Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Businesses Google The Internet

Google Confirms Intent To Bid for 700MHz Spectrum 115

Posted by Zonk 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Confirms Intent To Bid for 700MHz Spectrum More

Google Confirms Intent To Bid for 700MHz Spectrum

Comments Filter:

  • Must have missed that debate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by explosivejared ( 1186049 ) <hagan@jared.gmail@com> on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:05PM (#21534189)
    ...put an end to the 'will they or won't they' debate...

    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: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've never seen any sound evidence put forth that Google aren't building a moon base. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's a sure thing! Here's to hoping they make good use of all that lunar land.

  • Still Undecided (Score:5, Interesting)

    by immcintosh ( 1089551 ) <slashdot&ianmcintosh,org> on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:05PM (#21534191) Homepage
    I'm still undecided whether Google as a whole genuinely are agents of good in the corporate world or if it's just the spin they're clever at putting on things, but if the latter is the case... then damn they're good.

    • Re:Still Undecided (Score:5, Insightful)

      by physicsboy500 ( 645835 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:16PM (#21534387)
      It honestly depends on your definition of good and evil. They are a corporation founded upon bringing information to you be it ads or otherwise. They make their money off of insane amounts of ad revenue so in that sense they're "bad," but at the same time, they do make very sure to only bring things to you that you may be interested in and this careful filtering is "good."

      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).

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by leoxx ( 992 )
      Corporations are fundamentally amoral, their only concern is to make a profit, ostensibly without breaking the laws of the countries they operate in. Once they are huge and dominant in their field, the need for continual growth means they have to begin looking at ways around traditional limitations, which is what often leads them into trouble.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Stewie241 ( 1035724 )
        Except that Google has decided to be bound not just to the laws of the countries they operate in, but have also claimed and I believe attempted to operate to a higher standard. At least in some matters they ask themselves not only is something legal, but is it right.

        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)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:08PM (#21534237)
    Strike while the iron is hot.

    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)

      by StickyWidget ( 741415 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @02:14PM (#21535353)
      What wireless plans? Seriously, this is the modern equivalent of a land grab, buy up the largest tract of contiguous land you can, and sit on it until people come along and ask to use it for something. Google is buying the spectrum to let people come and make money using it. Sound familiar? Kinda like building a search engine and a fantastic intelligent ad system so that marketers can come and make money using it? And because they own it, they can charge a small fee('rent') to those who want to use the spectrum. Large amount of users, equals large amount of fees, which equals smaller fees for users and large profits for Google.

      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....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tacvek ( 948259 )
        Well actually Google would be best off not to use the spectrum at all. Instead rent it to telecoms, who would provide wireless broadband services. See the current problem is that there is virtually no competition in the wireless broadband arena. The spectrum is owned by the very companies that use it, so it is not in their interest to allow competition on their part of the spectrum. On the other hand, there are so few chunks of spectrum that no real competition can emerge. If Google were to run this well,

        • For example, phone lines should not be owned by the phone companies, but a separate company who has a strong interest in having phone/data services available at minimal cost.
          Indeed. The fact that the telecom companies provide both infrastructure AND service is arguably an artifact of the 130+ year old analog phone system, where "service" consisted of nothing more than continuous voltage on a copper loop.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by zerkon ( 838861 )
          This could arguably be an excellent test case for Google's "principles". If they do win the spectrum, how well they handle it and how open they make could really show us if they're willing to put their money where their mouth is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suggsjc ( 726146 )
      I don't disagree with you one bit. But I think Google has two things going for it.

      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

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by 1310nm ( 687270 )
      I figured you meant the soldering iron. Imagine all the mobile handset companies with resistors in hand waiting to see the outcome of the auction. Is it really going to be for mobile networking, or a way to overcome the CLEC's last mile networks to the home? Longer waves ~700MHz are going to have longer reach than the current >2GHz frequencies my CDMA phone uses.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tieTYT ( 989034 )
      Even if Google is unsuccessful, it will scare the pants off of the other cell phone companies until Google actually fails. The result of that will force them to come up with some innovation to compete and that will benefit the consumer. Even if this turns out to not be a win for Google, it'll be a win for us.
    • They don't need to play David. Look at the amount of consumer unrest with wireless carriers in the media (and online)recently. This is especially the case for cell data access and "hidden" surcharges that cell companies feel it's their right to charge. If google wins the bidding and can come out with something even remotely competitive, there are a lot of people who will hop on that bandwagon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by devjj ( 956776 ) *
      Google hasn't been David for a long time. Google is a Goliath, although - to date - not a particularly evil one.

    • 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.

      Put together?
      Google is sitting on billions.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=google+sec+exemption [google.com]

      Around August 2006, they had to ask the SEC for an exemption from being considered an investment company because they had >40% of their assets either tied up in securities or cash.

