Slashdot Mirror
Google Plans to Bid 4.6 Billion on 700MHz Band
NickCatal writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google plans to bid $4.6 Billion on the 700 MHz radio spectrum being auctioned off by the FCC. What is most interesting is that they are not planning on partnering with other companies to raise the cash, they are going to spend their own cash and possibly borrow some. With partners such as Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile in their 'Open Handset Alliance' is this a sign that they are willing to directly compete with the people they courted to join?"
Didnt they say they would do this a long time ago? How is this a story again?
Do even Google have this kind of cash? It's a very big bet for a company to make- if this goes wrong they could sink the whole Google ship.
becoming a cell phone provider any more than an internet provider.
Most likely it'll involve them leasing out the band to other users to prevent a monopoly. Maybe giving a discount to users of Google's cell phone tech and/or adding special features that (by owning the band) it can ensure will be available anywhere there is a tower that handles the band.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
why disclose how much you are going to bid? that's like playing poker and revealing your cards. i won't google to win, but why let the other guys raise 4.6 billion and 1 penny?
The band that a company owns seems to be a completely different business investment.
Case in point, when a company 'joins' the World Wide Web Consortium, it isn't considered unfriendly for them to go buy another T1 line for their company or even purchase software from a company who doesn't support W3C.
And the reason I hesitate to use the word 'joins' is that when a standard is truly open, you don't have to join to use it. Hell, you really shouldn't even be forced to use it forever. It's open. It's out there for anybody to use or to stop using. That's what attracts me to open standards. I haven't paid IBM or signed an agreement with Microsoft whereby if a new technology arises I have to wait for the agreement to wear off.
You shouldn't have to 'buy in' to the Open Handset Alliance and I think you're thinking of it in the wrong way when you imply that it's detrimental by not going in with other members on this auction from the FCC.
If they did a good job making the standards and you don't have to commit to it, other companies will want to use it. They aren't going to care if Google is still trying to make a profit in other realms. Just because Google made an open standard for everyone to use doesn't mean they now need to sit back on their heels and be ultra careful not to upset anyone--and the other companies know this. Hell, everyone needs to make a profit.
My work here is dung.
But not being restricted by the people they've partnered with. If they have the rights to the spectrum free and clear of entanglements from other companies, they aren't limited to a single carrier (or group of carriers) for their offerings. They also have a bit more freedom to play around in the sandbox. Likely the companies they've worked with in the past will get some preferential treatment, but it allows Google to have ultimate control (well, except for the FCC of course).
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
its called reverse MVNO. The open Handset Alliance Mobile Operator partners will be operating or servicing that spectrum that Google will bi don as a Google MVNO in reverse with the Google Brand name.. Sometimes it does help to ask a mobile expert.. Fred Grott Mobile Expert http://www.jroller.com/shareme
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
This seems like just another case of Google throwing money around with no idea if they can make money on it. Like YouTube, and anything else outside of search and advertising.
And quite frankly, the more they do, the more concerned I am about how much information on ordinary US Citizens they are adding to their NSA data mine. There has never been an invasion of privacy on the kind of scale the US government is illegally maintaining. Our only salvation would be kicking all the conservatives/libertarian/fascists/theocrats out of government. Will it happen? It's hard to say: sure it needs to be done, but since when have institutional Democrats had a spine, or balls?
will be that the initial Bid will be for that, but that they will join forces with others, possibly IBM, Apple, etc. to jump this bid up. I think that they want to win this for the simple reason of insurance that ISP can not kill them off. Right now, the Communications/ISP industry is heading towards a gov. issued oligopoly with outrageous prices and lousy service. With an open network, Google can put pressure on all of the industry to move towards an open network. As far as their open system and pissing off their "partners", you did notice that few carriers are there? It is mostly equipment folks. That means that the real partners will be outside of USA. Sprint is doing it, but that does not mean that they will offer it. But if they can have an edge on Verizon and ATT, well, yeah, they will go through with it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But if a telco chooses to "play nice" and open their network to the OCA based, presumably uber-cool handset and applications, folks may just stay with an existing provider and then both Google and the Wireless provider both get to make buckets of $$$.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It's very clear that if someone dislikes Google, she or he must dislike most of the search engines, too (Lee Smolin certainly does!). It's because Google is nothing else than the crown, unification, or culmination of the search engines and all of its crucial results, insights, methods, principles, and values.
Personally I'd like to know just as much where this 4.6+ billion dollars is going to end up. The FCC while not an official government body is still somewhat kind of part of the government. Will this money go back to the people since after all it's all our frequencies, we just choose to let the FCC govern it for us.
Perhaps the whole problem with the FCC is that they auction the spectrum to the highest bidder.
No wonder providers lock out third party handsets. They just paid billions for the spectrum, they have every incentive to maximize profits.
What would be most beneficial to the consumer is perhaps a company that just sold mobile IP addresses and had nothing to do with selling devices. Let consumers choose their own devices in a competitive market for the bandwidth they purchase. Maybe the FCC should stop thinking about billions of short term dollars and start thinking about what's best for consumers and the industry as a whole.
