Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Microsoft Hustling Us With 'White Spaces'? (wired.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the reading-between-the-channels dept.

rgh02 writes: Microsoft recently announced their plan to deploy unused television airwaves to solve the digital divide in America. And while the media painted this effort as a noble one, at Backchannel, Susan Crawford reveals the truth: "Microsoft's plans aren't really about consumer internet access, don't actually focus on rural areas, and aren't targeted at the US -- except for political purposes." So what is Microsoft really up to?
The article's author believes Microsoft's real game is "to be the soup-to-nuts provider of Internet of Things devices, software, and consulting services to zillions of local and national governments around the world. Need to use energy more efficiently, manage your traffic lights, target preventative maintenance, and optimize your public transport -- but you're a local government with limited resources and competence? Call Microsoft."

The article argues Microsoft wants to bypass mobile data carriers who "will want a pound of flesh -- a percentage -- in exchange for shipping data generated by Microsoft devices from Point A to Point B... [I]n many places, they are the only ones allowed to use airwave frequencies -- spectrum -- under licenses from local governments for which they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars."

31 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Evil MS by avandesande · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wants to undercut mobile data providers so municipalities can save money. Evil!

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Evil MS by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The old TV spectrum is extremely valuable because the lower the frequency, the better the radio wave propagation at a given transmission power. That makes it ideal for low power devices like sensor networks, automated meter reading, and portables.

      The trade off is that because propagation is good you need to manage it carefully, because one device hogging a frequency blocks other devices in a wide area. For things like sensors and meter reading that's no problem, as they tend to transmit very small amounts of data anyway. A few bytes an hour, or even a month for something like an electricity meter.

      Not sure it's a good idea putting it in the hands of a corporation like Microsoft.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Evil MS by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More unlicensed spectrum would be good from everyone except the telcos. It would spur innovation, cut costs, and provide no specific benefit to Microsoft. Microsoft is a small participant in the IoT market, and they have a poor track record outside their dominant markets. Google and Amazon will benefit from this much more than Microsoft.

      Microsoft is doing a Good Thing here.

    3. Re:Evil MS by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not sure it's a good idea putting it in the hands of a corporation like Microsoft.

      That is not what is being proposed here. The spectrum would be unlicensed. Microsoft could use it, but so could anyone else, similar to how anyone can use 2.4GHz.

    4. Re: Evil MS by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      They want to become a carrier of their own. Why use a carrier if you can be a monopoly in the business.

    5. Re: Evil MS by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Me: Evry1 actually works with everyone else, so shove it, but what do I know, I'm just a pusher space robot, PAK CHOOIE UNF!

    6. Re:Evil MS by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And that's what makes it such a bad idea.

      If you think open spectrum is such a bad idea, they why do you use technology based on it, such as Wifi? Why don't you use a closed spectrum proprietary solution that is "better"? Perhaps because they suck, are expensive, and mostly no longer exist (because they sucked)?

      We already have a ton of problems with the 2.4GHZ spectrum because devices don't play well with each other.

      The solution to that is MORE open spectrum, rather than cramming everything into 2.4GHz. The UHF spectrum would be perfect for things like sensors and other IoT devices where range and battery life is more important than bandwidth.

  2. And? by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

    The article argues Microsoft wants to bypass mobile data carriers who "will want a pound of flesh -- a percentage -- in exchange for shipping data generated by Microsoft devices from Point A to Point B... [I]n many places, they are the only ones allowed to use airwave frequencies -- spectrum -- under licenses from local governments for which they have paid hundreds of millions of dollars."

    Oh no! Bypassing monopolies and disintermediating middlemen?! The horror...

    1. Re:And? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Good news! A new monopoly player wants to take over from old monopoly players.
      I just don't see how this will help anybody but the monopolists.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:And? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Good news! A new monopoly player wants to take over from old monopoly players.
      I just don't see how this will help anybody but the monopolists

      Pray tell, what is the new monopoly? The article says that the white spaces exceptions would be unlicensed spectrum. The article also says that Microsoft is pushing for a regulatory market that will encourage manufacturers to mass produce appropriate chipsets. Did Microsoft start manufacturing wireless chipsets suddenly?

    3. Re:And? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is a monopoly (certified by Federal court). It has used it's monopoly position in computer software to take over additional markets. No reason to believe they won't try the same thing here.
      (Microsoft has been able to establish a monopoly in "open" markets. You don't need regulatory mandates to establish a monopoly.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:And? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is a monopoly (certified by Federal court).

