Slashdot Log In
Google Pledging to Bid $4.6bn to Open Spectrum
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jul 23, 2007 04:53 PM
from the monies-and-mouths dept.
from the monies-and-mouths dept.
csuftech writes "According to an article posted on vnunet, Google is pledging to bid at least $4.6bn for the FCC's upcoming auction of the 700MHz spectrum. However, Google would only be willing to pay said amount if the FCC agreed to a few conditions, namely, 'the wireless spectrum would allow consumers to download and use any software apps and content they want; allow handhelds to be used with any carrier; enable resellers to acquire wireless services at wholesale costs; and mandate that third parties such as ISPs interconnect at any point on the 700 megahertz band.' All this was disclosed in a letter [PDF] to FCC president Kevin Martin written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Familiar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Familiar (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
Yea, this reminds me of the guy form "Thank You For Smoking"
That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while. Wow. I guess this really is rocking the boat, and has a couple of carriers pretty scared.
Kudos to google, way to not be evil!
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that
Is it really that hard to imagine a situation where the regulations go in a different direction?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. It's pretty hard to imagine the FCC making any decision that doesn't involve the public getting screwed. History has taught us that they will accept restraints on freedom with alacrity, but will release those restraints only under force of law.
I'd
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The requirement that the highest bidder open part of their spectrum is not part of Google's business plan beyond the fact the open access is good for the net in general. That's why the claim is false.
2) Almost all of the tariffs in telco land are custom-fit goverment regulation tailored to their business plans. That makes the claim very hypocritical.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, it is not custom-fit to Google. It's a generic fit for a large number of people. There are plenty of other business plans that Google could implement that would be much less free, and would be a "custom-fit," such as requiring everything that any user or piece of software does be able to be indexed by Google.
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it would be better if the regulations were primarily concerned with the public interest, but if we don't have that, this is certainly a better alternative than how it would have played out had Google not gotten involved.
government regulations (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that /. likes the terms Google is trying to impose does nothing to change the fact that they're buying government regulation.
Google's plans for access to the airwaves is less of a regulation than regulating who can determine who and what can access the airwaves. These telcom insiders only want to prevent competition, whereas Google wants to introduce competition.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I've been saying that for years. Then I finally stopped, because it's been, up to this point, like waiting
Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a fine point but in addition opinions and controls over Google today don't have to be the same tomorrow. If they turn evil then we have some measured control we can exert. How effectively we exert it is a different question but theoretically they couldn't start dumping toxic waste into Seaworld so there is no point in fearing the impending apocalypse which involves my porn viewing habits being leaked to the press because I opposed legislation that Google later wanted. So far they seem to want to play nice. I say encourage this corporate attitude, embrace it! Ben and Jerry's was quite successful while holding onto corporate ethics, I see no reason why Google couldn't do the same thing.
The particular language Google wants added seems counter to their interests but creates a free market where you compete on quality of service which sounds good to me and sounds good for them given the nature of their products. It adds risk to the process but Google is acting as if it has nothing to fear from a little friendly competition and in reality, they don't. If only the big telecoms of the world would see this as a good thing. Unlike Sprint buying sprectrum and not even using it thus preventing others from using it.
+1 karma (Score:5, Insightful)
To preclude those decrying false philanthropy, yes, of course Google will benefit. There is, however, such a thing as a mutually beneficial agreement. And this really looks very nice from where I'm standing
Re:+1 karma (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact that statement doesn't even scan.
There are no free speech sites in China. There is no free speech in China.
Google can't censor someone's site.
What Google does is restricts their search results as per the guidelines of the Chinese government. They could have decided that the search results were too important to censor, but had they done that, the only difference would be that Google wouldn't be available at all in China. They're doing much more good by offering some service in China than they would be by offering none. If they had a better negotiating position, then I'd agree with you, but they literally had none.
Re:+1 karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. [google.com] Access to the 700 mhz spectrum is key to their ends. If they do not acquire it either outright or by leasing it from a third party, they will have failed in a major way. The argument for the rule change is insurance against that failure.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though the Google proposal is the only one that actually creates a level playing field for any concerned service providers. The prob
Excellent quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) has dismissed Martin's plan as "Silicon Valley welfare", claiming that it gives Google an unfair advantage.
John Walls, vice president of public affairs at the CTIA, said that the pledge re-affirms his organisation's belief that the proposed deal smacks of foul play.
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
-- end excerpt --
I think John Walls might want to add, "except Baby Bells of course." Its so not fair when a brand new billion dollar company gets into your game.
Not just Google (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish Slashdot paid more attention to wireless goings-on. For instance, just this week, Sprint announced it is forming a 20 year alliance with Clearwire. The two companies are rolling out WiMax phone and broadband services, and together spent billions to control spectrum that reaches nearly everyone in the U.S. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to lower their price to consumers because of open-access competition in the 700mhz band?
Robert X. Cringely's latest article is a good read, too. "When Elephants Dance: Get ready (finally) for faster Internet speeds at lower prices" [pbs.org]
I live in a rural place that is lucky to have one broadband provider, a cable company. (Nope, no DSL.) If open access succeeds, small wireless ISPs will sprout up in places like this, which big companies always seem to neglect. Those ISPs would be paying wholesale prices for their spectrum, too, so regional monopolies like my cable company will finally face some pressure to lower their prices, or else to compete on speed and service.
RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me, or (Score:5, Funny)
ATT: Cool... (Crap! I know we can't beat them with cash reserves so I'll bid high and force them to spend their fortune for it!)
*The very next day*
Auctioneer: Here we are with a block of airwaves. Starting bid.... One billion dollars....
ATT: $10 BILLION DOLLARS!!
Auctioneer: $10 billion is the current bid. Do I hear $11 billion dollars... Going once...
Google: *yawns*
Auctioneer: Going twice...
ATT: Hey wait a minute!
Auctioneer: Going three times! Sold to the gentleman from ATT for $10 billion dollars.
ATT: But! But! But!
Google: Hey ATT if you don't want those airwaves, give us call us after the opening bell after your quarterly reports and we'll talk.
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Single buyer ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't buy a cell phone that works in San Fran but not in New York.
In fact, you'd have a hard time getting me to buy ANYTHING that doesn't work country-wide, and I imagine that a lot of people feel the same.
Not to mention all the technical issues with interference near the boundaries, etc. It would just be a total mess for no verifiable gain, especially since there are a large number of frequencies which can do nearly the same things (though not identical) which renders your monopoly argument moot.