Slashdot Mirror
Google Ends Silence On C Block Auction
Phurge found a post on the Google Policy Blog in which they lift the cone of silence that had been imposed by regulation over the recently concluded FCC spectrum auction. As some had speculated, Google was in it mainly to force some openness into the wireless industry. "Based on the way that the bidding played out, our participation in the auction helped ensure that the C Block met the reserve price. In fact, in ten of the bidding rounds we actually raised our own bid — even though no one was bidding against us — to ensure aggressive bidding on the C Block. In turn, that helped increase the revenues raised for the US Treasury, while making sure that the openness conditions would be applied to the ultimate licensee."
In fact, in ten of the bidding rounds we actually raised our own bid -- even though no one was bidding against us -- to ensure aggressive bidding on the C Block. In turn, that helped increase the revenues raised for the US Treasury ...
But ultimately the winners are going to have to make their money back by sticking it to the consumer. The bidding system is basically a government tax on something that's free, the airways. So the revenues Google so kindly helped raise for the Feds are ultimately gonna be paid for by the end user.
Well, this is kinda what everyone thought Google was doing, so it's more of a "Google admits to what had been expected." Than a "Big announcement from Google: they do no evil."
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
Very nice! Yup. "Do no Evil" does not mean "Don't screw your opponents".
Brilliant!
What about gaining unauthorized access for a non-malicious intent? i.e. jailbreaking the iPhone, making backups of DVDs, disarming a bomb, etc. Seems like in this case you're "fixing" the problem which is the design of the thing itself, so that's a hack. In the case of Android there's nothing to "fix" to open it up, so you're pretty much just developing instead of hacking. (And in software development, that's a good thing. No one likes a hack unless its necessary).
Not to slam Google, but would an "evil" corporation actually admit to doing evil?
Shouldn't we take a closer look at corporations that specifically say, "we do no evil"?
Sorta like when paper companies create commercials on how earth friendly they are right before a new paper mill is built or when they are under investigation for discharging too much pollution.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Step 1: Google gets FCC to adopt "openness conditions". These conditions will be dropped if the auction fails to meet the reserve price, so it's in Google's interest to make sure the reserve price is met.
Step 2: Google bids on the auction, but only until the reserve price is met. This ensures that the openness conditions stick, whether they end up winning the auction or not.
Step 3: Google stops bidding, and Verizon outbids them. From Google's perspective, they have what they came for, and actually buying the spectrum isn't relevant.
The confusion is that apparently the auction is sufficiently arcane that Google had to keep the bidding up themselves to get the price above the reserve price (the auction didn't start at the reserve price), but that once it got there Verizon did in fact outbid them.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
The price that Verizon can charge consumers in the marketplace is not related to the price that they paid for the spectrum. It's a competitive consumer marketplace.
Most services Verizon offers aren't really in competitive markets. If they were, their costs would be the largest factor in the prices they charge.
Monopolies and oligopolies are when the price charged for something is independent of the actual cost.
Well, I don't know a lot about the details, but it sounds like the idea is to make the wireless companies bid for the spectrum under the current conditions of sale.
I'm guessing (without reading TFA of course) that the scenario went like this. If the reserve price hadn't been met, then the carriers could say, "obviously this spectrum has no market value unless it is for creating a closed network." Then the FCC would declare the auction void and conduct a new auction under conditions more favorable to the carriers and less favorable to the public.
Is stopping that scenario evil? Well, if Google had won, they'd have to put their money where their mouth was and become a wireless carrier themselves. They were hoping the industry would rather let their customers choose the hardware they wanted to use in this spectrum rather than to invite Google in as a competitor.
So it's a win all around. Google keeps the spectrum open for its servies and for its android partners; users get more choice in hardware and services, and the current providers don't have to worry about Google doing to them what they'd planned to do to Google. It's not as lucrative for the carriers as they hoped, but that's what competition is for. They'll make at least a normal profit, but not as much more as they'd have liked, and the public gets better services.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
All companies are theoretically like that, since stock prices are based on the net present value of future dividends. CEOs only started being short sighted when stock options encouraged them to fool the market into overvaluing the shares in the short run, at the expense of the long run value of the company -- but the long run didn't matter since the options would be cashed in long before then. So companies would do things like cut back too far on R&D -- hurting the company in the long run, but boosting short term profits and, because traders were assuming the increased profitability was permanent, boosting the stock price as well. Basically it was a way for CEOs to use their options to scam the shareholders.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Yes. However, it should be noted that Google doesn't say that. They say they have a goal of "Do no evil", they have never, to the best of my knowledge, claimed that they never do.
Of course, that's a point in there favor. It's easier to trust a person who says they try not to sin than one who says they've never sinned. The first assertion is much more believable. The second one is probably lying.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Well unless we are talking about the devil, shouldn't "try not to do evil" be assumed?
I'd say that's true of individuals (people), but we're talking about corporations here. Corporations are legal entities, but they don't have a conscience. Many corporate boards (dare I say most) use only the law to determine if they should or shouldn't do something. If its not illegal, its fair game. Morals and ethics usually don't factor into their decisions, unless its specifically stated in their bylaws or policies.
Am I wrong?
But they DID want something. There were certain openness requirements that would only happen if the bidding moved past the $4.6 billion threshold.
In effect Google was saying "we want the block to pass the $4.6 billion mark so badly that we'll pay it ourselves if we need to"
Once bidding had passed that mark, they didn't really care if they or someone else footed the final bill. The thing they wanted had come true.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
Now if it was $10/phone unlimited, then I could see how you may say it is competitive. It's competitive with other carriers.
Basically the marginal price is more connected to what people will pay for a service, and less what it actually costs to provide that service.
There isn't enough competition in the wireless market to drive the price down to the marginal cost of delivery, unfortunately.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What I want to know is: why can't you "do no evil" AND turn a profit? It seems to be a very hard concept for a lot of people to wrap their heads around.
Verizon didn't need to keep bidding - they could have let Google have it at their last bid price.
I don't consider that a good thing. It won't cause the US government to take less of anybody's money, and it will make it easier for the US government to take actions which I consider wrong.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
This is getting a little out of context. When Google started saying "Don't be Evil (TM)" internally, it was pretty obvious to anyone in Silicon Valley what that meant. Don't Be Microsoft. More specifically, don't create artificial lock-in for their platform. And so, they don't. It was probably part of the original corporate philosophy that openness and trustworthiness* would allow them to create a product that (1) would succeed, and (2) a lock-in-obsessed competitor would be inherently unable to match.
Yahoo never really thought the same way; their philosophy was more like "Don't get crushed by Evil (with all due respect to Evil)". It didn't quite occur to them that doing the Internet the same way software was always done could be a weakness. They made/bought some good products, whored their brand out, and occasionally stumbled across openness and compatibility. It didn't have the same focus as explicitly stating that Microsoft's approach was the wrong way to do the Web.
[* "If I commit to your platform, how do I know you won't screw me later on?" If you're not locked into a system, you don't have to trust the provider nearly as much.]