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
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...
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.
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 !!!
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?
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.
The german mobile auction in 2000 raised over $50Bn (at today's exchange rate). The UK auction in 2001 raised £22.5Bn ($45Bn at todays rate)
These auctions are more profitable than wars - well, for the governments involved. Not for the poor suckers who "win" them and then have to find the cash
references:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article272264.ece> http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102233es.pdf
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Relative yes, but doesnt mean its not overpriced.
Vodaphone admitted they overpaid in the UK auction.
What have they gained from their buy? Shit all really.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
MVNO = Mobile Virtual Network Operator
"bi doin" = be doing (I think?)
OK, let's try that, and a few more fixes:
Well, it still doesn't make sense.
Let me rephrase entirely:
Google intends to lease the spectrum to traditional carriers (MNOs, or Mobile Network Operators). The MNOs will handle things like network operations, billing, and possibly customer support. Google gets to brand the resulting service (e.g. as Google Mobile), develops the hardware and/or software, and gets a share of the revenue made by the MNO.
This is similar to what Apple has done with the iPhone, except that:
The end result is that Google probably will have more control over service pricing, and will probably get a bigger share of the revenue.