Slashdot Log In
Google Confirms Intent To Bid for 700MHz Spectrum
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:01 PM
from the now-maybe-we-move-to-one-standard-yes dept.
from the now-maybe-we-move-to-one-standard-yes dept.
narramissic writes "Today Google put an end to the 'will they or won't they' debate with the announcement that the company intends to join in the bidding for 700MHz wireless spectrum in late January. 'We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are,' Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and CEO, said in a statement. 'Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world. No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Apple and Google Are Telecom's Newest Stars 35 comments
In looking back at 2007, CNet views the smash entrance of Google and Apple onto the telecom stage as a major formative factor for 2008's tech scene. Google in particular is going to be a huge factor in the much-anticipated wireless auction. "Google was instrumental in getting the FCC to adopt auction rules that would ultimately give consumers more choice in the devices they use on these new networks. And in November, Google CEO Eric Schmidt committed the company to bidding in the auction, promising to spend at least $4.6 billion on licenses. Exactly what Google plans to do with the spectrum if it wins licenses is still unknown. But its participation raises the stakes, especially for traditional telephony players."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Must have missed that debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I never saw any sound evidence put forth that they wouldn't bid on this spectrum. As far as I was concerned this was a sure thing. Here's to hoping they win the auction!
Re:Must have missed that debate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? What is the worst thing that could happen? If AT&T wins? When have they ever been against innovation?
Against? Maybe not against, really, but arguably rather indifferent towards innovation. See, the problem is that the company we now call AT&T is not the same one that operated the giant phone monopoly in the US up to 1984. The current AT&T was called SBC until two years ago, when it bought the burned out husk of the old AT&T (which had sold off most of its parts already) and adopted the name. The parts of the old AT&T that were actually innovative (e.g. Bell Labs, Olivetti & Oracle Rese
Still Undecided (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still Undecided (Score:5, Insightful)
It really just comes down to viewpoint. If you like finding things for yourself and don't want anyone telling you anything about where and how to spend your money then google is "evil." If you like having them point out deals and lead you to companies that are selling what you want (similar to an errand boy doing some of your shopping and looking around for you) then they're "good."
The only potentially frightening thing about google is the power they have if some of their information gets into the wrong hands (i.e. Government Subpoena).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They still make me nervous, but I believe they do a better job of being ethical than some of the other guys.
Bob Marley said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is on fire now, and as far as the market is concerned, can do no wrong. There will not be any future time where Google will be able to put together the sort of money needed to make these types of investments.
But that doesn't mean they will succeed in their wireless plans. As cool as they are, the wireless spectrum is a well established area with not only wireless carriers already bumping against each other for more elbow room but also broadcast radio and television conglomerates. Google can't play David successfully forever. They may have done a great job on the web where they led the technology, but here they will be following and a look at their online office suite, it is clear that they are poor followers.
Re:Bob Marley said it best (Score:5, Interesting)
They have no wireless plans, it's all about the oldest fact of life in the book: Whoever controls the most territory wins. Google may develop a product or two, but the idea is that they will rent the 'land', and let people build on it. And in this kind of game, the guys with the best implementation, the best business plan, the best technological expertise, the best of breed software, and the best ideas will be able to use this spectrum to it's fullest extent. This is why I'm hoping Google gets the spectrum.
It's better than what the others will do. They will get the spectrum, they will define the protocols, they will build the chips and the antennas to interact with it, the software that can be deployed on it, the people they will allow to access it, all at 500% markup and no guarantee that everything is best of breed and a product of a free-market. Look at the history of Sprint, Qualcomm, Motorola, and the others, and you'll see what I mean.
~Sticky
/Looking to lease a piece of the spectrum to build dream house....
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
1) The current/established players aren't very keen on change. They know how to do what they do (wring money out of customers, haha) and they do it very well. Even when they do "try" to roll out something new, they are like the music/movie industry, they only half-ass it because they try to shoehorn their existing/old business models into it...resulting in a giant flop...resulting in them becoming even codgier and more se
Help with the Wikipedia Article? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could someone help please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_Mhz_wireless_spectrum_auction [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately there are many parts of it that I still don't understand.
* It seems that it comes with several 22Mhz blocks. '
* Are they saying the actual 22mhz band or are they saying the first 22mhz of the 700 mhz band
* Rules specify that it's split in four major areas, southeast, northeast, etc, what does this mean?
