Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Doesn't Need To Win the Bid To Win In January
explosivejared writes "TheStreet discusses Google's possible strategy options in the bid for the 700 mhz spectrum. The end goal of getting the government to put an open access stipulation on the spectrum, Google's end goal, is almost a given — in the author's opinion. At this point, he says, Google hardly even needs to win to 'win.' From the article: 'Rather than actually winning the auction, Google's participation is likely intended to secure what it sees as the real reward: ensuring that whoever ends up owning the spectrum allows the open access of applications and devices. Indeed, as long as this goal is met, it's hard to see why Google would want to take on the costly task of building and running its own network. But given how much is at stake when it comes to the mobile market, Google's vigilance is shrewd, even if it never planned to own the spectrum.'"
do they still win? The FCC set the minimum bid so high, anyone who bids, loses.
Google has become self aware. In one month it will initiate a massive nuclear attack on its enemy?
liqbase
It probably doesn't help that assertion that I have two articles on the home page that highlight potential success for the company, but I still realize that they are a company designed to make a profit.
:(
As for the article, I agree that is one of the shrewdest business moves I've seen (that wasn't underhanded, repressive, bookcooking, etc.). They're getting essentially who will be their competition with Android to fund the infrastructure on which Android will make money. All the while the consumer is starting to benefit like crazy from the atmosphere of competition.
It's times like these that almost make you want see some good in the world. Yeah, but then another wiki scandal or RIAA atrocity will pop up on the firehose to dampen then mood.
I got a catholic block.
Google has already won. It is no mere coincidence that Verizon and AT&T are opening up their networks [while Sprint participates in the OpenHandset Alliance]. The weak are dragged by their destiny, the strong follow their destiny, and the wise become destiny themselves. Good job Google!
He said the exact same thing. However, the final agreement seems to have made the open access requirements significantly less open, so that may be why Google is getting more serious about it.
If they have their own network, they have the last mile. They would have the means and funds to become a 3rd tier 1 provider. Only they'd be the tier 1 provider with access to every home in the country. They could dictate net neutrality at that point.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You have to admit that, compared to pretty much all other billion dollar corporations out there, Google is one of the most true to Slashdot's ideals (keep everything open).
You can complain about their purchase of YouTube, their ads in the sidebar for google.com, GMail's vulnerabilities, trying to capitalize on a wireless spectrum auction, etc. etc. etc...
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google. The fact is, yes - they *are* a for-profit company. BUT, that doesn't mean they are evil. Everyone has to make money, and making a sh*tload of money isn't so bad if you think about it, either. You just have to keep your morals and business ethics in check while you do so.
AFAIK, Google has done that thus far. Nobody pays to upload to YT, text-ads in google.com are completely unintrusive by design, all manmade software has vulnerabilities at one point or another, and...well I sure would love to make a lot of money, too. Doesn't mean you have to sell your soul to do it.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
A lot of analysts are certain Google's not bidding to win, just to make sure they hit the reserve price and ensure openness provisions kick in. Everybody's sure Google doesn't want to be a network operator.
And they may well be right on that count -- but who says they don't want to be a network *architect*? Google has, as TFA points out, $13b in cash. They could easily afford the final sticker price on the licenses, then lease the spectrum to players who have to play on *precisely* their terms (which probably entails not just open access, but a dumb pipe -- just providing bandwidth, instead of mobile phone service.) That pushes the buildout cost away from GOOG, but still might allow for a hellacious ROI.
I can't take credit for these insights/speculations myself -- check out Harold Feld's take and a great deal more detail.
It's annoying to click on a link and have a print dialog pop up. Link to the regular page, please.
They would have the means and funds to become a 3rd tier 1 provider.
Wikipedia says that there are already ninetier 1 providers. So you must mean something else.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Instead of creating another cell phone service, couldn't they create a general purpose band for hobbyists like the 2.4Ghz band? It could be reserved for UAV's, personal ultra wide band networks, or hobbyists. There are lots of possibilities besides cell phones.
I believe net neutrality may be a key factor in Google's willingness to become a network provider. If the traditional telcos start putzing with the packets, placing artificial barriers on the flow of data, then the only way to break the barriers is to either enact legislation, or by-pass the networks having the barriers.
