Slashdot Mirror
Google Pledging to Bid $4.6bn to Open Spectrum
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."
Er, haven't I seen this somewhere before?
I do appreciate them fucking up the corporate status quo. This debacle is getting very interesting.
Dupe
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
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
is it not a bad idea to tell people how much you willing to bid in an upcoming auction?
With 2 seconds left in the auction, AT&T puts in a $4,600,000,001 bid.
How may I help you today?
It says a *minimum* of $4.6b. This is the reserve price of the spectrum. In fact there's a nice jab at the industry protectionism that brought about the reserve. Google is just saying that they're willing to ante up. Were there to be other bids, there is still ample room left in the letter for Google to bid.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
now it's nice to hear that it could actually happen.
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.
If Google wins the auction, why would they need the Government to makes some rules about who can access it? If Google owns the spectrum, don't -they- get to set the rules?
And worse, the title is almost word for word!!
EDITORS: READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN SITE!
How hard is it to click on your own topic buttons? As I've said before, I'll subscribe when Slashdot can go a month without dupes (you know, so there's some indication that I'm paying you to do something).
It looks from the summary that the is FCC selling all of the 700MHz band to a single bidder. Why don't they sell geographical junks of it? It's very hard for a monopoly to arise on a limited resource because the price of each additional unit goes up as you are trying to bid for the next on. What the FCC is doing here is
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 to arise
\u262D = \u5350
don't aggro the /. fanboys.
/. dupes, and you get modded redundant for mentioning it :|
you gotta admit, though, its kinda funny...
The "bar" is a bit more strategic than it may appear. The FCC explicitly stated that the minimum that they need to pull from this auction is. . .$4.6B. AT&T previously attacked the open-access requirements on the assumption that such requirements would devalue the spectrum. Now, with Google bidding to the FCC's satisfaction on the spectrum WITH the open-access requirements, AT&T's argument against the requirements falls apart.
Yes, to be sure, there are some conditions in their letter that have dependencies: what relative use is the ability to put whatever device(phone, network adapter, etc.) on any vendor's network if there's only one network to choose from because the auction winner was not required to wholesale to other providers? Yes, you still get your Linux PDA on there, but you're still paying $$$ and getting your non-Brittany-Spears-of-the-week-video traffic slowed down to accommodate the vapid teenybopper who paid extra for the "content" from the network provider on top of the connection charge.
/.ers.
(no offense to those non-vapid teens out there. I was non-vapid as a teen also, but i know from experience that the vapid far outnumber us. BTW, it doesn't really get better.)
That said, I'm sure all of the conditions listed have a net benefit to Google. This seems to me to be a recognition that using legislation to enforce "Net Neutrality" is fighting evil with evil (and not to mention, doomed to failure evil.) So, Google identifies a once in a generation opportunity to be the hero by providing the "third pipe" the REA (http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/index.htm) and other groups are looking for, while ensuring that said pipe is tailored to its ad delivering, web crawling needs.
Seems to me like their needs (at least most of the way up the protocol stack) align with mine and most other
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
I mentioned this on my blog on Friday - when Dr. Ron Paul was at Google he said that the spectrum should just be auctioned off to the highest bidder and let the Free Market sort it out. I don't think all the folks in the room at Google thought that was the right answer at the time, but it's good to see the decision makers at Google have taken that kind of advice to heart and applied Corporate Good to the equation.
Just because it goes to the high bidder doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be Verizon or Microsoft who will subvert the public good with the property. To all those who constantly rejoin here that corporations have to be evil - this is a good counter-example; good corporate governors just need to be astute enough to make the proper financial plays that will mutually benefit the corporation and society. Granted, we could use a bit more of that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
My company plans to bid $10B for the same spectrum.
And, like Google, we plan to ask for some concessions from the FCC with regard to its usage. These concessions align pretty close to what Google is asking for, I believe.
First and foremost, it is to be available for all to use without access fees. We also demand the revocation of the United States of America's Bill of Rights, the 1st through 12th amendments to the constitution, and a picture of Bea Arthur naked. And a football helmet full of cottage cheese.
*snort* Ok - that's maybe a little less than Google asking for the revocation of all copyrights, trade marks, and IP that will ever exist.
-- begin excerpt --
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.
