dangerous as church and state.
Too bad the founders couldnt have possibly seen this coming and being a problem. I'm sure USv2.0 will fix it after the next civil war. But until then, the system is broken, and repair is probablly not possible at this point.
_People_ have rights. Corporate entities (non-people) shouldnt have nearly as many.
-jorg
I agree in theory, but if the FCC didn't regulate the airwaves, then it would be too easy for your competition to just jam you. Or else, everyone would try to use the same frequencies and the end result would be that nobody could use anything.
Actually broadcasters, those who use the airwaves, would eventually come up with an agreement on how to alocate the airwaves. If there wasn't an agreement it would lead to an arms races driving their costs skyward which would bankrupt them. If I recall right IEEE's Spectrum had an article on this last year, I didn't find it online but it may just of been in print. They do have another article on The End of Spectrum Scarcity though. It goes over some of the same stuff.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I completely agree. In fact, I have nothing further to say to that other than I cannot agree more. Too bad, as you say, it's not going to be easy to make it happen.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
English translation:
We taxpayers would loose billions in revenue from sales of the operating frequencies to companies, who would have paid for it by charging us trillions in wireless fees.
I'm sure glad AT&T is fighting for my interes...wait a minute...
AT&T has the phone vendors at their mercy and cripple the capabilities of the phones they sell to protect their own vested interests and not those of the consumer. There are have been several GSM phone models sold in Europe with WIFI and VOIP capabilities but those same models are only sold in the US without those capabilities removed or disabled. Recently Cingular/AT&T and now t-mobile require all J2ME applications that use "advanced" features be signed with a carrier certificate as opposed to a usual code signing certificate from a trusted CA like verisign. The user no longer has control over what software they can run on their phone and whom they can trust with newer phones sold by AT&T's with their customized firmware. If one wishes to make a networked application run on a phone with the AT&T's firmware they will need to fork over big $$$ to get it "certified", leaving hobbyists and small market players out in the cold. carriers confronted forum discussion Who benefits from the carrier being the only entity who decides which software will run on the user's phones? AT&T can cry all they want about capitalism and free markets but until they stop interfering in the markets the same way they accuse the government and google of doing then they only come off as hyprocrites.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/ KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/pictsong.html
There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
-Robert Heinlein "Lifeline"
http://www.answers.com/topic/life-line
It ought to be illegal for a corporation (a made-up entity) to lobby the government. There ought to be a seperation of corporation and state clause in the consitution, because they're just as dangerous as church and state.
Yeap, Thomas Jefferson warned of corporate challenges to government: ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon"I hope we shall crush
Should there be a Law?
Maybe reserve an open chunk for directional antenna use only for fixed long-range wireless use?
No, no, no! I want roaming long range broadband wireless. I want to be able to have access while I'm out hiking so I can upload my photos.
FalconShould there be a Law?
... develop their newest service.., the Gphone..?
1. Why...Google...bad guy?
He's making an anal sex joke.
2. Why...comment modded up?
He's making an anal sex joke.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses
IOW: "It would result in downward pricing pressures on the rest of the industry"
So much for "free-market economy", huh?
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
That bar is getting lower by the minute. Just wait until Google starts throwing its IP weight around.
Sorry, but when I see a story concerning AT&T these days, all I can think of is how much I would enjoy seeing the company demolished, the CEOs driven before a crowd of angry villagers, lamentation of their women, etc.
What was this article, something about AT&T whining about not being able to screw Google as hard as they screw everyone else, including the American public? I missed most of it. Fuck you, AT&T.
Google's motives may be suspect, but AT&T's motives are well-known.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Okay, so here's AT&T's line: if the spectrum is cheaper, and the contracts for service are cheaper, then the government doesn't collect as much money leasing the spectrum at auction and doesn't collect as much taxes on the service contracts. So the taxes paid are diminished, and the FCC has to be funded, but where, AT&T would like to know, are those funds coming from?
Gee, if Google, Skype, my hometown, LG, Mattel, or Playskool sell me a device that is cheaper, uses cheaper services, and the services are made even cheaper by the fact that the spectrum was cheaper, where's it costing me money? Maybe I pay a little more tax somewhere, sure, if it's needed. But I'm saving money up front, and will the new taxes (if they ever come about) be worse than AT&T's rapacious fees?
See, AT&T, the tax payers are the consumers. Say it with me now. The taxpayers are the consumers. You can't claim you'll be hurting the taxpayers by helping the consumers. It's all the same money. It's just that now someone else might be paying the taxes instead of paying you and you paying taxes on our obscene profits.
It's the taxpayers' spectrum, not yours, AT&T. It's the taxpayers' money that you've been extracting for them for this incompatible feature, that locked handset, this early termination charge because you sold a phone that broke four times under warranty and you wouldn't fix or replace it the fifth time the same thing broke one week after the warranty period. Perhaps in your newfound quest to protect the taxpayers, you should stop screwing your customers at every turn, since they'r ethe ones paying the damn taxes.
Why are you painting Google as the bad guy here
Ummmmm....ATT stochholder maybe ???, ROFLMAO...
Does anyone remember what the Carterphone decision did for consumers stuck with AT&T's telephone network? It required AT&T to allow you to connect any compatible device to their telephone network. Consumers then were able to use answering machines, fax machines and computer modems. Open-access is good for the market. Read more at:
http://opinionone.blogspot.com/
It's my opinion that summaries should be educational for those who are not familiar with the topic.
Now, does that mean that AT&T is prevented from clearing the path for Google, or does that mean that, because AT&T is prevented from bidding, Google's path is cleared? The confusion comes from the use of "By its own admission," which sets up a "hey you guys, something completely unexpected is coming up," which tends to the first interpretation of the sentence, but the rest of the summary setting up AT&T and Google as opponents tends to the second interpretation. The confusion is also enhanced by the use of three gerunds in the sentence in pseudo-parallel structure:
We have three parallel elements, all gerunds--preventing (A) bidding (B) clearing (C). A || B || C is confusing.