If memory serves me, wasn't Google buying up gobs and gobs of dark fiber networks? If this is the case, then couldn't they light the fiber, using it as a backbone, and use the wireless spectrum for the endpoints - creating a massive Googlenet?
Now, add the much talked about gPhone and Google's demonstrated desire to offer free WiFi and you have a very enticing way to attract customers - which is really what Google wants...more eyes on more advertisements.
Either way, it is a win-win-win situation for Google.
It would be nice if the networks built effective networks as opposed to trying to become the next Microsoft by controlling all associated markets. Likewise, it would be nice if Google, and other companies, focused on building usable network protocols and tools. It is damn annoying to experience the state of the networks in the US.
But barring pragmatism, somebody disrupting the market by implementing WiMax in major cities would be great.
I see other uses for this bandwidth than traditional cell phones.
Navigation and search go hand and hand.
I see this being more for search and teaming up with the car makers. Forget DVD updates and all that mess. Not only that but it could monitor where you drive at all times. Not for spying "But but it could be used for that" but for routing.
By seeing how local people get from point a to point b Google can find the optimum routes. Then you add in real time traffic monitoring based on vehicle speed an location and your all set. Next step is to provide "entertainment" live video and audio feeds to replace XM radio and your DVD system for the kids.
What about Google TV?
Google is an advertising company so having Google TV is logical.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Will it be able to run Doom?
Your head a splode
This may be offtopic but, about 2.4 Ghz, does anybody else think it's kinda...peculiar to use the same frequency which microwave ovens use to cook :)
Q: Do you really think the FCC is going to pump that money into tax refunds?
... to 20?? will be the same always.
....
A: Yes (FCC/Congress), the tax refund is very important to maintaining the
_ USA wealth status quo of Corporate-welfare stud servicing (as the farmer
_ would say) the public real good.
What was good for the public in the 1960s
Folks need to accept
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Everyone is so focused on Google spectrum chatter they forget that the minimum but of 4.6 billion is not an astronomical sum with respect to current corporate conditions. You don't go to an auction and blab about what your willing to pay for the item of interest - all your competitors now have some critical information on what you are willing to pay. Who may be lurking in the shadows that could also purchase the spectrum space? Let the conspiracies start: Microsoft, GE, Exxon-Mobile, Apple, Hedge Fund companies, Lockheed, McDonald-Douglas, Motorola...
I bet there are may players we are not discussing that are holding their cards close.
P226
That has to be the single most exceptional reply I've seen all day. ;)
NBC IS REFUSING TO RUN PRO-TROOPS ADS from Freedom's Watch, but you can see them at the link.
They told me that if George W. Bush were reelected we'd see a sort of soft fascism in which corporate media would freeze out views that were politically uncongenial. And they were right!
The ads are surprisingly benign and (one would think) non-controversial. They literally say "Thank You" to the troops and "Happy Holidays". Neither ad takes a pro- or anti-war stance, merely a "support the troops" position. Which is the position we are told both sides believe.
"Freedom of speech: at some of our networks, you can't even buy it!"
Google owns a lot of fiber WANs, a telco operations system, and all kinds of content positioned to deliver a modern version of an "open AOL" that incorporates the entire Internet's content, to compete with AOL, MSN, Verizon, AT&T, the cablecos, and now finally the "last mile" of wireless/mobile. They're going to own spectrum, as surely as they own the other infrastructure they could be outsourcing with effectively the same content/transaction/community model. They have proven in all those other holdings that they want to own them.
And then I hope they use that even stronger position to prove, by using it to compete most effectively, that all those other network operators have to open their networks to equal access.
Especially the mobile networks. Could you imagine if you had to pay "roaming charges" every time your packets deviated between remote hosts (eg. websites) from the default route initially found at the time you registered with your ISP? The "Internet" would never have gotten off the ground. Freed from that kind of shortsighted proprietary greed, mobile (and just wireless) networks with flat rates and unbundled access, connections and content services would explode like the Internet did. All that "available roaming capacity" in the segregated radio networks is unused capacity and reliable redundancy. I hope Google forces that open, and I expect owning one will make it easier for them to do so.
