Slashdot Mirror
Google Nervous About Verizon's Open Access
Ian Lamont writes "Google is so worried about Verizon Wireless's commitment to open access using the 700Mhz spectrum that it has asked the FCC to get a pledge from Verizon that the carrier will honor the FCC's open-access conditions before the FCC sells it the band. Verizon won the auction for the nationwide C block of the 700MHz spectrum, but Google points to Verizon's alleged attempts to abandon the conditions, including a filing with the FCC which said the commission 'could not force the C block winner to allow all applications on the network.' Could this be another expanding front in the Net Neutrality battle, or is it time for the carriers to accept the fact that Net Neutrality is essentially a done deal, and carriers need to prepare for the next battle — developing software and services to run on open networks?" The IP Democracy blog has Google's filing (PDF) and the following comment from Verizon: "Google's filing has no legal standing."
No, I think they just want Verizon to play by the rules.
But if someone at the FCC that isnt retarded (I know its a long shot) decides that that may be a good idea, then they may decide to implement that stipulation.
In all honesty, I hope this turns into a bloody fight, I am not sure if Verizon wants to go at Google like this.
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
It would be wonderful if Net Neutrality is a "done deal". I am not quite so confident that it is over yet, but I can always hope.
Just get the FCC to state that if that block of spectrum is not open, Verizon loses the license, no money back.
The FCC doesn't know jack anymore.
Initially they were saying they wouldn't get the expected $4.7 billion in the auction. Instead, it got up to that amount on local regional licenses alone. The C block had two options, a regional option or a carrier could buy rights to the whole nation, whichever was bid higher would be the result.
If the FCC cared about the interests of the consumers, they would have opened up the C-block auction to non-incumbents only. This would have forced carriers to expand to areas they don't already cover, and increase competition.
Cross your fingers for whitespace devices.
Google bid up this spectrum on purpose so that it would have to be sold for a minimum price that came with strings attached, while it had no intention of buying or developing it. It is interesting that they chose to place the burden of developing and maintaining the network infrastructure on someone else while they wait to reap the benefits of universal access.
Consider a simple scenario - there is a nice lot on a lake, and if it sells for above certain amount, the buyer would have to provide right of way across his property. So, someone that has absolutely no intention of buying this property, but wants to get to walk across to the lake anytime (which he could not currently do as the property is not developed) bids it up until the price is right. You like the place and buy it anyway, but now you presumably have to let the other guy visit and hang around on your private beach whenever he likes. Wouldn't you try to either remove or limit such right of way from your property? Before you answer - think, be honest with yourself. I know I would.
So, back to this - Google did not pay for the spectrum and it lost it's rights of complaining. If they are so much for open access - they should have spent their money and provide such access to all. Put up or shut up.
It would be our job as geeks to verbally demolish Verizon's products using the spectrum if it doesn't follow the open access rules.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Does anything involving the FCC have legal standing?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
In most similar processes if they bid, and they "guess" wrong about the value of the item in question, they're on the hook for it. Google didn't guess wrong. How about this, it's a tricky concept, don't like the terms of some agreement? DON'T AGREE TO IT. I have no sympathy for people who make agreements they don't like when everything is clearly spelled out up front.
Your fallacious argument presumes that the spectrum lot as is isn't worth what the market forces, flawed as they are in deals of the magnitude, near what Verizon is on the hook for. Verizon could have walked away. Indeed, Google didn't even have the next to the last bid. Even were your presumptions to prove valid, which is a gigantic IF, then the specturm price was artificially low due the small numbers of players with the available capital and the great barriers for entry into the market creating "cartel" conditions. The addition of another player with available capital and a vested interest is more probably a result of market forces, that acts to the detrement of the ad hoc cartel. Market forces that dictate they GAMBLE with BILLIONS of shareholders dollars.
I'm with the previous poster. Verizon doesn't like it? Re-auction. Sorry shareholders, no refunds. Perhaps you should reevaluate who serves on the highly compensated board of directors. Next time, rejects from the used car lot are perhaps to be avoided. Its fine Verizon doesn't like the terms of their purchase, they're free to eat it and die, or eat it and live up to the terms of their agreement and prosper as they might.
I don't understand what is happening here. I remember google doing something back when the auction was going on to keep the spectrum open. I guess I didn't understand what that meant. Does google now want to control what verizon does on the network? Is the spectrum open or not?
I'm lost.
Oh... those sneaky bastards...
Regardless of your stance on Google, I for one am very happy they are on this case. I find it improbable that any other company would put up as much of a fight as they do.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
there is a nice lot on a lake, and if it sells for above certain amount, the buyer would have to provide right of way across his property.
There's this stuff called "spectrum" and it is not really "owned" by anyone. The government, acting on behalf of the people collectively, sells the rights to proscribed use of that spectrum in the interests of maximizing competition and creating the most benefit to citizens.
So, someone that has absolutely no intention of buying this property, but wants to get to walk across to the lake anytime (which he could not currently do as the property is not developed) bids it up until the price is right.
One of the many interested parties who wants to make use of that spectrum lobbies for certain restrictions to be put into place on the use of the spectrum. These restrictions work to the advantage of that interested party, but many other parties see this as broadly advantageous to competition. So this interested party's enlightened self-interest results in meaningful changes being injected into the bidding process.
You like the place and buy it anyway, but now you presumably have to let the other guy visit and hang around on your private beach whenever he likes. Wouldn't you try to either remove or limit such right of way from your property?
Knowing that these restrictions have been accepted as serving larger policy goals by the auctioning party, you bid for use of that portion of the spectrum. Again, you bid for it knowing that there would be restrictions on its use, because those restrictions had been placed there by the seller of the spectrum.