* What four original restrictions did google want on auction? Which two were granted?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, think about it. If it were the 22MHz band, then (a) we wouldn't be referring to this auction as being 700MHz spectrum, (b) we'd be looking at mobile phones with very long antennas and (c) the amount of bandwidth available would be somewhat unimpressive.
It means that the auction for spectrum in the southe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few more questions:
* The FCC set a 4.6 Bln limit on the auction, if it did not reach the limit the restrictions would go away. Is this for each of the regional areas or is it 4.6 for all of them.
* Google is exptected to bid 4.6 B on the auction, Did they indicate if they would lean on certain areas more than the others?
* Thus it's still possible for google to bid more on certain regions, less on other regions. This could mean that someone else who bids more on the southeast would get the spectrum i
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've heard, the FCC would not have auctioned the spectrum off if the $4.6bn minimum wouldn't have been reached. Google's two rules seem to have been established as an exchange for bidding $4.6bn.
* Th
Re: (Score:2)
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_factsheet&id=73 [fcc.gov]
Google is supposedly after Block C, which is 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz, for a total of 22Mhz.
700MHz auction details. (Score:3, Informative)
I'd start more here [fcc.gov].
There are six 22MHz blocks in the 700MHz band up for auction. Each bidder bids on one or more 22MHz blocks. Note that the blocks are assigned for different purposes and larger and smaller geographic areas. Block C, for example is for regional uses, and therefore there will be several license winners for that particular 22MHz block, each winner coming away with a region. Block D is a nationwide license, so one winner gets use of that 22MHz block throughout the United States. Overal
CORRECTION. (Score:3, Informative)
There are six blocks, two 12MHz, one 22MHz, one 6 MHz and one 10MHz.
Oh If Only (Score:3, Informative)
Some other
Re:Oh If Only (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
On the other hand... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the end, 5 bidders bidding will probably jack the price up to higher than 2 bidders.
And who in the end pays that price in some form or another? Yup, us.
So while I am all for increased competition, and so far google hasn't passed on too many costs to us (I assume it gets passed on the the advertisers)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a private sector company. The only way they get your money is if they use said spectrum with some amazingly cool widget or service that you're willing to spring for it. Otherwise they lose out and that's just tough. So they're really motivated to make such widgets and services that will bring you enough benefit that you'll pay the premium. So *IF* you pay for it, it'll be a good thing.
Gotcha (Score:5, Insightful)
700MHz? (Score:2)
Re:700MHz? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is. Part of the switch over to digital involves moving TV channels using the higher numbered channels to lower numbered channels, so that this spectrum can be made available.
There's oodles of TV spectrum available in part because there's never been enough interest in terrestrial broadcasting, and also because every single TV station in the US has been allocated two channels, one for their existing analog service, and one for the digital replacement. Once the analog spectrum goes away, 50% of the TV spectrum currently in use will become available.
One interesting oddity is that digital channels have "soft" numbers from an end-user point of view rather than being tied to the frequency they're allocated. For example, CBS broadcasts on channel 12 in analog here but digitally on channel 13, but both are numbered "12" on the TV. So TV channels broadcasting on the frequencies being removed may continue to appear in the same place on your "dial" even though those actual frequencies aren't even available any more, let alone in use. (This is by design, the aim being to help make the switchover as smooth as possible.)
Parent
Exactly (Score:2)
What, you thought the government was pushing HDTV just so you'd have a sharper picture?
Translation (Score:2)
"We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are," Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and CEO, said in a statement.
"We believe it's important to develop new sources of revenue wherever we can to keep the stockholders happy," Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman and CEO, said in a statement.
"Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world. No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by making a sick amount of profit they can build and deploy a wireless service that is better, cheaper, and faster than any available from current suppliers - more power to them.
I'm more and more convinced ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think "Gootopia" is what you're getting at, as "Gutopia" would be pronounced "gut-opia."
