Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Pledging to Bid $4.6bn to Open Spectrum

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the monies-and-mouths dept.

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."

14 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, haven't I seen this somewhere before?

    1. Re:Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why we need the extra spectrum -- carrying all those dupes adds up.

  2. I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... by cromar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do appreciate them fucking up the corporate status quo. This debacle is getting very interesting.

    1. Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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."

      Yea, this reminds me of the guy form "Thank You For Smoking"

      That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while. Wow. I guess this really is rocking the boat, and has a couple of carriers pretty scared.

      Kudos to google, way to not be evil!

    2. Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... by daigu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I agree with the initial comment, the reality is that the process for formulating regulations gives businesses a great deal of input and effectively makes most regulations custom-fit for the industries involved. The only real difference here is that Google is challenging the existing custom fit model with another - one that is more congruent with the public interest.

      Sure, it would be better if the regulations were primarily concerned with the public interest, but if we don't have that, this is certainly a better alternative than how it would have played out had Google not gotten involved.

  3. +1 karma by Xeth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I guess this balances out the "Don't be Evil" scale a bit in their favor, eh?

    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.
    1. Re:+1 karma by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Censoring free speech sites in China vs Cheap wireless broadband in the US. Actually, they don't Censor free speech sites in China.

      In fact that statement doesn't even scan.

      There are no free speech sites in China. There is no free speech in China.

      Google can't censor someone's site.

      What Google does is restricts their search results as per the guidelines of the Chinese government. They could have decided that the search results were too important to censor, but had they done that, the only difference would be that Google wouldn't be available at all in China. They're doing much more good by offering some service in China than they would be by offering none. If they had a better negotiating position, then I'd agree with you, but they literally had none.
  4. This just in... by the.nourse.god · · Score: 5, Funny

    With 2 seconds left in the auction, AT&T puts in a $4,600,000,001 bid.

    --
    How may I help you today?
  5. RTFL by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Don't get it by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

    There will probably be multiple winners, and Google wants the government to set the terms for all of the winners, including Google's competitors.

  7. Re:Is it just me, or by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google: I'm going to bid $4.6 billion dollars tomorrow at tomorrows auction.

    ATT: Cool... (Crap! I know we can't beat them with cash reserves so I'll bid high and force them to spend their fortune for it!)

    *The very next day*

    Auctioneer: Here we are with a block of airwaves. Starting bid.... One billion dollars....

    ATT: $10 BILLION DOLLARS!!

    Auctioneer: $10 billion is the current bid. Do I hear $11 billion dollars... Going once...

    Google: *yawns*

    Auctioneer: Going twice...

    ATT: Hey wait a minute!

    Auctioneer: Going three times! Sold to the gentleman from ATT for $10 billion dollars.

    ATT: But! But! But!

    Google: Hey ATT if you don't want those airwaves, give us call us after the opening bell after your quarterly reports and we'll talk.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  8. Re:Single buyer ? by kaiser423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.