Google is putting up money, but its proposal to the FCC is backed by Intel, Yahoo!, eBay, Skype, DirecTV, EchoStar, and Access Spectrum (which constitute The Coalition for 4G in America), but there are many other groups also in favor of open access. See this write-up on Daily Wireless for a good overview, and read Google's own explanation on its Public Policy Blog.
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"
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.
Could it be because it has been said before?
We've seen this before.
Is there any word on whether the FCC is going to go for it?
Technoli
Ditto
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
I love the Sinclair Spectrum, it's great to see Google take such an interest in retro computing.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
WE WANT THE AIRWAVES
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 rock is gonna stay alive
~
Circumcision is child abuse.
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!!!!
---- Satan ----
Can someone please explain to me not only how Google makes money, but makes THAT much money that they can spend 4.6bn on various things like this? (I'm serious, this isn't rhetorical or sarcastic -- either something doesn't add up, or my perception of how much money can be made from tiny little advertisements on web pages is WAYYYY out of whack)
Screw Google and all that "allowing people to have a choice" crap. I want a world where government controls all the frequencies, Kenneth! I am absolutely upset that a company is buying my freedoms out of the hands of politicians. Those bastards! Those a-holes want to buy from the government the ability for me - ME! - the ability to use software, hardware and services - at f-ing wholesale prices!! Can you believe that socialist pig crap! Why... the whole f-ing internet could fart without paying a tax of carbon credits! The huge manatee!
It's only a model.
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 of any other country whose laws would apply in China.
Google has the same choices as any other organisation in any particular country: a) follow its government's laws and unwritten regulations b) ignore the rules and try to avoid getting caught or punished d) ignore the rules and tolerate/enjoy the punishment c) stay out of the country.
Interestingly there was an article today in the largest newspaper of Finland about a recently launched service that uses the 450 mhz ex-NMT network as a wireless broadband (it's been on-line since April). Initial costs for the devices (modem and antenna if needed etc) are a little below 400 euros, and monthly fee is 38 euros at the moment (1-1,5 MB down / 300-600 KB up)... The service should cover the whole country by 2009. The network is being maintained by government owned / private company, which rents capacity to service providers. The company itself can't act as service provider. The connection can be established as far as 50 kilometres from the basestation, which uses Flash-odfm technology. The service competes with Wimax and 3G... There actually is an official objective about being the first country in the world which is totally covered by a wireless broadband..
they sell YOUR personal information to targeted advertisers.
- Don't be hyperbolic. Limiting search results is not a crime in the U.S. (though it might expose you to civil suits)
- This country's laws have no bearing on what the Chinese government does. If they did, then Cisco and Yahoo would be out millions, perhaps even billions of dollars.
- Google's choice was not to display all results or just some. It was to provide search in China or not. There was no option that involved showing the Chinese people the results that you (and I) might have wanted them to see. None. If there were, I'd agree with you (and so would Google).
- Note that Chinese Internet users who find a way around the Great Firewall, still have access to unfiltered Google, just as they always have. The only difference now is that they have easy access to a filtered version of Google.
What does no evil mean to you? It means that in all things, you measure the good against the ill and decide to do the most good. There are deeply gray areas, and dealing with an oppressive regime is certainly one of those areas. I'd say, however, that Google does the best they can in this respect. They refuse to be actively involved in harming Chinese citizens (unlike their competition), but they do agree to limit search results in order to provide any at all. I'm sure the average, Internet-using Chinese citizen would agree that Google is useful to them. It's just not as useful as it could be if they lived in a free society. Fixing that is something that I'm sure Google would love to do, but it's not realistically something they can accomplish.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. 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 section in the top results. Later I googled for something in photogaphy and once again Google returned an About section Photography, in the top spot.
FalconShould there be a Law?
True enough... Google has a choice to contend with. Whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous opportunity, or take arms against the sea of trouble and thereby miss out on maximization of share holder value. Legal != Evil
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 sure the average, Internet-using Chinese citizen would agree that Google had first to choose to ally themselves with that government and then to play by it's rules. We all know that this was profit first; the rationalization comes later. The deeply gray areas of which you speak seem rather darker than lighter, to me. It's only my opinion.
As to the question of fixing the society in which the average Chinese finds themself, there is no question that Google has not the power. However they were not required to assist it either.
"Business seems to know no reason. Get the profit; it's the season! Fa-la-la-la, la la la, la!"
How you come to believe that Google is reasonable or that they are doing "the most good," would make for an interesting discussion.