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."

6 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Google you just did evil by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Google you just did evil by Shishak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. Are you naive enough to believe that if Verizon Wireless paid less for the license they would drop the price to the consumer? The consumer will be charged, and will pay what the market will bear based on competition. This is not related to the license cost. If Verizon paid too much for the license and they can't make a return on their investment while still being competitive in the market then that is their problem. What Google did was feint competition to keep everyone honest with their bids.
      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
  2. Re:Smart Move? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:A little too altruistic by daveo0331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  4. Re:Smart Move? by PetiePooo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:Interesting by Snowmit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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