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.'"
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!
You're kidding right? Google prepared a $4.6 billion bid themselves which just happens to be the benchmark the FCC used as the reserve price. Your crazy if you don't think that AT&T and Verizon are going to fight this tooth and nail. Android is coming and they know it. They have to hold on to the networks themselves or be cut out. No matter how much building an open standards network benefits Google, AT&T and Verizon realize network infrastructure is what's going to make them players in the new game.
I got a catholic block.
Thats what I love about this whole situation - google has MASSIVE resources to throw at this. If they do get outbid, whoever does so will have to do it with a massive pricetag. Also, google doesn't have the constraints of having to maintain a current telecom network, which all of the other bidders do. The other bidders can't go "all in" because they have too damn much to lose, where google really does not. I believe, just like most of the other posters, that AT&T, Verizon, and the rest all are realizing that they're going to lose the bidding war - hence the sudden 'open network' craze.
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.
Umm, no -- overpaying for public resources is BAD.
-Do you really think the FCC is going to pump that money into tax refunds?
-Just where do you think the telco's going to get the money, anyway?
Google, at least, will bill their advertisers. That's who their real customer is.
Clearly, you are an economic genius. These advertisers must have the secret to an inexhaustible fund of money they don't need to get from anyone else. Brilliant.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
In my opinion clicking "Cancel" once is less annoying than clicking "NEXT PAGE" through 3 pages (in this case; it's often far more) and waiting for ads and "sidebar links" to load and clutter the screen.
Please continue to link to print pages for multiple-page stories.
everything in moderation
Define overpay. If it means AT&T or Verizon stay in business and remain profitable because of the spectrum, then its really hard to overpay for ones lifeblood. Here it says that spectrum auctions are deposited straight to the US Treasury, so it's just like revenue from taxes. I happen to like the situation. Competition is forced, the treasury gets a boost, and we all benefit.
I got a catholic block.
Of course, it'll be used to justify a massively increased annual FCC budget which we'll still be paying 20 years down the road...
If the revenue from this sale were earmarked to subsidizing FTTC, it would make me happy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
It only works well if you have broadband.
Imagine a device like AppleTV that uses this spectrum to provide a WiMax like connection. As a bonus you can get broadband.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Agreed.
I'm going to go to hell for saying this but... I actually do have a problem with that message.
Don't get me wrong - I am grateful to our troops. They pay the price for the freedom we enjoy. I have no illusions there, and I'm grateful.
But in the present day, our leaders have sent them to fight a war that is of our making, and was not our business to get involved in. I don't have a problem with thanking the troops. I have a huge problem with the implied endorsement that message has, that we are in a noble war right now, or that we are in any way doing the right thing. We have spent 5 years laying waste to a country that posed no threat to us whatsoever. We have sacrificed ~4000 of our bravest people doing that. And we have killed and displaced well over a million Iraqis in the process. And all of it in the pretext of rescuing a people that did not ask to be rescued, and securing a world that did not ask to be secured. And those people are significantly worse off, and the world is considerably less secure as a result. I have a huge problem with that message.
Still, I hate censorship (I mean, that's loss of freedom right there). So while I say I have a problem with that message, I don't think NBC made the right call.