  • Help with the Wikipedia Article? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AchiIIe ( 974900 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:13PM (#21534325)
    Some time ago I started an article on wikipedia regarding the auction. It has not progressed much.

    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?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AchiIIe ( 974900 )
        Thanks!
        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)

          by nirnaeth ( 117870 )
          Ars Technica has rather exhaustive coverage of the auction. You can start here [arstechnica.com] and work your way back, they've gone over everything you've asked about in previous articles.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by darthflo ( 1095225 )

          * 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.

          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.

          * 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?

          * Th

        • * This has been referred to as "beachfront property" in terms of spectrum, why is that?
          From what little I understand, this is the soon-to-be-re-purposed TV spectrum, which happens to be fantastic at penetrating walls.

          The QOS on this spectrum is going to make slogans like "more bars in more places" seem downright antiquitated in comparison.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I didn't read about this (doesn't really concern me here in Europe).
      As far as I understand, the auction is for 22MHz channels on the 700MHz band.
      So they will be selling a channel from 700MHz to 722MHz, then 723MHz to 745MHz and so forth (and back).
      I don't know how many channels are for sale and how much should be the guard band (the gap between channels) for these frequencies (don't feel like googling).
      But I guess this is pretty much enough to understand...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zach978 ( 98911 )
      Take a look at this page:
      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.

    • 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

  • Oh If Only (Score:3, Informative)

    by mpapet ( 761907 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:14PM (#21534349) Homepage
    Having had only a tiny glimpse into the world of government contracting, I find it impossible to believe it will all come down to the price Google pays.

    Some other /.'ers with contracting experience will probably back me up when I claim the price offered (or paid in this case) has nothing to do with winning a contract.
  • Think of it like an auction. The more people competing, the higher the price goes. You add in all the reports that estimate where a company will bid, then another company tops that, then another tops that....

    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)

      by magarity ( 164372 )
      And who in the end pays that price in some form or another? Yup, us.
       
      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.

  • Why do they need wireless? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What does Google plan to do with this spectrum? Is the end result for themselves or for consumers? If consumers, will it be ad based, or cheap and flooded with Google-ads? And if free to connect, how much will the hardware cost? Or, does Google plan to enter the cellphone market like every other provider, screwing users with 3 year contracts?

    Google is not a hardware company. They should stick to what they are good at, which is being an ad distributer. I believe this is a big mistake they are making.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Why do they need wireless? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:25PM (#21534555)
      What does Google plan to do with this spectrum?

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by um_atrain ( 810963 )
        Right, like Google is going to pay 4.7 billion just to be nice and give free access to all. I don't think so. There must be some business model behind their decision. This is Google, they may not be evil, but they are still a business, and need to make money.

        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: (Score:1)

        by randyjg ( 443274 )
        Good question.

        More important question. Are they acting on behalf of a third party (say, a foreign telecomm) that would normally not be allowed to bid, or at least would generate serious public debate.

        For example, Google is getting their butt kicked up around their ears in China by Baidu. I wonder if, say, a government sponsored access to the market along, say, the Yangtse tiver might be worth trading some spectrum rights in the US for. After all, what investor want to see is growth in market share, and Goo

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dbdweeb ( 598548 )

      Google's success is due in large part to their hardware prowess - the Google infrastructure is world class... 500,000+ servers running Linux, MySQL, etc.

      Apple wasn't a music distribution company but now they own the market and Tower Records is shrinking dramatically.

      OHA will do to the phone companies what the PC did to the mainframe and the VAX. Without government intervention, inexpensive open systems and open markets drive out expensive closed systems and closed markets. To paraphrase Clinton, "It's t

  • Gotcha (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neuromancer2701 ( 875843 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:24PM (#21534523) Homepage
    The key here is that they have got the wireless companies where they want them even if they don't win the auction. If the other companies knew that Google was not going to bid on it then they would just wait for it expired and be put up without the requirements. Now Google assures themselves an open network even if they don't win because the other companies have to follow the requirements.
  • I thought 700MHz was somewhere in the television broadcast band?
  • It's very simple.

    1. Buy the spectrum at 699.9 MHz.

    2. Buy the spectrum at 700.1 MHz.

    3. Put Seattle garage band music on both bands and bleed it to the edge ...

    5. Profit!

  • "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)

      by binaryspiral ( 784263 )
      I'm not opposed to companies making money by any means, but let's at least be honest with ourselves that Google isn't doing this out of a sense of altruism.

      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.

      • But even if they don't really pull it off, and they just end up being a slightly-above-average provider with slightly-less annoying service, I'm sure the public will continue to feel warm and fuzzy about Google because it seems that they've reached the much sought after "we can do no wrong" status. Maybe that's because they've led a good company and provide excellent products. Or maybe it's because even if Google does invade our privacy and uses our information to make massive profits without continually i
    • It's likely a little bit of both, Google seems to be run by people with enough imagination to see places where the public interest and their interests as a corporation can match up nicely. There are plenty of ways to make decent profits that don't require screwing over your customers as much as you can get away with.

