Slashdot Mirror
Google a "Happy Loser" In Spectrum Auction
Large cell service providers won almost all of the licenses in the recently concluded FCC spectrum auction. Google didn't get any and won't be entering the wireless business. Verizon Wireless was the big winner, laying out $9.4 billion for enough regional licenses in the "C" block to stitch together nationwide coverage, except for Alaska. On this spectrum Verizon will have to allow subscribers to use any compatible wireless device and run any software application they want. AT&T paid $6.6 billion, Qualcomm picked up a few licenses, and Paul Allen's Vulcan Spectrum LLC won a pair of licenses in the "A" block. One analyst called Google a "happy loser" because it got the openness it had pushed for. The AP's coverage does some more of the numbers.
Now verizon can't make you use a shitty phone. Now Verizon can't lock you into their ringtones only. Now Verizon can't stop you from using generic Android-sporting phones.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Or...they were in the bidding just to bump up the perceived price of the bandwidth, inducing other carriers for more heavy investment whilst they focused on delivering phone/data service via satellite.
How is this "open access" thing going to work? What's open about it anyway?
Great, they announced that Verizon took everything but Alaska. So, who won Alaska? I ask because I read the messages and couldn't tell who won it, and I live here. Is there a link to the actual results, rather than an analysis that says everything but Alaska but doesn't specify who took the elusive 49th state?
Learn to love Alaska
Except Alaska. Except Alaska. Everything is except Alaska! I say we secede and form our own country of Alaskanistan!
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
And, after all, you've already signed a two-year contract for "unlimited" talk at $100/month. Why would they want to upset that gravy train? It's not like any of the other carriers can use it...
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
At the risk of being OT.....
I got a new Nokia/T-Mobile phone recently. According to Nokia's documentation, the phone has an email client. I have been through the menus (including the ones in the manual that reference email) and there is no email client in the phone, so I assume that T-Mobile has disabled this feature.
Now, since there is no e-mail client, why would I want to have Internet access on the phone? I probably would have signed up for Internet access, but since T-Mobile doesn't want me to use email on the phone, I won't. Smart move there by T-Mobile.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Google anyone? Don't get me wrong, I love talking about Verizon, and Alaska ;)
Probably about 5 at the rate the US govt is losing money over there
Debian FTW
Why does everyone assume verizon will use the spectrum for wireless when they have just as much need to deliver Video as they do wireless?
They could run a completely wireless 'cable' network over this spectrum and the only compatible device would be a set top box with a wireless interface that was compatible with their head end equipment. Was there something in the auction that requires the spectrum to be used for Cell phones or Internet access? I missed it if there was. Anyone know?
Google isn't a loser, because to lose you have to play the game. Google never wanted to win the spectrum, their game was the open access rules, which they got.
I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
We'll just invade you for your oil... err, I mean, to liberate you.
Google got exactly what they wanted here, a nationwide network that is forced to be available for thier android platform. They never really wanted the spectrum, if necissary they might have done it anyway but this would have been the prefered result.
I'll pass on using mod points because I don't see anyone else asking this yet: Is there anything in the requirements that says that Verizon cannot charge for people to use any compatible device? Can we run our applications without them charging us money? Do they have the right to 'shape' bandwidth once somebody figures out how to torrent stuff over this network? Can I IM without them exacting an exorbitant fee per message? In short: Are we gonna get screwed through a loophole? /rhetorical
http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
Most flirtatious! (hint, rouge != rogue)
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
Don't feel bad Google. Australia has plenty of inexpensive spectrum, and millions of anxious customers. Having heard about the rise and advantages of technology in other parts of the world, we've now got our head around this new electricity stuff, and we're just waiting for someone to show us how to use it all. Come on down!
Everyone is talking about the open access rules regarding Verizon's spectrum, but it is interesting to point out that AT&T does not have to deal with any restrictions on its 700mhz spectrum. AT&T's 700mhz coverage includes the spectrum acquired from Aloha Partners combined with the B block from the auction (totals 95% of the USA). This means that AT&T can still deploy a completely locked down network if they choose.
I don't know why everyone is saying Verizon is the big winner. AT&T won the vast majority of the B block which, paired with the 12MHz they bought from Aloha, gives them 24 MHz for less than Verizon paid for 20 MHz.
And there are no open network requirements on AT&T's spectrum.
Sounds like AT&T came out on top of this deal.
Yet another incompatible frequency band. Why can't the US get together with the Europeans on frequency allocations so that the same devices work everywhere?
That can't be good for us.
The audio spectrum? How about 440Hz? The "middle C" key on every piano becomes a "pirate device."
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
440Hz is A.
While I understand your point and agree with to a certain point, my experience has been that corporations or their divisions or other business entities develop a corporate culture that is more than the sum of its parts. Individually, the people in it can be quite nice away from the office, but when they are in the workplace, they become part of the entity. A couple I have seen (and thank all gods never worked for) were run like Nazi concentration camps. They hated everybody, and the places were run on total fear. More commonly, you do see businesses that have a culture of looking at their customers as victims to be abused. You can go to work in such a place as the nicest guy in the world, but if you stay long enough, the hive mind will take you over, and you'll start abusing grandmothers. Fortunately, most of us will quit such a place before we're too badly damaged.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
You seem to think that big wireless providers like Verizon will be open and well-behaved, simply because they are required to.
How naive.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
> However, the actions of a particular corporation, should not be viewed in a good or evil way, but rather from the standpoint of a completely amoral and dispassionate entity who seeks to maximize his profits.
That's exactly why I take it personally. Because it's so cold-blooded.
What now?