The New York stock exchange thinks they've merged since they are listed as one corporation there. I believe the merger was two years ago...could be wrong though.
Sprint and T-Mobile seem to have no problem competing with each other while also joining the OHA.
And Google has been planning to spend $billions on the 700MHz band to compete with them all for years.
This story isn't stupid, but the question it asks to frame it is so stupid I'm surprised I didn't see it on TV news.
--
make install -not war
You are living under a rock
Uhhh... so 2005 dude.
Google. 700 FM. M. M. m. m. m. Can anyone confirm the info on this page: the 700MHz band is currently TV Channel 52. People watching this station in Oklahoma might get some interference. I know - switch to digital TV. But wouldn't it be funny if Fresh Prince of Bel-Air sounded like two farmers talking about tractors!
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
hope they not gonna read the Voice-Mails like they read our e-mails !!!
simple
My startup will wait the last second of this auction and show offer 4,60000000001 billion and WIN.
No one knows how much google will offer for this or win, until the last second.
"is this a sign that they are willing to directly compete with the people they courted to join?"
Business stopped being that simple, oh...like maybe 1 or 2 thousand years ago.
Does the phrase 'embrace and extend*' ring a tiny bell?
No? Try looking at it this way. MS constantly wages FUD. Always - frequently with whatever legal club happens to be within easy reach. Google, on the other hand does things in a rather novel manner (TIC) via the use of something called 'logic'. It's a more mature strategy (and I'm quoting Dave W. here). It involves seduction, not violence. Guess which 'tactic' history will smile on.
* The original - not the MS version.
... they paid 50.8 billion euros for six licenses.
;)
This is not news worthy
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
... such as last Friday - seems he's got this one fairly pegged. Not sure I agree with his ideas about credit agencies etc.
A free, ad-supported Google cell service with GPhones would be pretty cool for you guys over there, I guess. Some people might be a bit wary of Google's dominance, but I suppose they'll still be blinded by Google's "Do No Evil" to think about how much Google already know/control. From my point of view, I'd just like people to be aware of how powerful they are - I've not made my mind up about whether I think they'll go rogue a la Microsoft...
We Build Beautiful Websites
Indeed. I would mod you up if I had the privilege.
Sudheer Satyanarayana
www.techchorus.net
What's to stop the carriers from doing that? Wasn't their addition to the auction rules only applying to this spectrum? It just seems that other carriers could completely prevent access to that side of the wireless world.
Am I missing something here, people familiar with the matter?
The term "old media" is a semi-ad hominem style attack that I like to use against the previously monopolistic media, mostly TV, radio and newspaper. Yet that term holds true to any company that attempts to use the force of law to keep and protect monopolistic practices in any communications market, including cell phones and land lines.
Google has proven that the monopoly of distribution can be broken by their network, and their applications. AdSense replaces expensive marketing and advertising departments, Blogger.com replaces the need for physical media and the costs associated. Google Search replaces direct advertising campaigns, and YouTube is trumping the cable networks in giving people a la carte entertainment at a moment's notice. I have high hopes that Google's foray into the wireless market will offer huge gains for those of us who are sick and tired of the old media cell phone technology (locked phones, expensive monthly charges, limited application support, etc).
As WiFi exploded in use, I continued to be amazed at how relatively unregulated bandwidth worked so well in all the market locales I had WiFi implemented in. Yes, I've heard horror stories by relatively few, but in my office in downtown Chicago, our WiFi network worked seamlessly with dozens of others in the same building. Up to now, I still can't find verifiable proof that other wireless bandwidth segments can't be shared by dozens, or hundreds, of providers in the same vicinity. With the advent of software radios (frequency hopping, output power changes, etc), it seems that the first person to relinquish full control of their bandwidth nation-wide will really hurt the old media strangehold in the wireless market.
My biggest fear for wireless is the push for more laws to regulate "network neutrality," which I am against vehemently. I believe that paying for access tiers makes more sense than forcing the market to all stay at a certain level of service for everyone at a flat price. It doesn't make sense to me (neither as a businessman, nor as an individual). I'm hoping to see Google offer the bandwidth in markets they can't reach in a relatively unregulated and openly competitive atmosphere. In an adjoining town to mine, Libertyville, Illinois, there are numerous WiFi Internet providers who are doing gangbusters sticking access points on leased towers and giving people in the region what they want (including even free WiFi at a throttled speed) at the price they're willing to pay. The old media companies (AT&T, Comcast, etc) have fought tooth and nail to shut down these hooligans, but the city has held its ground in allowing them to compete. My own town won't allow this to happen (although we do have a bunch of WiFi sharing groups on within 2 blocks of me), so I'd love to see a national push by a major new media company to open bandwidth for all to play with to see what the market can provide with reduced FCC rules created by the old monopolists.
