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.
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
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?
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.
-- 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.
Ditto
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
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?