Slashdot Mirror
Google Set to Bid $4.6 Billion for Airwaves
Nrbelex writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Google has offered to bid at least $4.6 billion on wireless airwaves being auctioned off by the federal government, as long as certain conditions are met. 'The Internet search company wants the Federal Communications Commission to mandate that any winners lease a certain portion of the airwaves to other companies seeking to offer high-speed Internet and other services. Such a provision, Google argues, will give consumers — who traditionally get high-speed Internet access via cable or telephone lines — a third option for service.'" We discussed AT&T's objection to Google's acquisition of these airwaves last week; this article would seem to confirm Ma Bell's worst fears.
Google plans on winning, and also wants the winners to be mandated to lease off part of what they win?
Let me know if I read that wrong, but it sounds like Google is morally good.
I would love to see some open spectrum (other than for licensed HAMS). It would be fun to make some new devices to take advantage of the spectrum! That and the signal can bounce off of far more than the Ghz stuff!
Actually, as I submitted earlier today, AT&T has reversed it's previous stance, and broken ranks with the other major cellular providers, by endorsing FCC chairman Kevin Martin's plan to require open access to 22Mhz of the 60Mhz to be auctioned by the FCC in the 700Mhz band. This statement prompted Verizon to reiterate their opposition to any open access requirements, and Google to state their wish that the entire 60Mhz be auctioned with open access requirements.
Open access rules would require the auction winner to allow any compatible device to connect to their networks on the effected spectrum.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
So are all of you Slashdotters who rallied behind the "do no evil" mantra going to apologize to all of us now? I told you Google was trouble from the very start. This is complete confirmation of that. Not to say I told you so, but I told you so.
Though this may sound sarcastic, I'm asking an honest question.
Why would a closed spectrum discourage innovation? I would think not forcing people to "lease" portions of the spectrum to higher powers would curb the high cost that hinders most of the world's greatest minds.
I know why we'd want it... but I don't undertsand it enough to know why Google would want it if they bought it.
Why would you plunk down a few billion to buy rights to something you have to let everyone use? I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental
"Open access rules would require the auction winner to allow any compatible device to connect to their networks on the effected spectrum."
I think you meant to say that the auction winners would have to lease, at a wholesale price determined by someone, a third of the bandwidth to other service providers that customers would then pay to access the network.
For this to be anything more than just grandstanding for good karma by Google I'd like to see how the wholesale price is set and why it's a lease instead of a purchase. Google pays a one-time fee for the airwaves and then leases them off a third of them which generates a nice revenue stream for them. The people doing the leasing still have a competitive disadvantage since they always have a bandwidth charge to add to their business model, while the purchasers will recoup their original investment over time and not have that leasing charge on their P&Ls.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
I love you how can buy segments of the light spectrum like that.
you think if I offered the FCC $50 they'd sell me the blue?
MABASPLOOM!
A well funded competitor.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So AT&T is reversing course because they fear that Google will buy up the spectrum and become an ISP (it's a logical extension of Google's services)? Obviously, they didn't want to have to allow a Google device onto their networks, but they would want to be able to sell an AT&T device that'd go on Google's network?
At least, that's what I read into their moves, but I might be missing something here.
In a statement Thursday, Jim Cicconi, AT&&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, said Mr. Martin's proposal was an "interesting and creative balance" that would not change the business models of AT&T and others. He said consumers would now have to "put up or shut up."
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
Well, there goes their Q3 earnings, too.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
...should be peeing their pants right now. Whoever wins, this will dramatically alter the landscape of broadband access. FWIW, given the horrible customer service records of all the other players, I hope Google comes out ahead. One note though, why is it so common for government agencies to give massive-scale abilities and income to other large companies through policies such as this, but when it comes to a tech company like Google venturing into that scale everyone gets nervous? Shouldn't people be much, much more nervous about large-scale deal such as those done with ClearChannel, Halliburton, or even that company that runs most of the prisons in the US?