My big concern is the names Sprint and T-Mobile associated with the post. I use T-Mobile for 60% of my wireless communication (mostly EDGE and voice), and AT&T for the remainder (3G), and while I'm happy, I also use unlocked foreign phones and hardware devices. My friends who use the locally provided versions of the same devices are really unhappy, and don't have anywhere near the amount of customization and freedom that I get by providing my own (expensive) devices.
I do see a big WMD for the old media ahead, ready to explode. It's called competition, and it will come from all levels: locally, nationally, internationally. I've spent more time on YouTube in the past 2 weeks than watching TV in the past 6 months. I'm prepared with my wallet to pay in advance for broadcasts I like (such as Sanctuary, which I feel isn't there yet), and I can't wait to see what foreigners with a great grasp of English start producing with the technology available. Combine that with a relatively cheap and open range of bandwidth frequencies, and the radio/tv/cell monopolists are dead.
I can't wait. Who do I write a check to at Google?
I'd like to see Google win this. They are the only hope for some serious competition in this consolidating business of access to the InfoBahn (remember that term that once captured the world's imagination?), but I doubt what's openly announced is their entire strategy.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is not worldwide, this is just for the USA. A fool and their money is easy parted.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
A business setup not for the sake of the shareholders but for the benefit of the people. Controlled by the state to see that it encourages innovation and equality.
Why you could even use the profits to fund goverment, call it a state run industry.
You communist, and no pointing out that the original US postal system worked like this and that this is what allowed the US goverment to have low taxes since it had other sources of income.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They might be willing to license it cheap to anyone willing to put the Android on all of their phones.
Google engineers discovered a method to beam computer ads directly to ones visual and auditory cortext via radio waves. All they need now is the spectrum to implement it.
FYI: "On December 15, 2004, Sprint and NEXTEL announced they would merge to form Sprint Nextel Corporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel
It isn't current assets, it is cash + short term investments that total to 13 billion. Though their current assets isn't much larger since they are mostly a software company (15 billion).
Sheesh, are all story capsules this bad? Google wants OPEN Spectrum, which anybody is allowed to resell. So they're actually not working against the carriers, they're working to make sure that all carriers can get a piece of the pie.
Besides, Google isn't evil. It's part of their corporate charter, so if Google is ever evil, you could sue their officers for malfeasance.
Good luck defining "evil".
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
4.6Billlion for a Band is IMHO to little. And my guess is that google will use it in the "Join the gphone movement, get a share of the cake" game agai... ahem with the the providers. What an asset if you want to kill Iphone 2.0.....
How does it offset your taxes? When the government gets more money, they don't reduce taxes, they find new ways to waste it--or politicians find new ways to secretly line their pockets. What planet have you been living on?
Is there anyone else that thinks that Eric Schmidt really has no idea what to do next @ Google?
It's clear that Google doesn't have a decent group of hardware / RF engineers guiding this proposal. There's only so much capacity you can squeeze into conventional single antenna handsets, and it's fine for now (i.e. 900 MHz and 1800 MHz do just fine). However, at some point in the near future, people will demand a lot more data throughput that simply cannot be achieved through SISO / SIMO operation.
Cell phone companies will need to migrate to MIMO communications and I assure you, if you manage even two uncorrelated MIMO antennas on a handheld at 700 MHz, you deserve a gold medal. It's a challenge even at 2.4 GHz, but it can be done.
Does anyone know if there are any bands above 2.4 GHz that will be up for purchase in the near future? That's where the money is.
what are they REALLY going to do with that band? It's a frequency band that can ONLY be used in the US, so it has to be some kind of national service, not a world-wide service.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Those of you who have been in a community wifi network or a free software project probably know the liberating force of a free community. It is my belief that when the gov licenses spectrum, it should also license bits of it for gratis (no charge) to a free networking community. By selling only to highest bidders, the gov essentially denies amateurs their right to create useful communication projects for their communities.
I guess I don't see how the FCC deserves 4.6 Billion. I guess its better than taxes.
Google is reported it will bid 4.6 billion dollars.
The age of the Earth is about 4.6 billion years.
It sure beats a multiple of 42!
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
its easier to watch the network (for datamining) when you own the network.....
I can see where this is going:
- Google telegraphs their upcoming $4.5B bid repeatedly over the internet.
- Microsoft thinks "whoa, these guys are our biggest competitor and if they get away with it we could be in really big trouble." They then decide to enter a surprise snipe bid of $5B (and probably have more cash reserves than Google, or at least more experience at coming up with it as needed-- Google's may be mostly in stock and take some doing to turn into a check that they can give to the FCC)...
- Microsoft wins, but then one of two things happens. Either MS tries to keep it "proprietary" (likely, given their history) and noone wants it because it's too closed to be enough different from the telco systems (and many people hate MS about as much as the telcos), OR, the government steps in and says "I'm sorry, you're not allowed to open it up such that people can use it however they want because it's then too hard for us to monitor it for bad guys," and noone wants it because it's too closed to be enough different from the telco systems.
- Then Google steps up and says "ha ha, faked you out-- now you're out $5B, SUCKER!).
ISM band