      In 1999. Hardly a "new monopoly player," even ignoring developments in the last 18 years.

      It has used it's monopoly position in computer software to take over additional markets. No reason to believe they won't try the same thing here.
      (Microsoft has been able to establish a monopoly in "open" markets. You don't need regulatory mandates to establish a monopoly.)

      Name one. Hint: it's not servers, internet browsers, gaming consoles, or phone operating systems.

  3. Good news by sphealey · · Score: 4, Funny

    - - - - - The article's author believes Microsoft's real game is "to be the soup-to-nuts provider of Internet of Things devices, software, and consulting services to zillions of local and national governments around the world - - - - -

    That's good news: the so-called "internet of things" needed to be knocked back 20 years until society can get a handle on security and accountability. Microsoft is just the organization to provide the necessary retrograde motion.

  4. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Notorious rent-seeker complains about high rent...

    So rather than having any sort of principled position against rent-seeking, you're fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like.

    Way to be part of the problem...

  5. Mobile and Microsoft by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft hasn't had a successful entry into a new market since..what? The xbox? Their mobile efforts have not only been disasters, they've been repeated and predictable disasters.

    They've got their core markets ( desktop, server/services, gaming ), and are arguably "improving" them successfully ( with some serious mis steps along the way ), but I just don't see how anyone can think they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat here.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by kronix1986 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You forgot cloud platforms. Office 365 is #1 in cloud "productivity" and Azure is #2 in cloud hosting.

    2. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Microsoft hasn't had a successful entry into a new market since..what? The xbox? Their mobile efforts have not only been disasters, they've been repeated and predictable disasters. They've got their core markets ( desktop, server/services, gaming ), and are arguably "improving" them successfully ( with some serious mis steps along the way ), but I just don't see how anyone can think they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat here.

      MS has leverage.

    3. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      A fair point.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is what was said when MSFT came out with WinCE and WinPhone...how did that work out for them? The sad part is having used all three major OSes I'd say WinPhone should have the second if not the first place if you based it on actual ease of use and giving control to the end user but the network effect went against MSFT showing that having the best product doesn't mean its gonna win.

      MSFT simply does not have a good track record on making inroads into areas that aren't directly connected to their core strengths of Windows, Office, and Xbox and I've seen nothing to make me believe this will change anytime soon under Nutella.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by avandesande · · Score: 1

      No it isn't, fuckwad!!!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:Mobile and Microsoft by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Decades ago people said M$ main aim was to become a corporate tax parasite, taxing all transactions whilst providing next to nothing. It seems they were correct. M$ is pretty bad at supply product and better at marketing and lobbying and maximising gain from a monopoly. They seem to have a real deep seated problem with arrogance, their customers will do what M$ says and not the other way around, this seems to bring their new products undone and the xbone is now losing more and more market share to playstation.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Way to make completely unfounded accusations and do nothing but bitch about it anonymously.

  7. Re:Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook and Google will be buying up all the tabs and newlines.

    Well, shit. How am I going to program in my favorite language any longer then?

  8. Smart market to get into by rbrander · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once they become, not just a "product" but a whole "ecosystem" of products for municipal governments, they will never have more loyal, nay, slavishly devoted customers. I just finished 30 years with a local government. I was in the water department, which had its own budget for a little of the early-PC era, when they were considered toys. I watched the IT department take over that end.

    I watched with my bewilderment gradually exceeding my disgust as the same bunch that clung bitterly to their IBM mainframe environment long after it was obviously obsolete, jumped eagerly into the arms of Microsoft, glad to have new Masters that would tell them their strategy and what to buy. Once they paid attention to the formerly-hated PCs at all, they ensured the fewest-possible vendors in the "environment" by going MS with *everything* that MS sold. Macs were quickly eliminated, then competing software, anywhere that MS had an offering. It wasn't just the office products and all the development tools, dutifully switching from VB to .Net to C# when MS told them to: it was how they became MS salesmen themselves 5 minutes after leaving the sales meeting.

    Nothing was ever even discussed in terms of "choices" or selections, things like OLE and MSN and IE and Silverlight were just enthusiastically described as the obvious future, the only road forward.

    So I can't recommend strongly enough to MS shareholders that you get your company installed in local governments everywhere. They're big enough to buy lots of product, and not courageous enough to try anything else. Out in the service-providing departments, customers that are paying for all this, can come forward with obviously-superior products at lower prices, and IT will blandly mouth words about "Total Cost of Ownership", and "Integration with other products" without doing a cost-study, and never look into them. Why would they? MS will be the obvious Road Ahead, onward to the 22nd century.