    • "but let's at least be honest with ourselves that Google isn't doing this out of a sense of altruism"

      So what? Since when does the intention of the actor impact the result? Isn't it better than it was? Do you see latent downsides that are hiding in the FCC's rules and Google's bid that overwhelm the positive rules that Google has pushed?

      Contrary to what seems to be the anti-capitalism** mindset around here, a company can pursue profits in a manner that creates long-term value for all stakeholders and

  • I'm more and more convinced ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ubrgeek ( 679399 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:38PM (#21534751)
    ... That google's purchase in the near future will be for a substantial plot of land (I'm talking miles by miles.) Their actions kind of remind me of Walt Disney's original plan for EPCOT - He wanted it to be the perfect '50s neighborhood (the Leave-it-to-Beaver kind, not necessarily realty.) They're looking at wireless, data centers, power/electrical considerations, gathering information on public transportation (google.com/transit). I don't know. Such a diverse set of items - some without direct revenue generation potential in the near future - is just strange. An attempt at a Utopia project (dear Lord, if it happens, don't "Gutopia") might not be realistic, but it's the only thing my (very) limited imagination can come up with...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by imageek ( 160806 )
      "An attempt at a Utopia project (dear Lord, if it happens, don't "Gutopia")..."

      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)

    by recharged95 ( 782975 )
    Sure, I can bid too if I had the deposit amount. And if I don't win, I don't waste any money aside from upfront fees. This is a great strategy to keep the telcos in check.

    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

  • Step 1: Buy Google Stock.
    Step 2: Wait for Google to Announce intent to Bid
    Step 3: Sit on Google stock
    Step 4: Sell Google stock after successful acquisition of 700 MHz Spectrum
    Step 5: Profit!!

    ~Sticky
    /You think it's funny, but isn't this what you should be doing?
    //Currently on Step Dumb@ss: Kick self for not buying Google stock last week.

    • They have a decent core ad revenue buisness but they are just THROWING their money away at things that they know nothing about and have no buisness plan for. Investors are going to get tired of it. If Google just starts tossing money out "for their principles" with even LESS chance of recouping it than in previsous fruitless ventures, people will simpley stop giving them any more money. Stock price /could/ severely DROP if they go through with this...

      Of course we all know that "logic" no longer controls the

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by StickyWidget ( 741415 )
        Let's say that I were to acquire a square mile of undeveloped land in downtown Manhattan, and I have no freaking clue what to do with it. Does that make me an idiot? NO. I will have people hammering down my door with ideas on how to use it, and will be able to make money without a problem.

        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.

      • Google has some of the top engineers in the country. I suspect they know a thing or two about what they're doing.

  • That's what I call overclocking! (Score:3, Funny)

    by giafly ( 926567 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @02:08PM (#21535245)
    I've got a 3.5 MHz Spectrum [wikipedia.org] in the attic if they want that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Surt ( 22457 )
      Commenting on your sig:
      Did you hit calculate on every page? I also happened to get exactly 0.59 (well, 0.586), which made me suspicious, and caused me to discover that you have to hit the calculate button on every page in order not to get that apparent default.

      Also, that page is pretty heavily biased. A lot of things they are calculating on are absolutely not settled science. The 'secondary' footprint page is particularly bad.

      Still, if you're really at 0.59, that's pretty impressive. You don't drive, an

  • This is good news + google is smart (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mycal ( 135781 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @02:17PM (#21535391) Journal

    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)

    by CopaceticOpus ( 965603 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @02:19PM (#21535419)
    Google chose to announce this on a Friday to piss off Robert Cringely, who now has to wait an entire week to write wild speculations about Google's plans.
  • personally I think they should name it googleherz.

  • cynical ain't ya? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yodleboy ( 982200 )
    corporations are bad! money is bad! spectrum is bad! it's nice to know there are so many self-employed philanthropists on /. would you guys get together in utopia and bid on this for the benefit of all mankind? please?
    dunno, i'm willing to give google a chance on this one. there's NO WAY they can be as inept, immoral, incompetent and possibly inbred as the rest of the mobile carriers in the U.S.
  • How does another deep pocket company joining a bidding war going to be good for consumers? Ultimately this will just drive the price of the spectrum up- the cost of which will ultimately need to be passed on to someone.. (perhaps the consumer?) This does nothing to help the consumer, it only gives google more leverage.
  • ..that Google also bids on the Canadian spectrum too. The monopolistic wireless carriers up here have formed a vicious cartel that has us paying a fortune in fees. Let's hope that Google brings some competition to the equation.

    It blows me away that a taxi driver in the Dominican Republic can afford a cell phone while hauling in $10 per day whereas a business user up here pays around that amount DAILY to simply use their phone.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Close