Because companies like AT&T and Haliburton either are presently, or have been in the past run by people who were high up in the government tree at one point (or vice-versa). Dick Cheney left Haliburton in 2000 to become Goerge'e Bushes mate. It's not about companies, it's who runs them and who's connected.. they're all buddies and pals and I bet Google isn't friends with any of them and they're scared.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Whoever wins... we lose.
The basic requests that Google, ebay, etc made were:
1. Users can use any device to access the network
2. Users can run any software they'd like to run
3. The network interconnects with the internet
4. The network operators lease bandwidth to 3rd party companies
The draft proposal that the FCC chief published (and that AT&T just agreed with) protects the first 2 of those rules, but not the last 2.
The impetus for Google to front this money was the Telecoms lobbying the FCC with the argument that requiring openness will reduce the value of the spectrum and thus reduce the Governments take. By fronting this money, Google negates that argument. They'll only bid if these rules are established, and the Gov't will almost certainly make more money with Google bidding than with them sitting out.
Suddenly the FCC is left with very little reason to oppose openness. This, in my opinion, removes the political cover that he'd need. It's a game changer and a genius play by Google.
and I bet Google isn't friends with any of them
Yet. Google will eventually be subverted and have to play by the old-boy rules.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A worse chunk of airwave spectrum went for over 13 Billion dollars in a previous auction. Google offering 4.6 Billion would be like me offering 4500 dollars for a brand new car that is probably worth over 20K.
That said, It would be much better for google to win this than almost anyone else. At least I'm confident they won't waste the technological potential.
assumptions that
1) Maximizing US Federal Government revenue is equivalent to maximizing public good.
2) That airwaves, which by natural law are a shared public resource, can somehow be auctioned/sold.
It is the modern equivalent of the English Enclosure movement.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
$4.5B can win it ... With all the potential this band has, that might just be a piss in the lake compared to what a big telcom might throw at it.
4.5bi for airwaves, so I wonder how much they already spent on dark fibers and what they bought with all that money.
...for internet access through the EVDO network of Sprint. The EVDO network is a bit pricey at $50-60 monthly ($30 if your a close friends with a Sprint employee). If you want something in the flavor of 4G then the upcoming WiMax network of Sprint/Clearwire promises to bring down that $50-$60 cost and allow more types of devices(camera/MP3 players/ etc) to connect to the network.
I thought Google's mantra was "Do no evil."
How is seeking government regulation to strengthen a particular company's ability to do business not evil?
Well, cable is not going to sit around waiting for the ax to fall. DOCSIS 3.0 is ratified, products are going to be introduced next year (this fall in some markets), and will be very competitive with fiber to the home when it comes to speed.
And the phone companies aren't going to be waiting, either. All the RBOCS are planning FTTH, or at least FTTC (fiber to the curb), and Verizon WILL go national with their fiber network at some point (although it could be years before it gets to your house).
Sadly, we'll also see BPL sometime down the road. I say sadly because it will cause major interference in the short wave bands just when the SW broadcasters are starting to play with DRM (digital radio mondaile, not the other kind), and the FCC dropped the code requirement for HAM operators. Of course, BPL is not anywhere near as fast as the other options, but it has the benefit of being potentially available to just about every house in the US.
The wireless guys won't go without a major fight, and I'm sure they'll agree to anything the FCC wants. Just wait until after the auction to see all these new unlocked devices in the store. Does anyone really think Qualcomm will introduce a device that Verizon doesn't want on it's network?