...but why auction off the band in the first place? Why not give control to local governments so that they might offer municipal Wi-Fi, or municipal cell service, or both? I can't think of something that, at its core, is as inherently public as this. Even roads are spatially localized. To give control over it to oligopolistic corporations (which, given ten years, will almost undoubtedly be monopolistic) for a fraction of our GDP seems anti-competitive.
(Yes, I'm aware that it was auctioned off. Nevertheless, the fact is that the corporations which bought it bought it at a fraction of its worth. It's like going to a homeless shelter and auctioning off a BMW.)
Yet another New Internet Service that will require bundling that Verizon will charge way too much for.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I call ownership of the 400nm-700nm spectrum
Verizon paid 9.6 billion for C Block licenses, but Sprint-Nextel has a market cap of only 18 billion, so for 9 billion (more or less) Google could buy controlling interest. Sprint owns WiMax spectrum that reaches everywhere the C Block reaches, and has infrastructure in place that Google would have needed to capitalize on 700 MHz spectrum. Why buy spectrum when you can buy comparable spectrum PLUS a phone company? Google wouldn't have to buy them outright, or buy even 50 percent, either, just put up a few billion, and Sprint would essentially be theirs. Plus, they could still make use of unlocked Verizon and AT&T services.
Google's lobbying for open access was incredibly smart. What they didn't pay for spectrum could buy a whole phone company, one competing against companies burdened by all that auction debt.
Google was lucky to have not bought into the spectrum.
Antenna design scales linearly with frequency. Lower frequencies invariably require larger antennas. There are some ways you can get around this, i.e. accept low efficiencies, or narrow bandwidth, etc. Either way, you DO NOT want to lower your center frequency.
Secondly, and most importantly, the next gen for wireless communications will involve MIMO. I assure you, from practical experience and graduate research, you will not see multiple antennas in the 700 MHz spectrum. Nor will you see it at the 900 MHz spectrum. You might be able to pull it off at 1800 MHz, but you'll get at most two antennas. One needs to move into the 2.5 GHz and above to make a reasonably sized handheld WITH multiple antennas. You can't just place the antennas any which way and expect MIMO to work. The antennas need to have low coupling between them, so you need significant electrical distances between them. It's EASY to design multiple antennas for different frequencies (i.e. Quadband), but VERY difficult to design multiple uncoupled antennas at the SAME frequency (i.e. MIMO).
My Baroque-period harpsichord calls "insensitive clod" on that one.
The Church of Scientology has been touting a story about a bill, put before Congress a few decades ago, for relocating mental patients from the Lower 48 to Alaska.
The more Alaskans I get to know, the more I think they might actually be telling the truth.
thank you.
Of course, Verizon can always try to charge more for their open network. But again, they are in a competition.
It will be interesting to see the balance consumers choose.
Have fun with the infamous Verizon's customer support & bureaucracy.
the only problem is AT$T sucks balls. I wont get an iphone because I have to use them.
The real reason is that nobody likes a "sore looser" and as we know Google tries to be well liked.
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
So what? If the open access is attractive to customers, AT&T will be forced to open the B block by the market instead of the FCC.
I don't think we have to worry about that happening though, 'cause Verizon will simply price their open-access service out of the market. Then when nobody buys it they can tell the FCC how terrible an idea it was.
Not in my back yard!
I live in one of only several counties in Ohio for which Aloha was successfully bid against, several years ago, and where the license is still held by a small company or individual.
So I, for one, will not be welcoming my deathstar overlords.
Kid-proof tablet..
Good: How can we provide our customers with the best possible service, and at the same time make a buck?
Evil: How can we change our service to make customers pay us more money?
Of course, business is about making money, the difference is just that the "good" business believe that the long term key to making money is customer satisfaction, while the "evil" business is more concerned about short term optimization.
A personal example: My current ISP has a convenient on-line facility to switch to a more expensive / higher bandwidth subscription, but you can't use it to switch to cheaper / lower bandwidth subscription. The main competitor allows you to switch both ways. One of the two "hates" their customers. I chose the competitor when I had to connect some family members to the net. I'm sure I would be more inclined to upgrade my own connection, if I know it was easy to downgrade again. Now, I'm more likely to switch provider.
Treating your customers with respect is good for your customer, and it is good for you in the long term. It creates trust and loyalty.
BTW: When Google say "do no Evil" I'm sure it is in this sense, not in the sense of supporting Tibet monks against an oppressive regime. Allowing pop3 access to gmail is a good example of this, it circumvent their source of income, but makes more people inclined to try them out, and they rely on their own interface being good enough to win you over. [ And of course, access to confidential information your mail will help them in their evil plans of world domination, but that is another story. ]
The only thing that matters to Google is that people visit google.com. The more visitors, the better.
Here be signatures
Huh? All I found was a dozen copies of the article.
Maybe not
So they pay all this money, where does it go? Who gets it and what do they do with it?
Not being rhetorical, just curious.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Supposedly. The history of the pitch standards is pretty neat. The pitch has steadily climbed over time. By now in some places A has reached 445 hz (or much worse, depending on what latest, crazy European group is being featured on NPR).
I have a Motorola V325, which takes a USB data cable. I'm able to sync contacts and calendar with my Mac, but only by fooling the Apple sync service into thinking it's a different Motorola phone. There is absolutely no way to get pics off the phone over USB with cracking the firmware with a hex editor. This is something the phone can do, but Verizon has purposefully blocked with software. If I want pics taken with the phone I have to send them to myself one at a time, paying for each transfer. Instead I just pretend that my phone doesn't have a camera.
What a waste of technology.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.