Because you won a bid for *use* of that portion of the spectrum, you do not own it. You have limited rights to use that portion of the spectrum to do particular things. In trying to renege on the terms under which you engaged in bidding, you are merely trying to assert more rights than you have purchased.
If you didn't want that other party to benefit, you shouldn't have bid, because you already knew they had the potential to benefit under the terms that governed the auction.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...have you ever tried to explain to and convince a complete non-geek of something inherently technical without them either perceiving you as a tin-foil hatted nut-job or simply giving up out of apathy?
To do this successfully, you have to be convincing and inspiring with words, able to explain technical facts with exactly the right choice of non-technical words to portray an precise understanding and able to keep your passion of the subject from becoming overbearing. Not many people are.
the telco's were terrifed of this sell off because it would challenge their hold on the last mile.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I'd trust the average five year-old over the average corporation any day.
At least most five year-olds aren't actively trying to fuck you over.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
It seems to be like those genie stories -- if you don't spell out your wish in such minute details as to make "misunderstanding" impossible, you won't get what you want. So Google forced FCC to spell out its wish but didn't provide enough details.
Frankly it's understandable -- if device that Verizon sells under its own brand can't do email from the beginning and is not available as a "standalone" product from phone manufacturer, you can't accuse Verizon of disabling the feature (not without defining a superset of all features that have to be available on all phones by default).
Thus "any application" rule automatically does not apply. It's the same as demanding Nokia to include in all its handsets special software for google mail (versus some limited pop3/imap reader).
After that, Verizon is also free to charge different rates based on if user has Verizon device or not. Buying device + plan = "discount". Buying third party "open" device + plan = quadrupled bill with less features.
Rules didn't state that certain features have to be available on all plans for the same price, did they? The [incredibly overpriced] choice will be there.
In the end, Google either had to make FCC to spell out more restrictions, or throw a heap of cash at the auction to actually win it, then spend years learning and building its own network. For now, bad genie may win.
Hyperom.com
I'm going to give you a beer if this auction sells for over $100. Just like Google, you have no intention of buying it, but you want the beer, so go ahead, bid $100 and wait for someone to outbid you and get a free beer. Maybe after this exercise you'll understand that when you bid up you can actually win the auction and be stuck with the goods. Google had balls.
Had Google won the auction, it would have been developed, either directly by Google or by one of the dozens of companies to which Google could have subcontracted. Nobody is going to piss away billions of dollars.
You know, the really reputable company, they would never cripple their products. I wonder what all the conflict is about this time. Surely theyd never back out of opening the spectrum.
I never was completely happy with the format of the auction in the first place. The auction allowed a single carrier to be the "winner" of the entire spectrum. This didn't do anything but guarantee a monopolistic situation. Verizon has a big advantage over everyone else due to the absolute control of this spectrum.
I also don't like the fact that Verizon uses CDMA since CDMA is not quite as open or as useful as GSM. In GSM devices, there's a SIM card. I can insert a company SIM card into any GSM device, and it's on there network. With CDMA, I have to bring my device to Verizon to setup. If Verizon claims my device isn't compatible with their network, I can't use that device.
I was not happy with Verizon as a winner. Like AT&T, they have monopolistic tendencies and use their built in land line base advantage to squeeze competitors. What could have been a world with dozens of carriers is quickly turning into a AT&T/Verizon duopoly.
Verizon just bought a multi-billion dollar milkshake. Google wants to use its several million dollar straw(s) to SUCK UP VERIZON's milkshake. Say it, Verizon: You make a false profit and closed-access is a superstition.
If you notice, the duopoly/monopoly is coming back in a big way. Besides Cellular service, look at Airline consolidation, and across other industries. Small competitors are disappearing in just about every industry.
I guess right now we are in a "business-friendly" period, which tends to translate to the customer getting screwed, paying more for less, which should actually be Verizon's motto.
A corporation is a legal fiction. It is really just a group of people. Says a lot about the people in charge, doesn't it?
"Google's filing has no legal standing." Whew, good thing the FCC is not a judicial body, but rather a legislature-appointed commission with loosely-defined and self-expanded powers of regulation over said wavelengths. If Google had filed in a court, I'd say there was no legal standing, since Google did not incur any damages and only a party who has been damaged can seek recourse in a court of equity. However, since the FCC is a regulatory agency, I'm pretty sure any citizen (or corporation) can lodge a complaint. Case in point, no one had to deal with anything "legal" related when George Carlin's "words you can't say on radio" was adopted as the official list of words you're not allowed to say after normal, average citizens complained to the FCC about hearing a rebroadcast of the routine on the radio. No one had "legal standing" after the famous Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction", but the FCC still acted on the complaints it received and levied some of the largest fines in broadcasting history. Verizon is not going to be able to run counter to the FCC's will without a protracted legal battle which would need to, at its heart, question the boundaries of the FCC's regulatory power.... Actually, that may not be such a bad thing.
Gee, that sure sounds like the government sold the companies the spectrum, and now the companies own it. (Litmus test: can the companies that won a bid on a spot sell it to third parties?)
Are you adequate?
Isn't the act of bidding, already a pledge in itself? Verizon knew the conditions, and elected to bid anyway. They've already agreed.
If they violate that term of the sale, it isn't any different from violating any other term of the sale, such as not paying. Should that happen, then the spectrum isn't theirs. FCC can thank them for their $4.7B donation, and no harm has been done, except for their frivolously delaying the sale of the spectrum, but the $4.7B donation is sufficient pennence for that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.