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."
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.
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
The fact that
Is it really that hard to imagine a situation where the regulations go in a different direction?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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 it will, but criticizing them for doing something positive because they MAY be posturing to pull an Anakin Skywalker all over the little children is kind of weird. I mean, they keep posturing for the thrust, but it never comes. Isn't that why Steve Ballmer said Google had no business plan? Not enough thrusting?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I think there are two points here:
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.
My point being that what the CTIA is advocating is that the people whom buy the spectrum get to implement their business plan, and theirs only. Hence, they would also be buying a custom-fit business plan with regulation.
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.
Because it would drastically lower how valuable the spectrum is. If your service can't be "country-wide", then it's not of much value.
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.
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.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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?