FCC Goes Halfway On Opening 700 MHz Spectrum

The FCC has set rules for the upcoming auction of 700-MHz spectrum and they went halfway on the four open access principles that Google and others had called for. The agency said yes to "open devices" and "open applications," thus requiring the auction winner to permit consumers to use any device or application on the network. But the FCC turned down "open services" and "open networks," so the winners will not be obligated to let others buy access at wholesale prices in order to offer network services. This vote would seem to mean that Google won't bid in the spectrum auction. Ars has a more in-depth look at the outcome.

Comments

Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't google bid so that they can enforce the openness they want, rather than letting someone else win and keep it closed?

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[jamieswith]

This has some merit, but I can think of one reason why the lack of these makes Google nervous of getting into a bidding war...

Because not including these two levels of 'open-ness' means a higher potential value to whoever is the winner... because there's a greater degree of possible profit... you get to pick your competitors and set your prices

It simply wouldnt be in the interests of the huge telecoms giants to bid too high if they then had to turn around and sell access for next to nothing to anyone (including google) who wanted to use it... but if they're getting total control over who provides service and at what cost... then its worth a lot more money.

If they can charge what they want for access, suddenly you can justify bidding a lot higher

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[puck01]

I think the summary is very misleading. IIRC, google did not refuse to bid on the spectrum if the four conditions weren't met. They did promise to bid the reserve of the auction if their four conditions were met. Thus, if all the conditions are not met, google is not obliged to bid the reserve of the auction. That in no way means they won't bid or are out of the auction. I would assume they have every intention bidding.

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[Propaganda13]

Google didn't want to buy the spectrum. They wanted to have access to the spectrum. Bidding was just a way to have some say in the issue. As a sidenote, it would possibly lower the price and might make it feasible for Google to buy. If Google owned the spectrum, they wouldn't have to have any stipulations, they could just allow free access to everyone.

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[maskedau]

The rules and regulations are all set in place to make a buck. A level playing field like what the G9 Consortium in Australia asked Telstra to do makes total sense to me. Denying carriers of this freedom on the EMR spectrum only benefits the interests of Corporations pockets. Take VoIP for example, your experiences good or bad, the standards, protocols and codecs are all quite sufficient alone to produce quality calls and reduce the consumers cost, effectively putting money right back into your pocket. To me that is more patriotic than investing in a Corporation.

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read that FCC has set rules on bidding, and one of the rules is that the bids are anonymous (click here for Ars Technica story). So, telecoms won't know if they are bidding against Google or someone else. My bet is that Google will still bid. It is possible the telecoms could sort of unite and communicate who has the high bid, but that seems a little paranoid. Regardless, I think it will be really interesting to see how this plays out.

Abolish the FCC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put its power in the hands of the people! What could go wrong?

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Anonymous Coward]

The powerful people rule. Look into Mexico, Iraq and Afganistan.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[stinerman]

I wouldn't abolish the FCC, but I would considerably reduce their scope. The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like. I'd let them regulate power, frequency, etc., but remove their ability to censor people. They'd also have no say in anything not owned by the public at large.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

• Legislators are controlled by money; re-election and perks and post-service plums
• The FCC is controlled by money; plums, primarily, and indirectly by legislators
• The FCC sells the airwaves to the highest bidder, thus locking out the people
• People cannot vote on the FCC's actions - it is a corporate service embedded in unelectable government
• Therefore, you will not be abolishing the FCC
• Therefore, your access to the airwaves will be via corporations
• The only "free" services will be those with ads or propaganda
• The only "free" devices will be extremely limited in power and/or application

Democracy [US version, noun]: "Where each dollar gets an equal vote."

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like.

It's a circular definition. The FCC defines what is proper for a broadcaster; then requires that stations be proper. Technically speaking, what keeps a broadcast station on the proper frequency and at the proper fidelity is hardware, and fully functional hardware that can do this is extremely inexpensive these days.

Without the FCC, broadcast stations still have motivation to stay in one place, primarily so that they are easily located, and easily retrieved from memory, both human and hardware. Without the FCC, stations still have motivation to maintain high quality signals, because listeners prefer such signals. Without the FCC, stations would no longer have a monopoly on listeners, and you and I could start our own stations. Without the FCC, putting up a very high quality local radio station capable of covering ten square miles or so would cost well under $100 and have a maintenance cost of a few cents a month. With the FCC, the same low power station costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if you can get them to issue you a license, which you probably cannot. Without the FCC, all manner of clever services and hardware would be possible and most likely would appear. For instance, your radio could read out the weather forecast or stocks or whatever using sub 20-hz encoding. Without the FCC, you could actually broadcast your own opinions and those of your peers (and I strongly suspect this is one of the key reasons you'll never see low power stations easily licensed.)

The FCC is absolutely and totally a tool of the corporations. Other than maintaining their monopoly, it has no reason to prevent the average citizen from having free access to a decent broadcast band, not to mention a great deal of the rest of the spectrum. But corporations are completely against this (and with good reason - I could put a far better "talk" station on the air than anything you've ever heard from a corporation in the last 25 years or so, at which point it would be easy to consume part of "their" demographic. So could a lot of other people.)

I am perfectly willing to say that the FCC, or an agency like it, needs to regulate access to, and interference with, enough of the spectrum so that (a) emergency services are enabled and nor compromised, (b) people are not endangered by RF in the "can cook you" portions of the spectrum, (c) science, such as radio astronomy, is not compromised and (d) people's liberty and privacy are not compromised. None of this in any way provides for corporate dominance of the airwaves.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Ironsides]

Interesting thing to note about the power of the FCC to censor. The basic reasoning for this goes back to before TV to the early days of Radio. The Radio (and TV) frequencies were given to the Radio (and TV) stations for free originally. They were then required to follow a few rules. Content limitations has been one of them for a long time. TV and Radio are pretty much unique in that they are the only commercial uses of the broadcast spectrum that got the frequencies for free and as such have some unique rules for them to follow.

They'd also have no say in anything not owned by the public at large.

I'm kind of curious what you mean by this. By law, the public owns the air waves, but they are leased to the broadcasters. Also, on the power requirements and such, every electronic device has the part 15 of FCC regulations regarding RF noise. So, what exactly do you mean by that?

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Suzuran]

Without the FCC, I can also set up a large broadcasting station that transmits many signals throughout the FM broadcast band, strategically placed over the top of any existing stations, for the purpose of promoting Scientology. All it takes is one person with a few hundred dollars to talk over the top of any station they want for a few block radius. One guy with a few hundred dollars doing this trick in the HF spectrum can ruin use of a frequency for an entire continent. Don't like it if the guy down the street decides to put a hardcore gangsta rap station over the top of your low-power talk station? TOUGH.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cf r97_06.html

        The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
        (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
        (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
        (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
        (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
        (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.

So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first. I believe this is the only FCC radio service under which you are allowed, even encouraged, to build your own.

And yes you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.

The FCC publishes Amateur Radio Service related enforcement actions. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html Go ahead and look around -- you'll find letters for people being poor neighbors, operating in frequencies they're not allowed, deliberately interfering with police radio bands, operating with expired or suspended licenses -- but no citations about people expressing opinions.

THX QSO 73 K :-)

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

I have no problem with this at all. There are no broadcasts of any nature that are worth listening to at present; an entire dial full of stations that changed with location would at least have a chance of coming up with something. Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.

No. Broadcasting is forbidden in the ham bands.

If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.

I hold an extra class ham license and have for many years. It is still illegal for me to broadcast. Or any other ham, for that matter. I am quite familiar with the rules and the technologies. In fact, some years you can find my name and call in the radio amateur handbook; I've done some innovating in ham radio, including some designs that were sold by AEA, way back when.

So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first.

This is true, however, you are still forbidden to use it to broadcast. The reason the bands are valuable is because instead of making them available to the citizens, they are auctioned to those with the most money. What is your objection to a broadcast band, let's say 50 to 100 MHz in size, being made available without power, content or range restriction to the public with broadcasting being expressly allowed?

...you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.

Exactly - you are locked out of broadcasting. That's the problem, all right. If I want to share my views live with a random single local individual, this is a capability that is already available to me without the need of radio, though yes, I can also do it as a ham or as a citizen's band user. If I want to share my views live with thousands or tens of thousands of local people at once, RF broadcast is not an option. I think it should be. Other than greed, I see no reason why it should not be.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[falconwolf]

I wouldn't abolish the FCC, but I would considerably reduce their scope

I would abolish the FCC. The FCC was created in an atmosphere of scarcity of airwaves, now with today's technology there is no scarcity of airwaves. If needed, only after being proven having no regulatory agency causes too many problems, would I approve of an airwaves agency.

Falcon

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[r_jensen11]

The FCC is absolutely and totally a tool of the corporations.

Don't forget about NPO's like Focus on the Family

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[stinerman]

AFAIK the FCC has some limited say in terrestrial cable. For example, no pr0n at certain hours of the day (unless it's an adult channel). To put it another way, TNT can't air Debbie Does Dallas at 3:00pm. If I am mistaken, then you can disregard my previous comment.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Danse]

I have no problem with this at all. There are no broadcasts of any nature that are worth listening to at present; an entire dial full of stations that changed with location would at least have a chance of coming up with something. Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding. I see nothing ridiculous about his example at all. I'm sure that such things would be quite routine if there was nobody to enforce rules against it. Perhaps not scientologists, but there are many fringe groups out there that would love to have a cheap way to broadcast their message at people, whether those people want to hear it or not. Just because you don't like what's on the air right now doesn't mean we should abandon the whole thing.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[johnpaul191]

just because YOU Live in a terrible radio market, it doesn't mean the whole country is screwed. there are a few around me that are ok, and i don't listen to mainstream music. i do agree that it mostly sucks, but there are a few decent stations still operating. you can always get Sirius or an iPod if you need a music fix. that's what most of the country seems to be doing. radio listenership has been on a steady decline in the last 5 years or so.

this is all silly anyway, radio is on a countdown to digital takeover anyway. when that happens (well after TV), there is a chance we will have a lot more radio stations on the air. i personally live in a large radio market, so the only way to "start" a radio station here is to buy out an existing one. that part kind of sucks. it holds down the college/community stations. in the free-for-all situation, those college/community stations would be totally shut out.

i'm not fan of the FCC's policies, but somebody has to keep stations from stepping on each others toes. again, if they handle it right, digital radio could change all of this. unfortunately, as of now it doesn't look so positive.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Xanius]

If the public owns the radio waves and it's leased out, then where the hell is my royalty check for allowing it to be leased out?
What happens when I decide that I don't want "my portion" to be leased anymore, do I get full control over a certain frequency?

