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?"
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).
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.
> Do even Google have this kind of cash?
I think Sergey is going to sell 100 shares.
4.6 billion is the minimum price the FCC is willing to actually sell for, as in if nobody bids as much as 4.6 the FCC won't actually sell. So by saying to the FCC we'll bid 4.6 they assure the FCC they'll get the price they wanted. In exchange for this assurance Google got 2 out of 4 condition for free access to the frequency.
The whole system fucking sucks. Why exactly are AT&T and Verizon even allowed to take part in this auction? Both of them have TONS of spectrum in the cellular, PCS and even AWS bands. Why is there no justification process attached to bidding on a limited resource and no mechanism in place to keep greedy monopolies from hoarding all of the spectrum to shut out newcomers?
Did you know in some markets that AT&T holds over 75% of the available cellular and PCS spectrum? They justified this back in the day by claiming that they needed to run three networks -- AMPS (analog), TDMA and GSM, even as they were forcing their customers to vacate the old AMPS and TDMA equipment.
I find it depressingly ironic that I have to fill out paperwork to justify my IP requests to ARIN, but a far more limited resource that theoretically belongs to everybody is just auctioned off to the highest bidder with no consideration as to whether or not it's in the interest of the public. Hell, even the limited "open access" rules that have been purposed are even being fought by Verizon, because they'd rather lock you into their hardware, their content and their service then allow an open market to flourish.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Googles Market Cap is $198 Billion. I think they can find the capital if need be.
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.
How is this a story again?
Because if you bid $4,600,000,000.01 you get the license and not Google.
Deleted
At the close of their most recent quarter Google has more than $13B in cash in the bank. They also have no debt to speak of.
With a market capitalization of nearly $200B, no debt, and a 22% return on equity, Google should have absolutely no problem raising cash if necessary. I suspect they will tap into their cash reserves rather than debt financing or raising capital by diluting existing shareholder equity.
The numbers are here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG
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?
The FCC isn't going to do that. Now their primary function is to steal the radio spectrum from the people and auction it off to the highest bidder.
I'm beginning to think there is no point following FCC rules. If the government is going to be greedy thieving bastards with our radio spectrum, why not just become freebanders? WTF? I thought the FCC was supposed to regulate the airwaves for everyone's benefit? If they just take them away to sell them, then they are just another scheme by the corrupt goverment to separate the citizens from their rightful use of public commons and get money out of it.