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
As a person with a vested interest in a large Wifi/900/5ghz system that has many pleased users, I welcome Google and their stance. We'd love to lease bandwidth and open devices, as the 700mhz would allow us to penetrate in places unthinkable until now, with power that would make you shiver. I'd imagine Ubiquiti's frequency freedom would scale nice, with the addition of some wattage. I'm not happy to see AT&T taking over yet another town, charging $70 a month for GSM coverage, using technology only they will sanction. I'm all for Google setting base rules to how the radios will share the airtime, and if someone wants to use a different modulation supported in a software radio they've installed, it's kosher with them. In any case, 700mhz should afford at least 2megabit imho, even more in the future, and with the mhz available, possibly 20-30megabit. I don't want to see this in the hands of someone who just wants to sell data plans, it's much better in the hands of someone who wants to show ads, and let other people sell the service. I'm all for the open system, just like local competition in DSL is allowed, so Google is important, but dispensable, as the most desirable element is the reselling of the service. I for one know, my customers will choose us over Google, Cingular, Sprint, Nextel, or Verizon.
Google's intentions here really are good. The theory is this: Decades ago, AT&T wouldn't let anyone plug anything other than AT&T devices into their lines. It wasn't until this restriction was lifted (which required quite a few years of effort) that fax machines, modems, and many other innovations were able to take place and develop without serious barriers. The wireless spectrum is currently in the same position that landlines were before. No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first. Google wants that lifted, and wants the control to be taken away from certain unnamed corporations who have proven they can't be trusted. Opening up the spectrum should enable innovations that aren't even "on the radar" yet. Yes I'm a Google engineer, no this isn't an official response or anything... just another /.er's point of view, but opening up the spectrum is a win for everyone no matter if the final solution is "perfect" or not.
Regards,
Steve
Am I the only one who's worried, and a bit disturbed, that the government is auctioning a natural resource, without being required to have all taxpayers vote on it? I'm sure that many people would like to have a completely free spectrum, which anyone could use for their devices. But it's been like this too long for people to remember that it used to be different, after all. Such a pity ...
How long will it be between travel to other worlds becoming viable/cheap and governments claiming entire worlds and auctioning them off to the highest bidder?
(Disclaimer: I dislike most governments, and believe that communism would be viable, with enough effort)
Everything is subjective.
Unlike cable or phone lines, there is no cost to maintain and expand airwaves. What would this wholesale price be? If its a % of whatever the winning bid is, then it doesnt matter how much you bid, your pretty much garunteed to make it back via leasing alone. If its like 5000 bucks a year for a small slice, that might be a different story. Who determines the wholesale price? Will it change each year? Will it be the same if the winning bid is 10 billion or 100 billion? All important questions that lawmakers need to take into consideration.
"Google's trying to make it so that whoever gets the spectrum has a certain price they can't charge above for leasing the spectrum. As it stands now, whoever gets the spectrum can charge whatever they want, or just block someone completely."
Except no one charges whatever they want. They charge what the market will bear, and in the case of telecommunications, what the government will let them.
"Right now, the entry barrier is so high that it's almost impossible for smaller companies to get any slice of the spectrum. If Google gets its way, the entry barrier will be much lower, but still there."
Most entities band together when they want to achieve something bigger than themselves. The fact they can't cooperate isn't the fault of the market. The only thing Google's move does is eliminate the need for cooperation.
Hell, sure better not at&crap. They have been trying every kind of barely legal trick to monopolize and control entire united states's information for over 1.5 years now.
Read radical news here
exactly like DSL services on MaBell copper pairs
Live Electronic Music
"2) That airwaves, which by natural law are a shared public resource, can somehow be auctioned/sold."
So are property rights. I don't see you complaining about those.
BTW I'd be careful about using the natural law defense.
It doesn't look like anyone else is every going to do it so I wish Google would. Launch a fleet of LEO satellites for global high-speed internet access. Unlike geosynchronous satellites some folks use for this now the latency would be very low for LEOs.
LEO = Low Earth Orbit, ~200mi up versus ~26,000mi up for geosynchronous ones.
Skip 700Mhz and go for true global coverage instead.
Honestly, Ma Bell, Verizon and all their counterparts need to go. If they were smart they should have started dropping telephone service a few years ago and offer only broadband access and cell phone service, and just give the land line business to voip firms like Vonage and such. Now telcos want to try and control how fast certain pages load when fees aren't paid.