The public doesn't own anything.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[ookabooka]

I don't think you understand exactly how much influence a single individual can be in this regard. As stated before equipment and maintenance is dirt cheap. . .What you would have would be complete anarchy, each station trying to broadcast over the other. You think what you hear now is worthless? Imagine 27 stations made by random people broadcasting whatever they want (maybe just static or noise because they don't like the other stations). . on the same frequency. You'd basically get nothing useful out of the broadcast anyways, I doubt you would see a reason to ever turn on your radio.

Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding.

Ridiculous? I think not. If there were no licensing, I'd set up a station to broadcast Slashdot, how many people do you think would find that ridiculous? Everyone has a different idea of what "ridiculousness" and meaningless would be; that Scientology example is most certainly a possibility in a license-less spectrum.

Basically there are a lot of people out there with agendas and messages they would like to get out, I guarantee you that you'd find some interesting things in a city with millions of people where anyone could cover a 100 mile radius with their message. Good luck sifting through what you don't want.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

I see nothing ridiculous about his example at all. I'm sure that such things would be quite routine if there was nobody to enforce rules against it.

With regard to your fear of Scientologists broadcasting on every available frequency, they can't afford to alienate entire communities by greedily consuming limited public resources at everyone else's expense any more than any other organization that depends upon picking up recruits from the rank and file can.

Just because you don't like what's on the air right now doesn't mean we should abandon the whole thing.

Look, it has nothing to do with whether I like what is on the air or not. It has to do with the liberty to speak to and otherwise broadly communicate over radio with one's fellow citizens. If you're not interested in that, fine. Many people are, however, and it is not a matter of what "I want."

My suggestion has been that a band be made available which allows broadcast. There are numerous bands available that do not such as citizens band, ham bands, public service bands, etc. No band - anywhere - allows citizens to broadcast. Broadcasting is limited to those with money, power. Citizens are locked out. All we need to enable citizen broadcasting is one chunk of space. Of any size, though certainly an FM band at least comparable to the commercial FM band (about 20 MHz at or above 110 MHz) would be appropriate for several technical reasons. The FCC or a more reasonable replacement can stay out of it unless someone causes interference outside the band. Nothing would happen to FM-band broadcasters, AM-band broadcasters, etc - citizens would just have a space of our own we could broadcast opinion in, broadcast our own dramatic or musical productions in, talk about our businesses or conduct our business in. For the first time since such equipment was inexpensive.

You will not see such a thing, however, because the people you should be worried about, the government, will never allow it.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[heinousjay]

You could put on a better talk station? I hope what you'd plan isn't as dry as your posts.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

Right. Moneyed interests, then. More to the point, they don't serve the individual citizen in the sense or providing citizens a voice. We get to listen, an entirely passive role. One might take a moment to wonder why this has been uniformly so for so long.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

just because YOU Live in a terrible radio market, it doesn't mean the whole country is screwed.

No. You're entirely missing the point. The issue is that no citizen can set up a station to broadcast to their fellow citizens. The whole country is screwed. By law. More to the point, by the FCC. I don't care if you listen to RAP or country or bluegrass or Coast to Coast. These are corporations broadcasting to you, feeding you what they see fit to feed you. This is manifestly different from Joe down the street who has an idea about building a local park, or Jane, who writes children's stories, or Leroy, who thinks the local government's upcoming law on trapping stray cats is cruel, or the local libertarian, atheist, other person without much of a voice, who would like to have some open discussions without being the victim of a broadcaster who has already made up their mind and will edit them into oblivion. That is why the ability for citizens to broadcast matters. Not because you can get Sirius or XM or you live in a city, but because all of those things are moneyed interests speaking to the people, or sponsoring speaking to the people, or deciding what is entertainment and what is not. You have NO radio-based opportunity to listen to your neighbors, and they have NO radio-based opportunity to speak to you.

Radio is unique in that it can, particularly in the guise of bands like the FM band, address the area around the station in a high fidelity, live and timely manner for citizens who are parked in their recliners, jogging, or just out walking their dog. There is no other communications medium that can do this, and you're not allowed to use it. If you'd think about this for a moment, really think about it, I'd hope it would piss you off at least a little bit.

i'm not fan of the FCC's policies, but somebody has to keep stations from stepping on each others toes.

No. There are numerous bands where toe-stepping would be a problem, and the FCC has neither the manpower nor the inclination to regulate those bands. The only place it is *really* a problem is where propagation allows signals from far away to regularly come in locally, I'm thinking of the citizen's band at 27 MHz in particular. Providing an unregulated band - in the sense that inside the band, one could broadcast to one's neighbors without breaking any rules - that is local by nature, say around 110 MHz for 20 MHz, is a perfectly reasonable proposal that poses danger only if citizens communicating with each other is dangerous. And if that's the case... we have other problems.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

You could put on a better talk station?

Absolutely. Have you listened to talk radio in the last decade or so?

I hope what you'd plan isn't as dry as your posts.

Well, you could always tune away, now couldn't you? What are you afraid of?

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Dun Malg]

AFAIK the FCC has some limited say in terrestrial cable. For example, no pr0n at certain hours of the day (unless it's an adult channel). To put it another way, TNT can't air Debbie Does Dallas at 3:00pm. If I am mistaken, then you can disregard my previous comment. You are mistaken. FCC has no power of cable, as it is, by definition, not broadcast.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[everphilski]

Dude... ham radio. Check it out. They dropped the morse code requirement, so the barrier to entry is very low.

or check out Low Power FM Radio here.... yes, you need to apply but the barrier to entry, again, is very low.

(I enjoy ham radio ... sounds like you might like LPFM better)

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

Dude... ham radio. Check it out. They dropped the morse code requirement, so the barrier to entry is very low. or check out Low Power FM Radio here.... yes, you need to apply but the barrier to entry, again, is very low.

Dude. Read the thread. (a) I'm an extra-class ham. (b) hams can't broadcast. (c) LPFM is not available to individuals or commercial operations.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Benaiah]

Nice post.
I think that in today's society money speaks louder then the people.
A president needs hundreds of millions of dollars. This doesn't come out of their own pocket.
It comes from corporations who want their own back once the candidate is elected.

The whole system is fucked. But hey "the right to bare arms". Go start a revolt.
Im sure there is a better leader the W. out there.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[everphilski]

Radio is unique in that it can, particularly in the guise of bands like the FM band, address the area around the station in a high fidelity, live and timely manner for citizens who are parked in their recliners, jogging, or just out walking their dog.

... sounds like LPFM would work. You talk about addressing them, etc. You could do that under the guise of education. Unless you are just looking to be a DJ. Your post didn't imply that to me.

I'm an extra-class ham.

You didn't mention that in the parent post. or great-grandparent post ... I didn't get to the bottom of the discussion by the time I commented. (I'm a general) Sure, you can't broadcast, but (1) you have a group of somewhat-like minds and (2) if you are operating 2m/70cm/etc. on repeaters you effectively have a 'broadcast range', you can strike up a conversation and get your message out... your posts made it sound like you didn't want to disc jokey, more of a community service type operation.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[stinerman]

It isn't broadcast but that didn't change the FCC from trying to mandate devices honor the broadcast flag. My DVR certainly isn't a broadcast medium, but they tried to regulate it anyway. Luckily the courts decided the FCC didn't have the authority. Now, the key is to keep an eye on congress and be sure they don't give them such authority.

You can understand my confusion as to how much the FCC can regulate private signals.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Danse]

With regard to your fear of Scientologists broadcasting on every available frequency, they can't afford to alienate entire communities by greedily consuming limited public resources at everyone else's expense any more than any other organization that depends upon picking up recruits from the rank and file can. I already said that Scientologists are just an example. What planet are you from? On this planet, people will broadcast on all available frequencies because they think it's cool that they can overpower others, or because they think very highly of themselves and feel that everyone should listen to them, or just because they can.

If you don't have any rules about who can broadcast on which frequencies and when, then it will turn into an arms race to see who can drown out everyone else. So what's the point really? There's always some jackass that will ruin what would otherwise be a good thing, which is why we generally have to have laws to prohibit people from being jackasses when it comes to public matters. There has to be some control, at least at the municipal level.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

... sounds like LPFM would work.

No. LPFM is not open to individuals or commercial interests. (In fact, much of the time, it isn't open to anyone; it is a severely limited service.) What I am saying is not that a citizen should have to pretend they are an educational operation and sneak in commercial or individual uses, they should be allowed open access to a useful portion of the airwaves for whatever purpose they see fit.

...your posts made it sound like you didn't want to disc jokey, more of a community service type operation.

I specifically said:

...citizens would just have a space of our own we could broadcast opinion in, broadcast our own dramatic or musical productions in, talk about our businesses or conduct our business in. For the first time since such equipment was inexpensive.

In other words, no more monopoly for commercial and moneyed interests. Let the citizens at the airwaves, and leave them alone as long as they don't create out of band interference. That's my agenda, insofar as I have one with regard to the FCC. The best, least disruptive way I see to do that is to open a band like the FM band, in a similar area of the spectrum, of similar size, and let the citizens at it. I think this is not only a good idea, I think it is inherently compatible with the principles of liberty that underlie the founding rationales that built this country.

You know as well as I do that the FCC exists for the express purpose of serving moneyed interests which also means they control the content of what is broadcast. I'm not just talking about censorship, though of course they do that too, I'm talking about the fact that you, for instance, can't host a call-in show on any subject at all; you can't advertise your lawn service on the air; you can't play your own music on the air; you can't act out a play of your own on the air; you can't use the airwaves because they are not available to you. I would very much like to see that change. There is no mechanism available in the current context of how the FCC manages the spectrum that allows for these concepts. Ham radio and LPFM certainly do not, both having specific provisions forbidding all manner of uses. I obey the restrictions; but I certainly consider it my right to object to them, and to raise what I consider to be ideas that offer improvements.