    1. Re:Smart market to get into by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do realize that Microsoft brings huge value to enterprises by simplifying the support requirements for a computing environment right? They are popular because of the easy to setup and maintain not because "the wimpy IT and business leaders want a master". FFS, IT departments would be enormous if they had to support a huge heterogeneous set of end point technologies as well as bespoke solutions that required maintenance....let alone the necessary expertise to maintain such systems from a feature set perspective and a security perspective.

    2. Re:Smart market to get into by rbrander · · Score: 1

      They bring huge value to the IT department, yes, but the IT department is 5% of the municipal government corporation. At only 5%, IT could run 20% cheaper, and still only chop 1% from the corporate budget.

      Meanwhile, their convenience is costing time and money for the customer-serving departments. You could prove this if you tried both products and compared the results, but that was never even permitted. MS was a "strategy", a word meaning "not subject to cost/benefit analysis" and their products were never tested against competitors after the "Strategy" was announced by IT in 1994. Also, we cancelled any number of projects that could have been done with a few hundred lines of Perl cgi-bin script, after the IT estimate for an MS development solution was $50K and more; they had like 10 years to pay back at that price. I know they could have been solved with a few days of Perl, because that's exactly what I did, later on, quietly. They're all running well 10 years later, maintained by engineers. If we'd done them with MS, it would have cost $50K every five years, two more times by now, because that's how often MS changes development languages, and IT always insist that everybody must then pay for a rewrite.

      So, no, I don't believe you when you talk about all this huge value from the One BIg Vendor strategy. It's also got huge NEGATIVE values that only the end-users are around to see.

      A "heterogenous environment", as IT likes to call it, is indeed more expensive than a monolith in some ways, enough to compensate for their higher prices - but not enough to compensate for the many lost opportunities to all the other departments because the products are not an optimal match, or the difficulty of development is high enough that some things are not done at all.

  9. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by Noishkel · · Score: 2

    The data cap is too damn high!

  10. Re: HomeKit by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Shit, almost missed the sarcasm.

  11. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by davesays · · Score: 1
    Apologies for the re-post, I forgot I had not logged in this morning: Well, I did find your post amusing. Mine was limited pointing out the irony of a monopolistic rent-seeker bitching about the very practice that is their bread and butter. You assert that I have no position on rent seeking; then you counter your own unfounded assertion with another - that I am "fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like." I will skip the long and obvious rant about why I think rent-seeking is bad, because it has been articulated far better by others. I can, definitively, say both of your unfounded assumptions about me are quite wrong.

    Way to be part of the problem...

    I have to say this caught me off guard as I was unaware of a single thing I might say in a Slashdot post that would change the terrible behavior of both tech companies, and large carriers. You seem to have a pretty good idea what that post would be. I look forward to reading your world-changing post.

  12. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Mine was limited pointing out the irony of a monopolistic rent-seeker bitching about the very practice that is their bread and butter.

    No, yours was lead off with "Boo F-ing Hoo," which also indicates that one vehemently does not care.

    You assert that I have no position on rent seeking.... I can, definitively, say both of your unfounded assumptions about me are quite wrong

    Yes, you have a position on rent seeking -- a shit position. I asserted that you have no principled position on rent seeking, which is something that your title displays for all to see.

    then you counter your own unfounded assertion with another - that I am "fine with it as long as it injures someone or something that you don't like."

    My foundation is your own words, which your title displays for all to see.

    I have to say this caught me off guard as I was unaware of a single thing I might say in a Slashdot post that would change the terrible behavior of both tech companies, and large carriers.

    You didn't seem to feel that such a high-minded threshold for action was necessary when you dumped on an attempt to create unlicensed white spaces data transmission technology and regulations by engaging in a corporation-targeting analog of an ad hominem attack, did you?

    You seem to have a pretty good idea what that post would be. I look forward to reading your world-changing post.

    This weekend's contribution to world-changing is shaming your shit post, not dancing for you on command.

  13. Re:Boo F-ing Hoo by davesays · · Score: 1

    You normally sound like a rational guy, so as much as I feel like you're trolling me, you probably just completely misunderstood my post. "Boo F-ing Hoo" does indicate a lack of caring. For what? A monopolistic rent-seeker getting burned by their own SOP. *That is the entirety of the post.* There is no commentary, real or imagined, about my position on anything else. Which does not mean I don't have one, just that it was not part of this discussion. Until you manufactured a supposed position for me then accused me of shitposting based on that.