Wireless is OK, but I don't think you will ever see it compete with land lines for high end bandwidth capability like IPTV or P2P. What I think the Google offer means is the end of walled garden networks for VOIP and other low to mid bandwidth WiFi applications.
"No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first."
Pfft. Have schools stopped teaching physics?
"Opening up the spectrum should enable innovations that aren't even "on the radar" yet."
Hopefully those will obey the laws of physics.
I talked with a (what seemed like) a pretty clued in Google employee before the quarterly earnings report was published.
I joking if Google was going to to stop throwing darts at list of start ups to pick acquisitions, and he actually mentioned that Google would very soon be scaling down both hiring and acquisitions, and instead focusing on developing new software internally.
Maybe he was just so flustered I discovered their internal corporate policy that automatically spit out their cover story, because this seems to violate their alleged "don't buy stupid shit" policy. Within a couple years, WiMax will be in full force. Within 5 years, we'll probably have found that wifi distances are bound my Moore's law and some sort of ubiquitous city wide wifi solution be available.
At the first scan of the topic I thoguht Google was going to invade the chewing gum business...
Just nitpicking.
Probably. Google's been unique in both its hiring practices, and business model which is heavily based on a perception of not being part of the old-boys club. It won't prevent them from joining such, but it should act as a painful barrier to contemplate walking through.
Everything will be taken away from you.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I think it would be nice if Google buys the spectrum and turns it over to the public. They provide specifications for the use of the airways which they sell licenses to hardware manufactures. And a Gnuetella-like or the "Google-IP" network is born without the need for tele-com or other carriers. All these devices connect together to route traffic between each other. Each user of the network in essence carries its signal to the other users. They could create a free Internet in the true meaning of the words.
Correct, Ma Bell owns 50% of the ways I can realistically get broadband at my house. If Ma Bell owned these airwaves then they'd own 66% of the ways I can get broadband to my house. The same goes for the cable companies.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
So they're basically buying a new market,and hoping to get enough other folks into to it to attract customers? Expensive and risky
Because there is demand for those airwaves, it isn't really risky. And if the buyer is required to offer those airwaves to others at wholesale prices, the price for the rights to those frequencies, won't be so high.
FalconShould there be a Law?
PR Tip, Steve: try to stay away from phrases like, "final solution".
It's actually "don't be evil".
Every law, good or evil, will benefit some company. This does not in itself have any moral implication. Working for some law to be enacted is only evil if that law itself is evil.
We want the airwaves!
and believe that communism would be viable, with enough effort
Funny, if you don't like governments, well most of them, why would you like the biggest government?
I'm sure that many people would like to have a completely free spectrum
Under communism, there would be no free spectrum. The government would own it all.
which anyone could use for their devices.
Nobody would own devices, any devices that existed would be owned by government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Belong to the public and should not be held hostage by congress.
p a=showpage&pid=37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum
explanation of interference.
http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&
No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first.
Surely the obvious solution is for the government to retain ownership?
Then companies who want access can lease from the government rather than a competitor.
Why would you insist on handing over a monopoly to a private corporation in the first place?
Because in America, anything owned by the government is evil, and anything owned by private companies is good.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Notasheep: A couple of points...
(1) Open devices are not the same as open services: Your post seems confused about what Google is proposing in terms of open access:
- In Google's terminology, "open devices" means that a network operator could not block users from attaching devices that are compliant with network standards. Contrast this with current mobile operator practice of selectively supporting some technically compliant handsets while not supporting others.
- In Google's terminology, "open services" means that re-sellers would be able to purchase services from the spectrum licensee(s) on wholesale terms.
(2) Wholesale markets in network services: You seem to be sceptical that wholesale access could work at all. But it already works in some other countries, so why couldn't it work in the US?
- Mobile: In the UK, spectrum licensees voluntarily opened their networks to virtual operators (MVNOs) who now have over 6% customer market share. MVNO's have also been growing in other EU countries, in some cases following regulatory intervention. The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, has published some interesting research on the subject (see p. 76-88).