Half way?

[XxtraLarGe]

So, would that be 350? :-D

Re:Half way?

[Lussarn]

Yeah, but still 100 times faster than a regular 3.5MHz ZX spectrum.

Re:Half way?

[wljones]

Half way in this case refers to yet another instance of a bureau of the US Government (FCC this time) implementing a vast project with half-vast methods.

Google May Bid Yet

[LionKimbro]

This vote would seem to mean that Google won't bid in the spectrum auction.

Only if you aren't paying attention--

Read the top of this page in this interview:

Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?

Sacca: To be clear, what we said was not exactly that. What we said was that there had been some concerns that somehow imposing these openness principles on the spectrum might diminish its value at auction. And we wanted to reassure the FCC that embracing a path of full openness in the interest of users and the interest of consumers would not reduce the total revenue of the auction. And we wanted to put our money where our mouth is, and we are putting our money where our principles are. So we committed to spending a minimum of $4.6 billion in the auction, if they adopted all four principles.

So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all four principles?

Sacca: We are deeply committed to changing this industry for the benefit of end users.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It would be a good PR for Google to bid 4.6B for it, knowing fully well it will be out bidded by AT&T and Verizon.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[realmolo]

The whole problem is, Google really has no chance of winning.

They don't have the political connections or the ENORMOUS resources that AT&T/Cingular has. Never mind that AT&T/Cingular REALLY REALLY wants this spectrum. I mean, it's their wet dream to own that spectrum. It's the future of the company. They essentially will pay whatever they have to for it. But it would be amusing to see Google keep upping the bid on them.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the tags "politics, wireless" as "politic, useless"

A/C

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[shaitand]

'Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?'

Translated marketing babble. We have no committed to any course of action or lack of course of action and never will.

'So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all four principles?'

Translated marketing babble. We all have glowing halos atop our heads and are wonderful and good. We have not committed to any course of action or lack thereof and never will. (Actually this is what almost every PR drone statement translates to.)

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[kebes]

Exactly. Google is upping the bid, because they know that they will be out-bid by the entrenched telcos that can't afford to lose that spectrum. If they call Google's bluff, Google will happily buy the spectrum for a few billion and make a killing. But, since the entrenched telcos will certainly continue out-bidding until they win, it's in Google's best interests to at least put some pressure on them to make the eventual spectrum a bit more open--that way Google can capitalize on that spectrum in some way. (A nice by-product is that this is way better for consumers.)

I'm not so naive as to think that Google is doing this for purely philanthropic reasons... however it's really nice to see a powerful company putting pressure on entrenched monopolies, with an end result that the people get high-quality, more fair access to a public resource.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[mabhatter654]

What will happen is AT&T and Version will only bid high on the major areas with population and let the rest go by the way. Look at the cell phone industry to see how that played out. Later, they buy up anybody gutsy enough to compete while forcing THEIR rules on the whole industry if you want to talk to their customers.

Also, Google does not have the monopoly status to write checks they don't have money for. Google's founders are wise-beyond-their-years financially, and are running the company in a manner to keep it free of debt and owing to the bankers. The telcos know they won't win all the channels, but they'll bet big on the important ones, cut illegal deals once the dust settles, and let the little ones go for cheap. Google needs to pay careful attention to the little markets that will be cheap and buy them anyway. Google's "mistake" is that they expect government and banks to play fair...They wanted to make a fair offer knowing what the actual outcomes will probably be in terms of cash. They miss that the whole point of auctions like this is for the big players to always win.. if they want to. this situation really calls for Gates or Jobs that are good at whipping up the business players and making the "stab in the back" deals behind closed doors... The Google founders are too much of "nice guys" for this type of deal.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[FleaPlus]

They don't have the political connections or the ENORMOUS resources that AT&T/Cingular has.

I could be wrong, but I think Google might actually be able to outbid AT&T and the other telcos. I'm not certain, but I think the relevant financial statistic for an auction is "Cash and Short Term Investments," which is what they could make readily available to use for bidding. Here's the "Cash and Short Term Investments" figures for Google, AT&T, and Verizon:

Google: $11,935,920

AT&T: $2,364,000

Verizon: $3,450,000

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[gad_zuki!]

>But it would be amusing to see Google keep upping the bid on them.

Yes, and as a cell phone customer it will be extra amusing paying for this bidding war via raised rates.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about these kinds of auctions, but can Google team up with two or three other companies and outbid AT&T and share the service and revenue? It would be better for the consumer, if they really considered that as a second alternative for counteracting monopolies.

Considering the recent News Corp deal, i read something like 32% of Dow Jones was sold to them ( i could be wrong). Can that be done here in the vice scenario?

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[FleaPlus]

Also, on Google's Public Policy blog they flat-out say they haven't decided yet if they'll bid or not:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/07/sig ns-of-real-progress-at-fcc.html

Just two months ago, the notion that the FCC would take such a big step forward to give consumers meaningful choice through this auction seemed unlikely at best. Today -- thanks in no small part to broad public support for greater competition -- the FCC has embraced important principles of openness, and endorsed the unfettered workings of the free market for software applications and communications devices. Moreover, over the last few weeks several leading wireless carriers have reversed course and for the first time acknowledged our call for more open platforms in wireless networks. By any measure, that's real progress.

By the same token, it would have a more complete victory for consumers had the FCC adopted all four of the license conditions that we advocated, in order to pave the way for the real "third pipe" broadband competition that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has been touting. For our part, we will need time to carefully study the actual text of the FCC's rules, due out in a few weeks, before we can make any definitive decisions about our possible participation in the auction.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[FleaPlus]

Here's the "Cash and Short Term Investments" figures for Google, AT&T, and Verizon:

Google: $11,935,920

AT&T: $2,364,000

Verizon: $3,450,000 Oh, whoops, in case it wasn't readily apparent in my original post, all of those figures are in thousands of $US. In other words, that's around $11.9 billion for google, $2.3 billion for AT&T ,and $3.4 billion for Verizon.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

alternatively, can they make a deal for an even smaller part of the open spectrum, like 1/9 of that to be allocated to open services & networks? of course, a monopoly wants no competition, but an offer of the slightest, most tiny, embarassingly small fraction of a spectrum would seem to bother companies seeking profits from owning the whole 700mhz spectrum if a lot can be done with such a small, but worthy utility from creative tech builders.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[darkmeridian]

On the other hand, Google has a market cap of 158.89 billion dollars. Sure, it's a lot lower than AT&T's market cap of 238.88 billion dollars, but Google spent a billion dollars on YOUTUBE! On YOUTUBE!

This is going to be on hell of a bidding war, I'll tell you that!

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[EMeta]

If you've perhaps noticed the rate of new cell phone store fronts going up, I think you might understand that there is no lack of profit in the cell phone industry.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[saleenS281]

Really? Google doesn't have the ENORMOUS resources of AT&T/Cingular? Because last I checked goog's income and market cap dwarfs ATT by a LONG shot.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[gregorio]

I'm not certain, but I think the relevant financial statistic for an auction is "Cash and Short Term Investments," which is what they could make readily available to use for bidding.

It's not just about that. I have enough "cash and short term investments" right here in my pocket to spend a couple hundred dollars buying a single expensive toolholder for a CNC machining center. But I don't have a hundred thousand dollar CNC machining center, no factory installations, no sales office and no consumer base.

It's never just about having money to buy stuff. You also need to make extra investments and assets to buy this kind of infrastructure. And they cost a lot of money.

Spending half of Google's money on airwaves would also mean opening thousands of new jobs, creating new departments and searching for customers. And the investors are not happy with the current situation of Google. "I will not innovate if I can just use the investor's money to buy commoditized stuff and partially-inovating trendy companies like YouTube" will really hurt Google in the long run. Yeah, ok, the new market of internet advertising might grow to dozens of billions of dollars a year. That's why Google is worth so much, because of a new market. Investing on telecom commodities is not why they have so much money, to create this kind of old-business infrastructure.

What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"? I'd be pretty pissed off if the company holding my money (shares) started abusing it.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Ewan]

You must be looking at the wrong Google then, or the wrong AT&T

Maybe this will help:

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=google
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AT

The part you want is 'Mkt Cap' where you'll find google is at $158 Billion and AT&T is at $241 Billion, and AT&Ts net income is over twice Google's.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I get what you are saying and historically you are right. I wouldn't count Google out just yet. They have played the game very well so far and it will be interesting to see how they handle their next move. Just because they haven't been playing on this court doesn't mean they don't have skills.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[vidarh]

Not really - you can always debt finance this, and both Google and AT&T would obviously have no problem finding banks or funds willing to help finance something like this with a lot more cash than they have in the bank, either as a plain loan or an investment or a mix - obviously the higher the price gets, the more likely it will be any bank that gets involved will insist on a standard loan agreement rather than risk they'd manage to make it back on an investment.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[FleaPlus]

> It's never just about having money to buy stuff. You also need to make extra investments and assets to buy this kind of infrastructure. And they cost a lot of money.

Good point. Even though Google might technically be able to win the bid, they don't have the same sort of traditional telecom assets as the other companies.

One off-the-cuff idea though: What if they're planning on doing something very non-traditional? For example, I could envision them trying to do something similar to FON, selling 700mhz Wifi routers to people with some kind of profit-sharing scheme.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[falconwolf]

Yes, and as a cell phone customer it will be extra amusing paying for this bidding war via raised rates.

Yea right. NOT! Cellular service is dropping in price not going up. For many using only a cellphone is cheaper than a landline phone. I'm one of them. I pay about $10 a month less for my phone service than I paid for my landline service when I had it. Thanks to competition for this, competition lowers prices.

Falcon

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[TooMuchToDo]

Parent was pointing out the wrong numbers. Should've pointed out cash on hand. Google has about 11 billion. ATT has about 2-3 billion.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[TubeSteak]

Google is upping the bid, because they know that they will be out-bid by the entrenched telcos that can't afford to lose that spectrum. ... But, since the entrenched telcos will certainly continue out-bidding until they win As I recall, at the end of the 2006 fiscal year, Google had $11.2 Billion dollars cash on hand.