How to fix the sentence:
If Case 1 is desired:This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as B || C
If Case 2 is desired:This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as A || C
An AC imagines Bad Things:
That bar is getting lower by the minute. Just wait until Google starts throwing its IP weight around.
OK, I'll put that right under a few other things I'm supposed to be waiting for:
All of the above is usually said in hushed tones by people deep into M$ stuff. It's often accompanied by statements like, "Microsoft is really taking their gloves off now," as if M$ might secretly aid such efforts. Bad Things, but all FUD from a company that good for little else.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Isn't it just incredibly funny - that's how long you and your friends have been saying Microsoft (oh, I'm sorry, I meant "M$") is about to disappear. When is open sores going to take their gloves off? Their FUD machine sure seems to have kicked into high gear this year.
This is too easy...
If AT&T said, "deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country." We know three things for sure:
1) Taxpayers will make billions of dollars off of this plan.
2) Wireless Broadband will explode across the country
3) You will not pay 50% of your bill in fees.
Of course google isn't a fucking charity. No one ever said it was, though of course one of the main tenants of capitalism is that honest self-interest can bring great benefits. Google isn't campaigning for sainthood they are just trying to make money without being actively evil. And if you would just use the same standard for google that you use to evaluate your friends you would see they aren't evil.
When your friend offers to go on vacation for you he isn't doing it purely for your benefit. He likes your company and gets a benefit from traveling with you. Even when your friend takes care of you when your sick he (though he may not consciously consider it) is making sure he has someone to take care of him when he doesn't feel well. As long as your friend deals with you fairly and honestly one doesn't consider your friend evil because he advocates things that benefit him. Hell, even when your friend explains the reasons that it would be in everyone's interests to go to the movie he wants to see he isn't being evil unless he is lieing or being underhanded.
Nor is it the case that having bad ideas or ideas you think would cause really really bad things to happen make your friend evil. If your friend is a republic, a democrat, a free trade activist, an environmentalist or a gun rights advocate he still isn't evil. He isn't even evil if his politics happen to correlate with his socioeconomic status. Rich people like low taxes, poor people like social programs but so long as they aren't being underhanded, deceptive or using shady methods to get what they want the fact that they tend to believe things that benefit them still doesn't make them evil.
Whether you like google's policy of data retention and user tracking or not they are upfront about it. They give you the choice to use their services or not and as of yet haven't tried any underhanded lock in schemes or FUD to fend off the competition. So you might believe the world would be better off without Google just like I believe the world would be better off without Mitt Romney but that doesn't make either of them evil.
Why do I care? Well mostly just because I like to argue on slashdot. But also because it seems google is getting more shit for being less evil than other companies and that creates all sorts of bad incentives.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
You are confused, sir, government interference and subsidies are very much NOT operations of a free market, they are quite the opposite (corporatism rather than capitalism). And they only exist if you open the regulatory door, as you are suggesting needs to happen. Well intentioned individuals such as yourself, help vote these things into being citing the evilness of the corporation. When in fact the end result will be the corporation (or a group of them) that gets a hold of the government lever of power that you helped to enable. Simply because they have more interest in it than you do to control that lever and they can easily allocate money to lobbyists to see it done. Remove the interest, lobbyists go away and we can have more ideas and choice. No, it is people like you who destroy the free market through the use of force (government), and not an act of a free market itself.
Even with monopolistic practices and collusion, as long as it isn't enforced by the ultimate authority - government, an aspiring individual with capital and a new idea can muscle his way into a market. With government's watchful eye under the control of certain corporate interests it becomes impossible (or nearly so) for such to happen. In sum, the invisible hand works.
MOD PARENT +5 INSIGHTFUL!
Geez, where did we get this idea that turning a profit is a crime?
Oh, right. Marx.
With monopolistic practices or collusion, corporations can severly undercut an aspiriting individual with capital. The system is not perfect. I mean, in theory, communism is a fucking fantastic government; communism fucking sucks as a government in real life. The same thing applies to free market theory. You say that an aspiriting individual with capital and an idea can muscle his way into a market. But that is not true. With collusion and monopoly practices, the incumbent players could undercut his prices (and, according to the theory, that is all that matters). We have seen this again and again. The invisible hand does not work in a market that is not free, and any market where monopolies, duopolies or collusion exists is not free. Any real market is not free. In theory, the invisible hand works. In reality, it doesn't.
If an incorruptible authority could referee the market and keep it free, then the invisible hand works; that is the theoretical point of "government interference." However, because incumbent corporations with great power want the market to be captive, they have corrupted the authority to maintain their power. Stop blowing Adam Smith, get into the real world and realize that strictly adhering to any theory is an exercise in stupidity.
Oh, and get some balls and don't post AC, and also, take some time to actually read my post (I've said nothing new) before spewing shit.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
Yeap, Thomas Jefferson warned of corporate challenges to government: "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Great quote. Sucks I don't have mod points today. Can you source it for me?
Corporate Accountability Project. Thomas Jefferson: On Central Banking.
I also found these on where TJ denounces corporate power:
FalconThomas Jefferson: Against Corporate Power, Thomas Jefferson's Dream. Ask.com has more.
Should there be a Law?
Steal patents and by definition you are criminal, as for evil, what is or is not evil, but deceitful, dishonest, misleading, privacy invasive, well they are just your typical modern corporation and they are most definitely no longer the exception, honesty, integrity are no longer in their vocabulary along with freedom and democracy.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen