Slashdot Mirror
Google Confirms Intent To Bid for 700MHz Spectrum
narramissic writes "Today Google put an end to the 'will they or won't they' debate with the announcement that the company intends to join in the bidding for 700MHz wireless spectrum in late January. 'We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are,' Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and CEO, said in a statement. 'Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world. No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet.'"
Having had only a tiny glimpse into the world of government contracting, I find it impossible to believe it will all come down to the price Google pays.
/.'ers with contracting experience will probably back me up when I claim the price offered (or paid in this case) has nothing to do with winning a contract.
Some other
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
What does Google plan to do with this spectrum?
Offer residential broadband-to-700mhz VoIP routers to customers who would, in turn, become cellular access points.
Just food for thought (there's a lot standing in the way of something like this). It would be nice to have privately-licensed spectrum available to the public because then we wouldn't be limited to 100 milliwatts.
More
Yes, it is. Part of the switch over to digital involves moving TV channels using the higher numbered channels to lower numbered channels, so that this spectrum can be made available.
There's oodles of TV spectrum available in part because there's never been enough interest in terrestrial broadcasting, and also because every single TV station in the US has been allocated two channels, one for their existing analog service, and one for the digital replacement. Once the analog spectrum goes away, 50% of the TV spectrum currently in use will become available.
One interesting oddity is that digital channels have "soft" numbers from an end-user point of view rather than being tied to the frequency they're allocated. For example, CBS broadcasts on channel 12 in analog here but digitally on channel 13, but both are numbered "12" on the TV. So TV channels broadcasting on the frequencies being removed may continue to appear in the same place on your "dial" even though those actual frequencies aren't even available any more, let alone in use. (This is by design, the aim being to help make the switchover as smooth as possible.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Ars Technica has rather exhaustive coverage of the auction. You can start here and work your way back, they've gone over everything you've asked about in previous articles.
I'd start more here.
There are six 22MHz blocks in the 700MHz band up for auction. Each bidder bids on one or more 22MHz blocks. Note that the blocks are assigned for different purposes and larger and smaller geographic areas. Block C, for example is for regional uses, and therefore there will be several license winners for that particular 22MHz block, each winner coming away with a region. Block D is a nationwide license, so one winner gets use of that 22MHz block throughout the United States. Overall, there's 1099 available licenses with varying uses, modes, and geographic areas up for auction. The fact sheet gives a little more of a breakdown.
Here are the regions.
My guess is that Google will be going after block D, which is one licensee, with nationwide geographic coverage.
There are six blocks, two 12MHz, one 22MHz, one 6 MHz and one 10MHz.
agreed.
"They provide an outstanding email system, with now 5GB of free space and growing, for free."
The service is just as good as Yahoo!, Aol, or MSN. fat-client email tools (outlook, entourage, eudora, thunderbird) work so much better.
"They provide one of the most amazing mapping systems ever, continually adding new, cutting edge features, for free, both on the web, on your phone and in Google Earth."
Same as Mapquest, MSN Live and Yahoo! Only nice thing is gmaps supports traffic. The iPhone apps are much better IMO. As for mobile, it really comes down to bandwidth (the old J2ME gmaps was horrible on 2002 GPRS phone). Android is really Linux and J2ME, but will be branded as 'Google native' by the fanboys.
"They provide office collaboration online apps in Google Docs (which I use almost every day with friends spread out across the globe), for free."
Still not as good as Office or OOo. And they can search/own all your documents, so no sensitive docs...In the end it's a glorified email/abiword writer. where they can alter content as needed--is that in their policy? Hmmm... Google security, non-existent...
"They provide a really great photo organizing software (Picasa) and even some space on their site to upload pictures to, for free."
Have you seen flickr lately, why have 3 apps (XP, Picasa, Picasa Web) when you can have 2 (XP, Flickr). Also, it's easier to share photos on Flickr and their API is way more robust/easier to develop.
"They provide a place to share gigabytes of video with everyone on earth in Google Video and YouTube, for free."
Yes, to YOU, the consumer, but the copyright holders pay by having their content lose [monetary] value as it's being gained by google ad payouts back to google"
"And you're going to try and reduce them to the level of "Madison Avenue hucksters"?"
Yes, that's their [core] business model and "do no evil" is a great Madison Ave. created MOTTO. Remeber Madison Ave. creates company slogans. Grassroots movements create analogies.
"You're right, Google sucks, man! Fight the power!"
There's nothing to fight, just switch to a competitor's service if you're unhappy--you're a consumer right? You have choices... which of course our marketing gurus are trying to skew (i.e. create the herd/fanboy mentality).
ok, I had to provide a rebuttal.
Those services offered something like 2MB until Google provided real competition.