Further, they can easily push out a stock offering or issue bonds to raise more cash.
If Google wants spectrum, they'll be able to afford it.

It might even make long term business sense to buy a chunk, use some of it for their own purposes and lease the rest to one of the Telcos.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[DragonWriter]

They don't have the political connections or the ENORMOUS resources that AT&T/Cingular has.

It is broken up, as I understand, both by portions of the spectrum and geographic regions. Assuming there aren't limits on how much of the spectrum in any one region any one interest can buy (I don't know that much about the particular auction), the arguably, if the FCC isn't going to impose freedom and Google really values it, its best move may be to find one region that lots of other carriers would like access to and put as much as it can afford into buying up spectrum in that market, and then provide access to other carriers on condition of them adopting Google's openness principles on the rest of their holdings in the 700MHz range.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[dgatwood]

Yeah, right. If prices are dropping, I'm the Easter Bunny. The AT&T plan I gave up to switch to my iPhone would cost $60 for the most nearly equivalent plan, and I was paying $40 for it from "the old AT&T". On Verizon, the base price of cell service has crept up to $30 per month in the U.S., or, IIRC, $10 more than the base price eight years ago when I first got a cell phone. For that extra $10, you get about the same number of daytime minutes, but nights start up to three hours later in some parts of the country. And so on.

New companies like MetroPCS enter the market and provide a really nice set of rate plans, but those companies don't have the coverage area of the major players. Thus, the big four (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint) really aren't lowering prices to compete. As long as we don't add a major player like Google to level the playing field, this will probably continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Achromatic1978]

Cash on hand is one thing. Access to funding another. Google would have to set up infrastructure, a cost likely to dwarf the bid for the spectrum alone. AT&T has most, if not all, of that infrastructure in place. If I were a lending institution, I'd see a far bigger / better return on investment lending AT&T the money to outbid Google.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[karmatic]

If you are looking to use an iPhone with an existing AT&T account, let me know. It's not that hard, really. Visual Voicemail doesn't work, but oh well.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Deliveranc3]

More open spectrum is good for Microsoft too.

VOIP is in their hands far more than Googles with a minimum investment...

If the next microsoft OS came out with a built in phone app and a $5 a month charge (for connecting to POTS services) I'd certainly be tempted, it would be a real value add and something that Microsoft is in a much better position to offer than OSX or Linux.

We're 5 years beyond the point where such service was a possibility, I wonder how long it will be until the deals Microsoft inked with the Teleco's to maintain their distinct monopolies will expire.

Remember Microsoft has a monopoly on computing far in excess of Google's monopoly on search, and when you have a monopoly you can deal for an ENTIRE industry.

Microsoft is going to sell the VOIP market to the highest bidder, it's just a matter of when and how large their active involvement will be.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Deliveranc3]

"Defend the KING!"

"I really think democracy..."

"But our taxes will go UP!"

Weird democracy guy: "Sigh"

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Klinky]

Do they really have that infrastructure in place? New spectrum = new radios, new plans, new training, new... a lot of stuff. What they do have is some off the shelf billing software, poorly trained customer service reps & experience in screwing people over. Google would have to make major investments in building towers & hiring techs, reps... Yeah it would be a big undertaking, but if anyone could handle it Google probably could. AT&T & other companies have proven, even if they have decades in the business that doesn't mean they're any good at it(in a customer sense).

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

What will happen is AT&T and Version will only bid high on the major areas with population and let the rest go by the way.

Yes, because that's where you need the most spectrum, silly!

AT&T/Verizon already have plenty of spectrum in Wyoming. Where they need more spectrum is in populated areas.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Dun Malg]

What will happen is AT&T and Version will only bid high on the major areas with population and let the rest go by the way. The frequency segments being offered are not available in separate pieces geographically. When you buy (say) 710mhz, you get it nation-wide. Mod parent down. Post is misleading, not insightful.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[Dun Malg]

The AT&T plan I gave up to switch to my iPhone would cost $60 for the most nearly equivalent plan, and I was paying $40 for it from "the old AT&T". AT&T charges $20 a month for unlimited Edge network internet connectivity. You can get a plan for $10, but it's limited to 5MB/mo. I seriously doubt you had a $40/mo plan with internet connectivity, especially since their lowest plan anywhere is 450min for $39.99 (no data). I have the bottom of the line voice with unlimited data plan, and it costs me.... $60 a month. I think perhaps they're not actually raising their prices, but you're simply bad at reading and/or math.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[mr_mischief]

Google's already teamed up with Sprint to offer Google services over Sprint and Nextel networks.

What if Google buys the spectrum (or part of it) and leases it to Sprint on Google's terms, or otherwise uses this partnership to have Google supply the spectrum and Sprint supply the towers?

If Google can put forth the cash for the spectrum, and Sprint can build on top of its network everything needed, you're talking about a powerhouse of wireless Internet and services across it.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[gregorio]

Good point. Even though Google might technically be able to win the bid, they don't have the same sort of traditional telecom assets as the other companies.

Yes, exactly. And not only assets such as towers and such, but also support and sales departments.

One off-the-cuff idea though: What if they're planning on doing something very non-traditional? For example, I could envision them trying to do something similar to FON, selling 700mhz Wifi routers to people with some kind of profit-sharing scheme.

Considering that the 2.4GHz band is already free and open, it would be pretty weird to buy another band for billions when all the project is trying to achieve is in the realms of complicated logistics. Buying this kind of spectrum license is necessary only when you want to operate your own, centralized (as in control), network.

The thing is: even with all those PhDs, Google still can't manage to find their "next thing". A workforce with high academic skills is great when you have important taks to be done, but not to determine those taks. And employees (without a good system to allow new products - look at MS and its billionaire employees) are not very good at innovation, as good ideas would render them into owners of their own speculative bubble, instead of mere employees.

That's why they're building giant datacenters and buying commodities. They need to invest their money on solid stuff, to avoid bursting like the average bubble. I think they're just trying to become more big and important, just like Microsoft did when they bought dial-up companies for MSN and a TV channel for MSNBC. When you have your fingers all around important stuff, it's hard to be dismissed like your average bursted dot-bubble.

When the whole "rip-you-off for adwords" scheme goes down, they will still be there, selling mobile access and renting datacenter space.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[gregorio]

What if Google buys the spectrum (or part of it) and leases it to Sprint on Google's terms, or otherwise uses this partnership to have Google supply the spectrum and Sprint supply the towers?

Then Google would be in the banking market (loans), not in the market of internet and communications innovations. Any kind of imposed profit larger than the market's average interest, and Sprint would be better off buying the band themselves.

If Google can put forth the cash for the spectrum, and Sprint can build on top of its network everything needed, you're talking about a powerhouse of wireless Internet and services across it.

If using that portion of the spectrum can be considered to Sprint as a good business plan, they'll just buy it themselves. This kind of license is not like a building or machinery: you're expected to make money from it while it lasts, because when it's over you're not holding valuable assets, just an old piece of paper that is no longe valid. That means that Google would probably need to lease their band for a higher amount than what it costed, wich would be a rip-off for Sprint.

Knowing Google, they would probably lease it for less than the original price, because they just need to keep making hot air instead of delivering actual profits.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[FleaPlus]

Considering that the 2.4GHz band is already free and open, it would be pretty weird to buy another band for billions when all the project is trying to achieve is in the realms of complicated logistics.

I would assume that they would want the 700mhz spectrum because of the increased range and permeability. With 2.4GHz, it's pretty much impossible not to have gaps in the network. With 700mhz though, it's possible (with either a centralized or decentralized network) to have the sort of ubiquity which Google seems to crave.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[mr_mischief]

Exactly. If Google buys (leases, really) the spectrum, and Sprint does the build-out (for which they already have towers and network capacity, and would just need some upgrades and new transceivers on the towers) then Google is left holding nothing. Nothing up on the towers to take back down, nothing corroding and getting blown down, nothing to depreciate, and nothing to sell as scrap if the spectrum goes away.

In the meantime, Google services Sprint's customers with Google content and Google ads, and charges out the ass for ads on all of that. Sprint offers the best bandwidth for non-line-of-sight there is in the realm of internet access, and gets to piggyback on Google's bandwidth lease at dirt cheap rates.

That's all assuming Google wouldn't win the bid again when the spectrum comes up for its next auction.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[mabhatter654]

no, that's wrong.. Google is specifically asking for the FCC to bundle all the localities so they can buy one channel for Google. Otherwise Google has to pay for each geographic area separately which is how the cell phone era played out. All Google got from the FCC was some vague agreement that they might require devices to be interchangable.. useless for Google's purpose if they can't put them all on 1 channel. Google wants to bit on the "national" channel and the telcos want to play games because they can collude to outbid on the key channels to stop Google having enough channels in any important market to reach critical mass without making hardware too expensive. The rest (small towns) get auctioned for "fire sale" prices because there will be no network to connect your wireless to unless you play nice with the telcos. The telcos will automatically work together... heck there's rumor of AT&T and Verison talking merger AFTER the auction is done.

Google

[MontyApollo]

If Google were to win the bid, then they could do those other things if they wanted. Google not bidding means they never really intended to win, they were just using this as publicity to try an force the stipulations they wanted without having to be the high bidder.

Google sure has been trying to throw their weight around a lot lately.

Re:Google

[rootofevil]

given who they have been trying to push, and for what they have been trying to push for, i applaud their efforts.

its about damn time someone at least pretended to stick up for the little guy.

Re:Google

[ajs]

Google not bidding means they never really intended to win, they were just using this as publicity to try an force the stipulations they wanted without having to be the high bidder.

Google sure has been trying to throw their weight around a lot lately. Why don't you wait and see what happens before making judgments about a company based on what you think they'll probably do....

Re:Google

[MontyApollo]

I wasn't really making any judgments, don't get defensive about your favorite company.

As others have pointed out, there is nothing wrong with Google doing this if it will benefit the consumer (which is what they claim they are trying to do).

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC wanted atleast $4.6b in the auction, google's bid promise was a way of telling the FCC "Hey, add in a couple limitations, and we'll make sure the lowest bid is $4.6b, no matter how much the entrenched guys scheme and deal behind the scenes".

Re:Google

[That's Unpossible!]

Google has already addressed your misconceptions in their detailed explanation of "incumbent blocking premiums":

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/07/res toring-competitive-balance-to.html

Re:Google

[ajs]

don't get defensive about your favorite company. Google's not my favorite company... though if pressed, I might finger them as my favorite for-profit, public corporation. Red Hat would come in a close second; IBM third. These companies have pushed the envelope of open source software development more than any other public corporations. This funnels the massive resources of the stock market directly into improving the software that we Slashdotters feel is so important. What's more, all three have gone to great lengths to preserve open source software development on the political and legal frontiers.

I don't trust Google per se, but I'd say I have more trust in them and their motivations, purely based on their prior actions, than I do in any other public corporation out there.

Re:Google

[MontyApollo]

I don't see how "try and force the stipulations they wanted without having to be the high bidder" is a misconception of the link you provided.

The link does detail how difficult the bid would be for them to win, but it does not mean they could not win the bid; it would just cost them a lot more money than what it would cost AT&T and probably would not make good business sense.

Again, they were trying to get stipulations attached without having to be the high bidder.

No

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It means you can only use single-sideband modulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-sideband_modul ation

Halfway is no good

[realmolo]

See, "open devices" and "open applications" probably means that you are free to use any device or application that has been approved by whoever wins the auction in question. I fully expect AT&T (or whoever wins, but they look like they will) to announce some kind of ridiculously elaborate and expensive "open licensing program" where if you want to make a device or applications that works with their network, you'll have to pay them gobs of money. They'll say it's for "adminstrative fees" or "Homeland Security Wireless Management and Auditing Charges" or some such crap.

Personally, while I like what Google is trying to do, I think they should stay in the bidding anyway. I'd much rather have Google own the spectrum than literally ANY other telco corporation. Google isn't nearly as evil as those guys are.

Re:Halfway is no good

[1310nm]

This is a good way for Google to take an offensive stance in the net neutrality game, since AT&T and other carriers contend that Google should pay for priority or bandwidth use. Let's see what happens when consumers gain choice and freedom.

Re:Halfway is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. It's pretty stupid that people can't SEE how it's a monopoly... :(

Seriously, ANYONE that makes such large profit margins shouldn't exist. I'm all for profit, it's a good thing, but the amount of money that Telco companies make is insane.

Sadly, I know that Google won't win the bid unless they are really willing to pay a ton more than 4bil.

Re: Halfway is no good

[bcharr2]

I agree, yet at the same time wonder if today's "Now With Less Evil Than The Other Providers" Google isn't tomorrow's "Greed is Good" AT&T. Our nation has seen a lot of great first generation companies morph into 3rd generation "We Pride Ourselves On Keeping Our Customers In A Headlock" companies.

Re:Halfway is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

What can you do? At the very minimum donate some of AT&T's money to Google.

Make it a habit to start your day with a google search for some Wireless, Cell, or AT&T related topic and then visit one or more AT&T spomnsored links on the top of the page :)

Re:Halfway is no good

[Anonymous Coward]

Also whoever wins could in theory DO exactly what google wanted anyway... But would AT&T do this or would google?

Re:Halfway is no good

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I don't think so. I think "open devices" means that you can use anyone's cell phone, Treo, PocketPC, or whatever on that spectrum if it's designed to use that spectrum, not just the ones the winner approves. It's the difference between all hard-line telephones coming from AT&T's rental division, and people buying or renting hard-line telephones from anyone willing to sell or rent them. (My latest hard-line telephone is literally a grocery-store brand.) "Open applications" should be the equivalent of allowing aftermarket devices (be they "hush hoods" or answering machines) on approved phones, even if the devices themselves aren't approved.
Of course, any device not from the winning carrier is going to have to be as spectacular as people think the iPhone is; unlike hardline phones, there's usually no real savings from owning instead of renting cellphones, since the price of renting tends to be near zero in America. So not much to do with open devices.
But "open applications" ought to mean that the carrier must allow the phone to be unlocked long enough to load those applications, and that Bluetooth cannot simply be automatically and permanently locked down. An iPhone made to work on that spectrum might have to have a real mini-OSX, not a walled-garden variant of it.

Re:Halfway is no good

[mabhatter654]

They mentioned that on Twit as well. If Google got what they wanted, universal, nation-wide wireless bands, then they'd make the Cellular monopolies obsolete in a matter of a few years. That's one BIG stick to beat AT&T with after the "threats" they made about Google "paying" it's way in the future. Also, that would go nicely with the "google on a truck" and dark fiber projects they already have!! Google almost has enough pieces for a true 3rd independant national internet! That alone would be worth the FCC taking a look, but they're too shallow to see beyond quarterly profits.

Re:Halfway is no good

[realmolo]

"I don't think so. I think "open devices" means that you can use anyone's cell phone, Treo, PocketPC, or whatever on that spectrum if it's designed to use that spectrum, not just the ones the winner approves."

I think you are being foolishly optimistic.

"Open devices" MAY mean that any device designed for the spectrum in question must work, but it doesn't mean it has to work WELL. I fully expect that, at the very least, "unapproved" devices and software will be crippled like crazy.

The whole problem is the word "open" doesn't really mean anything. The FCC and AT&T can call any scheme they come up with "open", but still lock it down so that it's not really open at all.

Re:Halfway is no good

[TooMuchToDo]

Actually, Google is quite close to having it's own private darknet across the country. They fear the last mile being taken away by Comcast, AT&T, et. al. This is where 700mhz comes in.

Re: Halfway is no good

[Kelbear]

I wonder too.

But still, regardless of whatever motives and intentions they may have behind closed doors, their actions will speak for them.

And I would much rather face a company that is just "acting" good, vs. a company that doesn't even pretend it's not trying to @#%& me over as hard as possible.

Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[shaitand]

Obviously the FCC is no longer concerned with the purpose it was created for (encouraging competition in communication related industry) so why do we still have an FCC?

Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[Applekid]

To impose moral values on the public at large through the banning 7 dirty words and other nanny-says-no naughtiness.

Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to piss you off.

Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[Wesley Felter]

I thought the purpose of the FCC was to prevent interference.

Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

so why do we still have an FCC?


To protect the entrenched business interests, silly. Just like the rest of the government.

Does this even make sense?

[shaitand]

"The agency said yes to "open devices" and "open applications," thus requiring the auction winner to permit consumers to use any device or application on the network. But the FCC turned down "open services" and "open networks,"

Can you have one without the other? If the winner is required to allow free use of the spectrum for devices and applications doesn't that include devices used to provide services? I mean sure, they wouldn't have to let you use their infrastructure or buy access at wholesale prices, but they couldn't stop you from building your own infrastructure.

Re:Does this even make sense?

[megaditto]

No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave. They can require that any "open" device you have connects only to their closed routers using their closed protocols, say at a low-low price of $0.99/min

To summarize, if you were really looking forward to getting cheap all-you-can-eat wireless broadband you should have bought your own Senator instead of relying on ATT's.

Re:Does this even make sense?

[shaitand]

'No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave.'

If you aren't connecting to their network, and you don't need their permission to make a device that uses the frequency then how can mandate anything? The ruling says they don't have to let you connect to their network but that you can make devices that operate in this spectrum. Devices would include towers, servers, and routers. You could build your own wireless infrastructure on the frequency or a company like Google could.

Re:Does this even make sense?

[megaditto]

That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.

You might get away with it in your garage in the middle of nowhere, but you would certainly not be able to run anything large-scale or commercial, without ATT's permit. Since the network will be closed, they do not have to sell it to you unless they feel like it, and at whatever conditions and pricing they feel like.

Even if you are doing it out of your garage, getting caught without a license will mean fines and/or jail (also consider the possible terrorism charges now that the 'first-responder' links are moving to the band).

Re:Does this even make sense?

[shaitand]

'That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.'

Thats not how it normally works. There normally isn't an FCC ruling that opens the spectrum for certain uses. ATT or any other purchaser is REQUIRED to allow these uses, it isn't optional.

Are spectra sold or leased?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are spectra are sold? Does the US government sell "ownership" of bands of a spectrum, or just lease the rights to them?

And how about other countries?

(Yes, I could look it up, but... here's your chance to educate the thread. :)

--
http://www.metagovernment.org/ - Power to the people. Completely.

Re:Are spectra sold or leased?

[Anonymous Coward]

All governments buy bands from neighboring governments. They then sell out individual frequencies to clearinghouse companies. Those companies then distribute those frequencies on a variety of service plans, including selling, leasing, renting, reverse rights transfers, long-leases, and open usage licenses. These always last for 10 years, at which point the buyer has to renew, pending approval by a U.N. organization called the UNSAAC (United Nations Spectrum Analytics and Assignment Commission), which assesses their past performance and determines their contribution to the public good, and thus their right to continue using the public airwaves.

Re:Are spectra sold or leased?

[falconwolf]

How are spectra are sold? Does the US government sell "ownership" of bands of a spectrum, or just lease the rights to them?

The FCC sales exclusive licenses to use different frequencies in different areas. Those licenses come up for renewal occassionally, though I don't recall how long they last for.

Falcon

Stock Prices

[ttapper04]

What does all this mean for Googles stock prices? Anyone have an insight?

Re:Stock Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

BUY BUY BUY!

Re:Stock Prices

[Duhavid]

We actually have a new product wherein you both buy and sell short all of the
associated stocks, ensuring a fabulous return no matter what!

"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothing

[baseinfinity]

Just look at how well CableCard has done. Cable industry has shown that if an entrenched oligopoly wants to kill open devices all it has to do is drag it's feet and make it as difficult as possible for consumers. There's no way this will encourage investment in open devices by anyone hobbyists.

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[baseinfinity]

s/"anyone hobbyists"/"anyone except hobbyists"

Google 700mhz Fund?

[Cytlid]

Is there a link where I can help out? What if I have some "Google 700mhz" fund money? Reading the comments on this page, and as a network engineer having to deal with BellSouth (now the new AT&T) *all the freakin' time* I would like nothing more than to see Google win this auction.

  Like them, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[snowraver1]

I would donate money for the greater good as well. I would rather pay $100 now then $40/mo for the rest of my natural life...

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[jandrese]

Unless you're a multi-millionaire with money to burn, there's no way your contribution is going to be but a drop in the ocean compared to what AT&T and Verizon will bid. Even if you were, you would really have to be a billionaire to even get anybodys attention here.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[sykopomp]

Yes, actually... spend the next 3-4 months clicking every single AdBrite ad that you see... Make Google.com your homepage switch to gmail and try to touch whatever advertising links they put in there. They'll probably make much more money if you do this than if you send them $10.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're a multi-millionaire with money to burn, there's no way your contribution is going to be but a drop in the ocean compared to what AT&T and Verizon will bid. Even if you were, you would really have to be a billionaire to even get anybodys attention here.

That's a good point, with 300 million people in the country including children, every last infant would have to put up about $15 just to catch up to the $4.6b google's got on the table.

Still... if someone trustworthy were to establish a giant escrow account and start collecting around $500 towards a (non-transferable, most likely) lifetime subscription to the network if the collective wins the auction, and your money back if they don't... I'd certainly throw in my hat.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[Mdentari]

Same here. I would pay some money to Google so they could compete for the bandwidth. I'm just tired of feeling like we the people are on the losing end way to much these days.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[megaditto]

Assuming the starting bid for this will be around $5 billion, whatever donation cash you collect will be peanuts.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[stigmato]

For the greater good!

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[Achromatic1978]

And the promise that they will put that money towards the greater good is, where, exactly?

Or will it go into expanding the ad service, infiltrating it further into our lives. I don't know, but that seems a logical end-result of "Hey, ad revenue is up ten per cent this quarter!", not "Hey, that extra $500M we made on ads, let's blow it on that FCC auction".

Forgive me, but I have little to no interest in funneling money to a for-profit corporation that, all mottos, blinders and fanboys aside, has profit and its success, not mine, as its goal.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[sykopomp]

Well gee, sorry to upset you. Maybe you want to pay $100 out of your own pocket, which won't really help that much in billion-dollar auctions. But yes, do as you will.

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[farker haiku]

Forgive me, but I have little to no interest in funneling money to a for-profit corporation that, all mottos, blinders and fanboys aside, has profit and its success, not mine, as its goal.

So.... you want AT&T to win then? Wait. What? What drugs are you on?

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[Achromatic1978]

Who said I wanted AT&T to win? Why do I have to want either of them to win - it's not a binary situation.

Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[sampson7]

In the United States, the electric industry also has open access requirements that are comparable to those at issue here. Except, instead of "spectrum" the open access condition applies to power lines.

The US essentially has two types systems for moving electricity around: the Transmission System and the Distribution System. Transmission System lines are typically high voltage and used for wholesale sales of electricity. They are predominately federally regulated. Distribution System lines are typically lower voltage and used for distribution of power to retail end-use customers.

However the open access requirements are quite different. Transmission Systems are open to any user (with lots of strings, but in theory anyway). So someone who wants to sell power at wholesale essentially has the same right of access to the transmission lines as the utility that owns the lines does. In other words, the utility's transmission functions are no longer vertically integrated (at least in theory) with their power generation functions. This concept is known as "comparability." Sadly, the FCC rejected this type of open access.

For distribution systems, the utilities are still far more vertically integrated and largely control who has access to their power lines. While they still have to provide some level of access to competing users, there's no comparability concept and no sense that the utility is in the business of "renting" its system to all users and that its affiliated branches are just another user. Instead, we are going to continue to see integrated networks where the owner of the spectrum is able to stiffle innovation. Requiring that the purchaser of the spectrum re-sell it to competing companies would have guaranteed far more interesting uses of this spectrum.

Of course, allowing for phone transferability and the other items are good; but is a public safety system really the biggest concession that the FCC could extract? Yes, it is important. But nobody was going to object to giving fire fighters the communications equipment they needed.

Sad.

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

What innovations are the electric utilities stifling?

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[TooMuchToDo]

Do you know where I can get more information on this topic? (Access to transmission lines, names of government authorities who control this, etc.)

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[sampson7]

Excellent question. Actually, quite a few. In no particular order:

First, they are keeping electricity prices high by keeping competing sources of generation from interconnecting with the grid and supplying energy to the competitive energy markets. Interconnection of a generating facility can be prohibitively expensive when a utility exercises its monopoly power to discriminate against a generator. If you're truly interested in this issue, you can start with Order No. 2003, issued in 2003 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/stnd-gen.asp.

Second, the affects of discrimination are particularly felt by smaller generators using innovative means to generate power. Solar, wind, tidal, biomass and other renewable facilities (that tend to be smaller and already on the margin of cost efficiency) are all greatly harmed by a utility's exercise of monopoly power. By keeping out competition, the utility makes it more difficult for all of us to get access to renewable generation. Again, FERC wrote orders specifically directed to help wind and small units interconnect for just this reason relying on open access principles: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/wind.asp.

Third, every large user of electricity feels the pain brought about by lack of competition in the transmission sector. For some large industrial users of power, electricity constitutes a significant portion of their total materials costs. The aluminum industry, for example, is notorious for its need for electricty. Many chemical processors have similarly astronomical electricity bills. Prior to open access, these customers had only one source for both transmission service and generation service -- their local utility. That's why today, many large industrial users find it easier to pay for a tap to a wholesale transmission line than to just hook up with the local utility. On the transmission side, you can choose your supplier and pay the same standardized transmission rates that the utility itself pays. That's open access. At the local level you are often subject to whatever pound of flesh the local utility can extract.

Fourth, are things like smart metering, demand response, and smart transmission lines. A utility that doesn't have to compete in the open market has zero incentive to innovate and provide things like smart meters to their customers. Once competition set in (again in theory, anyway), there has been substantial innovation in each of these areas.

So actually, there's quite a bit going on. Price is always key in commercial-scale generation and all energy decisions are made on tiny margins (unless you're Enron) -- rather like telcom. When a monopoly uses its power to subtley prevent open access, costs go up and innovation goes down.

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[sampson7]

A good place to start is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or your State Public Utilities Commission. See my response to the guy above for some additional thoughts. Federal energy law is rather complicated and can be completely stultifying to the uninitiated (or even those of who are initiated). Fundamentally, the principles are the same with telecom or cable. There is one "spectrum" in existence. There is only one set of electricity lines built in any one place. There is one physical telephone line strung to your house.

Okay, here are a couple of specific resources:

For generator interconnection my favorite orders discussing this are: Order No. 2006 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act /gi/small-gen.asp) and Order No. 2003 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act /gi/stnd-gen.asp).

For latest trends in transmission line open access: Order No. 890 (http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2007/0215 07/E-1.pdf)

For the Courts' take on the open access: Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and the Supreme Court case affirming the decision in New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).

I have to warn you, all of these documents quickly get into the minutiae of energy regulation and are exceedingly complicated and detailed. There are probably some much more general resources out there, but I just don't both reading them too often ;) If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[TooMuchToDo]

Thank you for the information. I understand a majority of it is going to be tedious to go through. I'm currently doing research into best interconnection points for large-scale renewable energy installations in the US (Please note that I'm doing this simply as an academic exercise. I'm not getting paid to do this, nor am I providing the information to any sort of commercial venture. I wouldn't want you to think you're doing my homework for me). If you're ever in Chicago, I owe you a beer. When I'm done with my research, I'd be glad to provide results if you're interested.

Re:Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry

[sampson7]

I'm happy to help. I was one of the author of the interconnection rules at FERC, and follow the issue fairly carefully now that I'm out in the "real world". If your focus is on large scale renewables, you need to read the proposal from California on interconnecting Locationally Constrained Resources (read: solar and wind in the middle of god-foresaken-nowhere) -- the final FERC order is here -- http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/wind.asp, but you could learn a lot from the pleadings filed by the CAISO and Califonia CPUC in the docket.

Anyway -- If you'd like to get in touch, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. My email is asilverman at perkins coie dot com (all one word, obviously). I can talk about this stuff for hours. Depending on what specific aspects you're looking at, I might also be able to suggest other folks for you to talk to. And I certainly work for booze :)

Good luck!

FCC steals our First Amendment.

[bobs666]

What ever happened to the public airwaves.
This is what is call it the bands where we watched TV.

So rather then give a small part of the spectrum to
the public for open commerce. The FCC sell out
airwaves to the biggest monopoly.

With out an open network we will never have more then a
few providers of the last mile(access to the Internet).
the result will be take over, not competition.

There goes your chances to compete with the international
community.
see Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift

Re:FCC steals our First Amendment.

[Vegeta99]

39MHz, 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.4GHz unlicensed bands not enough for you?

Ah, right. Too congested. Well, that's what happens when you, you know, take away the licenses for monopolistic use!

Re:FCC steals our First Amendment.

[jimrob4]

Heck, for that matter you can broadcast *anywhere* provided you don't exceed FCC Part 15 regulations. Granted, your range is probably about fifty feet.

Re:FCC steals our First Amendment.

[bobs666]

39MHz, 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.4GHz unlicensed bands not enough for you?

Ah, right. Too congested. Well, that's what happens when you, you know, take away the licenses for monopolistic use!

How is it congested? Its power limited. To inside or a few 100 feet outside. You can only build a LAN with that. We need a last mile network. One that can link us with our community and 100's of competing ISP's

I don't know a lot about Radio Engineering. But the Apple Computer Inc.'s Petition to the FCC (1994) Claimed that units could be built with bandwidth for a metropolitan-area and with a 10 to 15 Km ranges. And at that time the frequencies existed, I think much of that has been stolen from the people and sold to the Telco's since then. I believe Apple has the Engineers to know this could be done.

Yes like today's ether-net the units have to play by the rules. You can't just flood noise and expect an network to run, be it on a wire or on the radio.

Your saying we have to pay how much for the network police? And why should we have a private police force? When most people will play fare since they got the box for the purpose of networking.

They mean open client devices, of course

[Wesley Felter]

I'm sure you won't be allowed to put up your own tower in this spectrum.

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Hobbyists are better than no one.
CableCard will succeed only when cable companies stop scrambling premium channels. As long as there are concrete benefits to using the cable company's boxes (premium channels and subsidized DVRs come to mind), people will use its boxes. And people making third-party boxes need to advertise!

No Way.