--
make install -not war
People forget the advantage of the 700mhz spectrum. It provides close to a 30 mile range, whereas cellular towers in the other parts of the spectrum top out at a few miles. If Google takes all their dark fiber, light it up and build towers, or better yet hook into the current TV transmision towers the capital expense will be 1/4 what it takes to build out a cellular network, simply because they will need 1/4 the towers. Set a price of $30 a month for unlimited access (VOIP and data) and they will absolutely kill verizion, att, comcast and every other internet and phone provider. Not only that but they would probably make a fortune on the investment. All these articles about Google NOT bidding is simply stock analysts trying to convince the market that Google won't enter the market and that the incumbent providers are still a good investment.
Frankly I think they will bid, and it will be a very serious bid meant on winning. And after they win and build the network out no other provider will be able to go against network neutrality as if they do Google will run ads about switching to Google Internet for unrestricted internet. Not only that but they will likely drive the price of mobile internet down such that everyone can afford it, something they VERY much want (think google maps and search for local businesses, competition against the local yellow pages). Think about cheap unlimited mobile Internet that just happens to be google based and serves advertisements based on where you are. Imagine driving by a store and having your phone pop up and advertisement (to that store) for a product you were searching for on the Internet earlier along with a map of the store to show you where it is in the store and how much it costs.
I think it would be crazy for them NOT to make a serious bid and win.
TFA says "Owning and operating a network, on the other hand, could make for a costly and distracting scenario."
Because if there is one thing Google doesn't know how to do, its build networks with lots of computers and network them together.
I don't see Google building a network. I see them driving up the price a bit to force another company into a difficult financial situation then making them an offer to make the service Good. Since the other company will be financial strained they will be forced to take Google's offer. Just like my website isn't hosted at Google but I use Google tools to make it good. My phone won't be hosted at Google, ATT will just be forced to use Google tools to make it good. Meanwhile ATT gets my monthly check and Google gets my ad revenue with a little money tossed ATT's way for good measure. I pay GoDaddy to host my site. I use Feedburner for my RSS, and bloggers interface for my blog. I pay ATT for my phone, I use gmail for my email and when I see and ad ATT gets a little money because Google just used bandwidth. I dunno I'm not explaining well.
... a writer at OmniNerd put together a good article on Auction 73 outlining why the FCC is auctioning the 700Mhz spectrum as well as how they're doing it in a competitive and fair fashion. He even walks a fictitious company through the auction process to detail what is involved for bidders.
When you understand your disbelief in other gods, then you will understand my disbelief in yours.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I wonder if what google fears, long-term, is a scenario like the one alluded to in John Walker's "Digital Imprimatur", combined with a non-neutral net.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
A scenario whereby Verizon, Comcast, AT & T, et. al. have a shakedown-type operation, if you don't want your customers delayed getting to google, pay extra. The cartel of ISPs collude (or, if no collusion/conspiracy, they all just come to the same conclusion as to what strategy they should pursue) to bugger with anything new google develops, like say a VoIP client etc.
Between the 700mhz spectrum and all the dark fiber that google's been buying, maybe they're doing a contingency plan so that, if necessary, they could do without Verizon/comcast/AT&T et. al.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
It sure would be nice if Google were to win something .007Mhz or something. They could parlay that into SOMETHING. I'll be dammed if they do not launch their own cell network or the like. Please got let Google kill Sprint Verizon AT&T or something. Those providers suck.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Exactly, as you said, very well stated and politically correct.
... "Huh?"
... maybe sad/dismayed when speaking kindly of the great and infamous POTUS.
I was reminded of the same famous quote by the great flaming bush POTUS
The Question was a previous post: "Do you really think the FCC is going to pump that money into tax refunds?"
Yes, I am always highly confused/surprised
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
God Damn!!!! "Huh" is putting it mildly
a hahaa hahah, no kidding!.... That_might have_be_en,,,, the worst syntax and punctuation____f_ck_up, yet scene..(.hereabouts. I got )a feeling a CT scan of that dude's brain might reveal actual physical proof of dyslexia wrapped inside of some sort of House of Mirrors___ shit_uation. On the bright side,
Folks,
the Shitty Sentence Contest is Over!!!! We Have a Winner!!!!!
Congratulations, (Wandering)Point Underscore_Dude!!!
I think it would be far better to open the spectrum up to anyone who wants to build a wireless mesh network open to all. The Telcos could charge for connecting to their phone and data networks. All other use could help solve the last mile problem. Data transported only across the network would be free. (as in beer)