However, if Google were to undertake such a project with the assistance of Richard Stallman, "GNUtopia" might be more appropriate.
great strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
Google has nothing to lose and everything to gain--it's an auction for crying out loud. If they lose the auction, they win by pushing the telcos inline with the gphone alliance. If they win, well, they have bandwidth for an internal company network and a R&D network (think beta apps FTW!). Problem is they can not provide free [produc
That's what I call overclocking! (Score:3, Funny)
This is good news + google is smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The good news is that Google will make all cellphones better if they get into the race. The reason? Openness. From the beginning of time it seems the US carriers have locked down there phones so you can't do things like load MP3 songs and java applets to them without buying them online. They have the java networking locked down so you cannot connect to everything or use regular sockets (IE not web).
Right now companies like Verizon are panicking and racing to open there networks (IE http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=2552 [phonescoop.com]), if google gets spectrum it will be good for all because google will have lots of cool applications and programs on there phones, and the other carriers to even compete will have to open up there phones for development to everyone.
Also the 700mhz spectrum is a great place to be for a new network as you can get better coverage and need less cell density when your starting out.
-M
Announcement Timing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I got an email in gmail from a friend the other day which said simply:
Hey everphilski, give me a call, john. 123-456-787.
The textual advertisements were for colon cleansing.
Not exactly pleasant or relevant. Unless they figured we were gay or something
Re: (Score:2)
As if the viewer were the customer in this transaction and those `few commercials' an unavoidable nuisance to both viewers and broadcaster, when the fact is of course that the advertisers are the customer and the viewers are the product. It seems to me a similar misunderstanding is all too prevalent with respect to google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed, most sites have become Advertising agents, deriving their revenue almost exclusively from adverts. I personally would like to see a shift toward a pay-for-service model where I could avoid all the advertising. I go to web sites to find information, not to be bombarded with flash-driven crap hawking things I wouldn't buy in a million years. If Google wanted me to pay $10 a month so I could do searches and use Gmail and all their other tools without the constant Madison Ave pitch,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
innovative technology company (Score:2)
They simply pay the bills with their advertising revenue.
Re:PRINCIPLES? (Score:5, Insightful)
First and foremost, they provide you with the best search results, and have done so for years, for free.
They provide an outstanding email system, with now 5GB of free space and growing, for free.
They provide one of the most amazing mapping systems ever, continually adding new, cutting edge features, for free, both on the web, on your phone and in Google Earth.
They provide office collaboration online apps in Google Docs (which I use almost every day with friends spread out across the globe), for free.
They provide a really great photo organizing software (Picasa) and even some space on their site to upload pictures to, for free.
They provide a place to share gigabytes of video with everyone on earth in Google Video and YouTube, for free.
And we're merely scratching the surface.
And you're going to try and reduce them to the level of "Madison Avenue hucksters"?
Oh, that's right, they developed a cutting edge advertising system that provides context-sensitive, extremely-low-key advertisements in an un-annoying way, and a backend system that allows any size company to competitively bid for ad placement in this system at a reasonable rate.
You're right, Google sucks, man! Fight the power!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Excuse me while I go check my gmail and upload last weekend's pictures to Picasa...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have been building Enterprise Google search appliances from as long as I can remember.
I think they're actually good at large scale projects, from search technologies to e-mail.
I don't know enough of their 'plan' to call it a mistake or such and I don't think you can safely say that right now either.
Re:Why do they need wireless? (Score:5, Informative)
Offer residential broadband-to-700mhz VoIP routers to customers who would, in turn, become cellular access points.
Just food for thought (there's a lot standing in the way of something like this). It would be nice to have privately-licensed spectrum available to the public because then we wouldn't be limited to 100 milliwatts.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging buy their current model (Transparency for end users, but get lots of income from companies that advertise through them) I would pose the option that what they are making is ad based. Otherwise, they would have to charge the consumers, which woul
Re:Principles? (Score:5, Funny)
I also have to mention that I have used the power of Linux and Open Source Software to solve this problem, but to no avail. I have written lengthy Bash scripts, tweaked my configuration files and even recompiled my kernel but this seems to be one area where the power of Linux and Open Source Software cannot help.
I would try Windows, but it does not have the power of Linux and Open Source Software, instead it is for the sheep who piss all over my toilet walls.
I mentioned Linux, can someone mod me up, please?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cue Massive DROP in Stock Price.... (Score:2)
Of course we all know that "logic" no longer controls the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me sum up the business plan of Google, cause it's a variation of one that has been used for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years:
1. Buy large tract of undeveloped land in an area that is incredibly congested.
2.