[twitter]

An auction that's only half rigged is still rigged. I can't believe the FCC was so in love with the incumbents they would down 4.6 billion dollars in bids.

Re:No Way.

[Achromatic1978]

Uhhh, here's a clue: the FCC only gets the money of the winning bidder, not of all bidders. The winning bid would have almost definitely been more than $4.6B.

But don't worry, twitter, you spin it to make it sound like the FCC turned down $4.6B just to be in bed with the telcos.

It doesn't have any basis in reality, but it's hardly like that has stopped you before, has it?

FCC, F U!

[Crizp]

FCC, F U! All radio stations should play this every half hour:

Anthem:
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/12/fcc_fu_the_a nth.html

Official site:
http://fccfu.com/

Be happy

[megaditto]

Don't worry, the almighty Darwin will sort it all out.

The 'slow' nations will lose, the weaker will win and rebuild the weaker ones in their image. All for the best, really. (Though it'll be a bitch to learn to speak Chinese)

Re:Be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'slow' nations will lose, the weaker will win and rebuild the weaker ones in their image. All for the best, really. (Though it'll be a bitch to learn to speak Chinese)

Excellent. I've been meaning to get more ethylene glycol in my diet.

Working well

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

So I'm being optimistic. I'm saying there's precedent, and that the FCC must've meant something when they made their half-declaration. And I'm saying there is precedent for truly open devices and applications, and even profits from such things.
No, they might not work well at first. The first hardline phones not made by AT&T didn't work well in comparison to the phones AT&T was making at the time. Hey, many of the current ones don't. Sound quality was worse, durability was worse, ergonomics was worse... But people still bought them--some because you could own them for $10 outright, cheaper than renting an AT&T phone for any length of time; some because they had novelty appeal (I own a Beatlephone); some because they had features AT&T phones didn't have, such as cordlessness.
I imagine that novelty cellphones and phones with special features will sneak onto the new bandwidth in small but meaningful numbers despite the provider's warnings against them.
And even if applications are crippled, they should not be banned if "open applications" means anything.
Back to hard lines: answering machines aren't as versatile as voice mail (which existed even before phone deregulation), and they don't have as much space for messages; but answering machines were ultimately cheaper, and you don't have to call anyone to get your messages.
"Open applications" should mean that a provider can't prohibit someone loading something with even as little sophistication as a primitive answering machine on their phone just because the provider has something as fancy--and minute-consuming--as voice mail as a (non-free) option.
Generalize as you see fit.

Contact your local FCC representitive and complain

[rastoboy29]

Oh, wait...

Google and investors

[falconwolf]

And the investors are not happy with the current situation of Google. "I will not innovate if I can just use the investor's money to buy commoditized stuff and partially-inovating trendy companies like YouTube"

I am an investor and I applaud Google in it's initiatives. If I had the money myself, er if I had as much money as Bill Gates or that Mexican, I'd tell the FCC I'd bid $10 billion if the FCC were to require winners to provide access to others at wholesale prices. Maybe even $50B, of course it'd depend one whether I had the money readily available and not just on paper. It may not be that much to start with but selling access is another possible revenue stream. It could also open up more revenue streams.

What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"?

Bill Gates did, er his Bill And Mellisa Gates Foundation has. The foundation invested in Italy's oil giant Eni. The thing is is that Eni is responsible for some of the health problems the foundation is supposed to be fighting against.

Report: Gates Foundation Causing Harm With the Same Money It Uses To Do Good.

Falcon

Re:Google and investors

[gregorio]

It may not be that much to start with but selling access is another possible revenue stream. It could also open up more revenue streams.

I'm sorry, but "could be" is not enough to justify spending billions of dollars on a license. If you were running a company you would probably go bankrupt if you kept dealing with investments using that kind of logic. I think that, in fact, Google was trying to buy the band just to make the company a little bit more solid, just like when banks build giant office buildings to increase their risk ratings. The whole "make it open, please, please" B/S was just an attempt to close the deal at the minimum price.

What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"?

Bill Gates did, er his Bill And Mellisa Gates Foundation has.

Bill Gates or his foundation aren't public companies dedicated to internet searching. Your comment completely misses the point.

Half way?

[pinkstuff]

Drum roll please... Did the open up the 350MHz spectrum?

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[Wesley Felter]

CableCard will succeed only when cable companies stop scrambling premium channels.

Uh, the whole point of CableCard is to descramble premium channels. If the cable companies used clear QAM for everything, then you wouldn't need CableCard.

So...

[akkarin]

350 MHz, then?

In spite of the Federal Communist Commission...

[xednieht]

I suspect Google has sufficient resources to bid and win, at which point they could always implement the other two principles rejected by the Communist Commission. Today's corporations suck major ass. Why is it that some corporations can't seem to compete without being granted some sort of monopoly?

Re:In spite of the Federal Communist Commission...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you please tell me what is communist about large corperations controlling the airwaves? I think you've got somthing confused.

Re:In spite of the Federal Communist Commission...

[xednieht]

In China large corporations control the airwaves too.

Hmm me confused? Go ahead and create a communication device to exercise your freedom of speech. Without government permission you'd be locked up faster than an old Soviet era dissident. Large corporations only control the airwaves to the extent that they have paid their bribes (fees) to the government.

Corporate ownership is merely the lipstick on the communist pig.

Re:In spite of the Federal Communist Commission...

[w9ofa]

Would you please tell me what is communist about large corperations controlling the airwaves? I think you've got somthing confused.

There are many ways of looking at this. I think that you might have your thinking confused.

Simply replace "Verizon Wireless" with "The People's Cell Phone Service" and the communist bit becomes obvious.

Re:In spite of the Federal Communist Commission...

[xednieht]

ZOMG you hit the nail right on the head!!!

In my suburb I have a choice of exactly 1 communication provider Verizon - the one size fits all telco. If there is competition, capitalism, consumer choice in telecom it must have skipped over my neck of the woods.

"People's Cell Phone Service" is damn right.

ATT phones

[falconwolf]

The first hardline phones not made by AT&T didn't work well in comparison to the phones AT&T was making at the time.

Hell those ATT phones were nearly indistructable. That plastic could of been used to shield or armor tanks.

Falcon

Jumping to conclusions?

[DragonWriter]

This vote would seem to mean that Google won't bid in the spectrum auction.

Why would it seem to mean that? They announced that if their principles were adopted, they would bid up to a specific amount on a specific share of that spectrum. They did not say, that I recall, that if there demands were not (or incompletely) addressed, they would definitely bid nothing.

Re:Jumping to conclusions?

[feelbad_feelsgood]

Indeed, the most astute commentators I have seen* point out that if Google's conditions had been satisfied, then both
          1) The 4.6bn might actually have won the auction; and
          2) Google would have had no incentive to bid any higher, since they would have wholesale access regardless of who won.

          Now, with the conditions rejected, the cost will be higher, but the stakes are higher as well. Much as I would have loved to see Google win, I am afraid thinking it through that they will, indeed, not bid.
          The reason here is that while opening the spectrum would start a chain of events that would lead to EVERYONE making more money, that does not mean the AUCTION WINNER would make more money under those circumstances. And Google, for all of their strategic brilliance and visionary insight, is beholden to shareholders, and NO corporation could ever:
          1) Buy the spectrum at the price it is worth to the monopolizers; and then
          2) Forgo monopoly benefits.
Thus, according to "don't be evil," Google can't bid enough to win. Not because they don't have the money, but because even their best plan can't produce as much revenue for Google from the open spectrum as Whichever Telco Bastard Wins can make from monopolizing that spectrum.

Bad guys win. Not a good day.

*Cringely wrote a crazy column on this, he might have been smoking dope, because for the first time ever, the comments section on his blog makes more sense than the column itself.

Not open enough. Google REALLY needs to bid now.

[dalesun]

Google now has even more reason to bid. Any wireless network requires some of the limited resource of radio spectrum. The FCC regulates the use this resource for the benefit of the public. There is little or no public benefit from allowing exclusive and restrictive use of this resource; but great benefits from open access. It's clear that the FCC should support the MOST open access possible. The decision not to support more of the open access provisions is inappropriate and could even suggest undue influence. It will stifle choice, competition, innovation and growth. Congress should consider intervening by passing legislation requiring open access (including open wholesale access) in new allocations of the public airwaves. This auction is a very important allocation of prime radio spectrum that belongs to everyone; allowing exclusive and restrictive use of it might increase the perceived value of the licences, but is a disservice to the public. Hopefully Google will bid and win a good chunk of it and make it available in an open wholesale manner (perhaps even to AT&T and Verizon).

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[Anonymous Coward]

> CableCard is to descramble premium channels

You're right that is the point behind CableCARD, but in the real world you are wrong and naive. I do contract work for Time Warner and Charter. They are using CableCARDs as a plan to sell not only additional services related to CableCARDs but also cable boxes to decrypt the content they intentionally encrypt in a method that CableCARDs do not understand. So instead of CableCARDs making cable cheaper and more available, they're doing the opposite. As it stands now, CableCARDs are a bad thing.

As an example, I pay $6.99 per month to be allowed to use a CableCARD with my TiVo. It will decrypt three of my ten(?) HBO channels. For the other HBO channels I have three $12.99 per month cable boxes. It's annoying to only be able to record a few of my channels. That means I'm paying $45.96 per month or $551.52 per year to be allowed to watch the HBO channels I'm already paying for. Because of CableCARD, my local company is terrified that their profitable box rental business will dissapear so they're screwing us hard now. CableCARD has seriously screwed-over cable customers.

CableCARD is also being used by many cities as a good reason to allow cable companies to greatly increase rates. One of the local government-granted monopoly cable company recently raised rates by over 30% in several small towns near me. Because of the threat of CableCARDs, they were allowed to do this.

> clear QAM

Ha! You are really naive. Out of the 50 or so areas where I've worked, not a one used clear QAM. My daughter lives near LA that had it for a while, but their cable company has since encrypted all signals and now requires a very expensive cable box to view even basic service. Of course those expensive boxes have composite video out so they're not HD. Soon they're going to offer an upgrade for $30/month to give you full standard-def TV.

Again, CableCARDs are a terrible thing. You can't threaten people that have a government-granted monopoly. When you do, they screw you over hard.