- Fixed-line & broadband: In the UK, there's a mechanism to provide re-sellers access to the infrastructure of BT (the company which owns all of the country's "last mile" network). The relevant division of BT is called Openreach and the regulatory framework is available at the Ofcom site.
Spectrum regulation inarguably is a States Right under the 10th Amendment, disinginuous and self serving federal court rulings aside.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
than by your example. 802.11e [sic, that's QoS for 802.11 WLANs] runs over shared, unlicensed spectrum. Regulation is limited to very simple technical matters like power output.
You also seem to be confused by the difference between regulation and ownership, two fundamentally different and completely unrelated principles.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Not only that, but the Constitution says that states cannot place trade barriers against other states (For example, there can be no ban in Florida against California Citrus). If the power to regulate airwaves was given to states, then states would have the power to create differing broadcast standards, so radio towers in one state could cause interference in another state. The shutdown of radio towers in a neighboring state would be debilitating to the neighboring economy, and this would almost certainly be an unconstitutional trade barrier.
For those of us who lived under "MA Bell", including it's predatory practices, I fully support Google and it's bidding for spectrum. I can envision open access and Google owned birds that could provide high speed broad band services while supporting all of the newest technologies at a reasonable price.
communicating via RF is no more commerce than is growing wheat for your own consumption, fuck the Supremes, we're no longer a nation of law.
Your red herring with regard to interference among states fails miserably, too. Look at traditional cooperation in Europe and elsewhere, where countries are comparable to US States with regard to physical RF spectrum issues.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The government does retain ownership, unfortunately it's in such a fashion that smaller companies can't get in on it. It's just the FCC wants a certain amount of money from leasing the spectrum, and it's fear was that it wouldn't make enough money by opening it up according to what Google, E-Bay and others wanted. Yes, the FCC is being greedy which is a whole other issue... but regardless Google stepped up and said "We'll guarantee you $4.6 billion if you open it up."
Regards,
Steve
I like the quote at the end of your post. You should append 'Even God' at the end to make it even better :-D
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
Nah, I stole it from someone else (whoops, there goes my ethics) and wouldn't feel right about changing it. Still good stuff though.
and how much on "Google in a box" projects to make portable mini Googles? To put at the end of the dark fiber? and attach to wireless antennae.
The one thing Google needs to make this work is "universal" wireless access. They'd like to simply buy 1 channel (bonus points for 2 next to each other) across the entire USA... then they could let their PHDs lay out a neat, clean spec. Google would be willing to let a bunch of companies compete for devices on this network... as long as they support Google ads... it's a win-win for users, businesses, Google... not so much for the phone/wireless/cable companies right now. It's too bad the FCC can't think in this manner...or worse, they're going to pander to those who "follow the rules" by gross brown-nosing rather than actually open up to some new inventions... and this will hurt the USA for the next 20 years!!!
You mean like how Microsoft eventually conceeded that it had to behave like IBM told it to? Or the eventual victory of the sheet music publishers over these new fangled phonographs? Or how every last square inch of the earth is now a part of the British empire?
No. They don't have to play by anyone else's rules.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
With the way these auctions are rigged, Google might not be /allowed/ to buy enough to make it work, if any at all. Remember, the blocks are being sold regionally to prevent a nationwide band being available. The open access requirements guarantee a foot in the door.
The big players would just lobby to ensure access regulations that only they could meet, along with the standard 'favoured supplier' corruption. Government control would guarantee that only the big players can play without any recourse because the government itself would be involved. For reference, see how military supply contracts are negotiated.
Nope. Anything owned by the government here in America, is by proxy, owned by companies. One has lots of over head for a little bit of fake consumer protection. Neither is truly a "free market" solution because even if the companies involved have very little lee-way, in bureaucracy money talks. Loudly.
Almost any company that is government contracted but still talks about being in a "free market" is spewing bullshit. Any politician that does the same is spewing money laden bullshit. Anyone who can't see through the lies is a gullible idiot.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.