Ham, amateur radio

[falconwolf]

I believe this is the only FCC radio service under which you are allowed, even encouraged, to build your own.

It used to be to get your amateur license you had to be able to build your own radio, but the FCC got rid of that requirement. You also had to know morse code but that was another requirement they got rid of. The morse code requirement is what kept me from getting my license a long tyme ago. Now that it's been gotten rid of I've been thinking about getting my license now, though I still want to build my own transceiver.

Falcon

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[DragonWriter]

CableCard will succeed only when cable companies stop scrambling premium channels.

That's a very long-winded way of saying "never".

american democracy is a joke

[Adult film producer]

for the people by the people and all that bullshit. government is for sale to the highest bidder, presidency being run by a gangster & thug, lawless attorney general thinks hes the mexican al capone, congressmen all of them are being bribed by foreign powers, american people think their votes mean anything on secretive electronic voting machines.

I laugh at this shithole.

no wi-fi for american phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

what is up with that? something stinks in america, and it smells like our government. Why do ppl from europe have wifi on their devices and the us does not?

Re:no wi-fi for american phones?

[volkris]

#1, American phones do have wifi. My phone has it right now. T-Mobile offers it.

#2, and more to the point, Americans aren't demanding it. Why should the carriers offer wifi phones, which will cut into their revenues, if customers don't really care?

Re:no wi-fi for american phones?

[l3v1]

Whay would they demand it, they probably don't even know they could have it. Thing is, I've heard many stories about cell phones bought in the US having this and those capabilities locked/unavailable, sometimes even without the possibility to get it - legally, I mean - unlocked. I've never met that kind of behavior in Europe, and I wouldn't tolerate it. Also, I just checked yesterday, most cell phone subscriptions in the US have fees that are more than the double of what I pay here overseas. Add to that the strange - to many of us - philosophy of having to also pay for received messages and for received calls, and the whole concept seems like a nightmare, really.
 

Re:no wi-fi for american phones?

[volkris]

It goes back to what I was saying before: customer satisfaction.

Billing that's a nightmare to you is acceptable to us. Features that you demand are unimportant or unknown to us. Are we wrong? Well no, we're just coming from a different place, and we expect different things from our phones.

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[Achromatic1978]

Naive is the person who is forking out probably well over $100 a month to get HBO. Is it really that good?

And my local cable provider had (last time I checked, a few months ago) clear QAM on everything but adult channels.

A computer consortium

[IlliniECE]

Personally, i'd like to see all the big-players in the tech-sector band together and out-bid the establishment, since they're so interested in seeing their handheld platforms becoming pervasive. Right now, shitty cellular service is one of the deal-breakers for handheld computing.

Dumber than a Sack of Rocks

[PPH]

The FCC, that is. If only one end of the tube (to use a discredited analogy) is unblocked, the tube is still blocked.

Either they are a bunch of morons, or they think we (and congress) are by publishing a decision like this.

lower prices with competition

[falconwolf]

Yeah, right. If prices are dropping, I'm the Easter Bunny. The AT&T plan I gave up to switch to my iPhone would cost $60 for the most nearly equivalent plan, and I was paying $40 for it from "the old AT&T". On Verizon, the base price of cell service has crept up to $30 per month in the U.S., or, IIRC, $10 more than the base price eight years ago when I first got a cell phone. For that extra $10, you get about the same number of daytime minutes, but nights start up to three hours later in some parts of the country. And so on.

When I had landline phone service my phone bill was $30 a month, not counting long distance. My phone bill with my cellphone is $20 a month and includes long distance, and I spend about as much tyme talking long distance as I do local. So really I save more than the $10 I said earlier. As for iPhone and ATT, it's your own fault your bill is higher. ATT is the only service allowed to service iPhones. Since ATT has a lockin for iPhone services they can charge higher prices.

Falcon

Re:lower prices with competition

[dgatwood]

I'm not complaining about the price of service. I'm just correcting the statement that Cingular is getting cheaper. Don't even try to steer this into an anti-iPhone rant.

Re:lower prices with competition

[falconwolf]

I'm not complaining about the price of service. I'm just correcting the statement that Cingular is getting cheaper. Don't even try to steer this into an anti-iPhone rant.

Do you know how much Cingular charged 10 years ago? How about 5 years ago? I bet prices are lower today than back then. Five years ago you'd be hard pressed to find cellular service costing $50 with 100 minutes of airtime a month, now you can find service offering 1000 minutes a month for that if not less. It's been more than a year since I compared service plans but the last tyme I did I was able to find plans offering unlimited minutes for about $100 if I recall right. So yes, cell service has gone down in prices.

Falcon

Re:lower prices with competition

[loucura!]

Five years ago I spent 59.99 a month for a phone with six hundred minutes a month, free nights and weekends, and free long distance.

Re:lower prices with competition

[ivan256]

My Sprint plan from 1998 is $35/month for 450 daytime/unlimited nights & weekend, 6pm start for nights, first incoming minute free. I have since added unlimited PDA data ($15/month), and unlimited SMS ($5/month). There is nothing comparable on the market today. The prices from every carrier are significantly higher than that for similar services, and on many carriers the early night start time, and first incoming minute free aren't available at all. Not only have prices gone up, but the service you get has degraded.

For similar service the current prices are as follows:

• AT&T - 450/5000 $39.99/month + $8.99 for early nights & weekends + $44.99 for unlimited data and SMS = $91.97/month
• Verizon - 450/unlimited including PDA data & SMS $99.99/month. Early nights & weekends unavailable. = $99.99/month
• Sprint - 450/unlimited $39.99/month + $5 for early nights & weekends + $15 for unlimited PDA data + $10 for unlimited SMS = $69.99/month

Conclusion: You have to pay at least 25% more now for less services than what you could get 9 years ago.

Re:lower prices with competition

[falconwolf]

Conclusion: You have to pay at least 25% more now for less services than what you could get 9 years ago.

I don't what's up with some people paying more for cellular service now than 5 or 10 years ago. I pay less.

Falcon

Re:lower prices with competition

[ivan256]

Perhaps you had an overpriced plan back then.

Or perhaps you have an unadvertised special deal now?

Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

My HBO channels, in themselves, are only $15 a month, and I get eight of them. (Admittedly, I don't have much use for the "Latin" one, but that still leaves seven with programming I can appreciate.) And I use satellite.
People getting HBO on cable can get something called "HBO on Demand"... HBO on flexible scheduling.

Leverage without the FCC

[metoc]

Google can outbid the Telcos on key regions, and then leverage it to get what they want. The telcos all share anyway so if one gets what they want, chances are they have to play nice because another telco will have something they need.

Google doesn't have anything the telcos want today. It is Google who needs the telco's networks to get to the end user. If Google manages to get a single choice region like LA or New York or alternately everything else, it can deal with the telco's and side step the FCC.

Collecting the royalties

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Your royalty check is stacked right next to the Social Security fund stockpile, and used for similar purposes.
Opting out of FCC spectrum leasing would be about as welcome as opting out of the Social Security tax.
[sigh]

Re:Halfway is no good (Wireless Internet)

[d3xt3r]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Google will almost certainly bid on the 700 mhz spectrum because they see it as their cheapest and easiest way to gain access to the "last-mile". I almost certainly think the cost, even at 20 billion would be worthwhile.

Google won't quite start a parallel internet, but it will be close. They'll offer access mandating the use of IPv6 with IP proxies to the wired internet. They'll offer VOIP, true internet TV and the potential for an IP address for everything and anything you want to put on the net.

This isn't about being a cellular provider, it's about ushering in the internet without wires revolution. And it actually makes the billion they spent on YouTube start to make sense.

That doesn't add up, unfortunately

[Gorimek]

The problem is that the spectrum is more valuable - to its owner - as a closed monopoly.

A very rough guess is that it's worth $50B that way and $30B in it's open form. Google would then have to spend $51B to get something worth $30B, thus losing $21B in order to better society.

I think Google's argument is that as an open spectrum, its value to society at large is way more than those $20B, but I don't think it wants to shoulder that entire bill itself, even if it would mean some added income as the internet become more accessible and ubiquitous.

Re:That doesn't add up, unfortunately

[Jon_S]

But the for-example-purposes $21B wouldn't just be for "to better society". Google is scared of a potential lack of net neutrality down the line. With potential roadblocks or charges thrown in thier way by carriers not bound by net neutrality their business model could be greatly impacted. By looking to make available a third broadband option (i.e. wireless in addition to DSL/Cable) that was required to be open under the terms of its purchase, then the potential risk posed by lack of net neutrality would be somewhat balanced. So it would be $21B spent in minimizing a long term business risk.

Incumbent blocking premium and dilution discount

[RCourtney]

Google did a nice job of explaining how the whole spectrum auction works, what advantages and disadvantages incumbents and new entrants face, and how the incumbents will pay a "blocking premium" to keep others from winning the auction which removes a lot of bidders from the get-go causing a "dilution discount" which makes the spectrum cheaper in the long run (thus the reason Google said they would ante up at least the minimum acceptable bid proposed by the FCC - it adds a floor to the dilution discount side). You can find this explanation on their Policy Blog at http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/07/res toring-competitive-balance-to.html

All I know is...

[Yfrwlf]

...the consumers should have many ways of broadcasting things they want to broadcast. It's too bad you can't make it like domain names, where there is basically an infinite number of names available, so all you need is an address, and no one can crowd out the public by the ability of some organizations to fork over lots of money for the stranglehold of the spectrum.

Gates Foundation

[falconwolf]

Bill Gates or his foundation aren't public companies dedicated to internet searching. Your comment completely misses the point.

And you totally missed my point. The foundation is supposed to be working to improve health and environment yet it invested in businesses that cause a lot of ill health and damages the environment.

Falcon

Re:Gates Foundation

[gregorio]

And you totally missed my point. The foundation is supposed to be working to improve health and environment yet it invested in businesses that cause a lot of ill health and damages the environment.

Still missing the point. What Bill Gates does doesn't matter at all. If he masturbates after every donation or kills a newborn, was not part of this discussion. You people are so fanatic about Microsoft that you keep talking about them even if the subject is Google.

A internet advertising and search company investing on commodities is stupid.