Google Set to Bid $4.6 Billion for Airwaves

Nrbelex writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Google has offered to bid at least $4.6 billion on wireless airwaves being auctioned off by the federal government, as long as certain conditions are met. 'The Internet search company wants the Federal Communications Commission to mandate that any winners lease a certain portion of the airwaves to other companies seeking to offer high-speed Internet and other services. Such a provision, Google argues, will give consumers — who traditionally get high-speed Internet access via cable or telephone lines — a third option for service.'" We discussed AT&T's objection to Google's acquisition of these airwaves last week; this article would seem to confirm Ma Bell's worst fears.

AT&T now supports open access for 700Mhz band

[RalphBNumbers]

Actually, as I submitted earlier today, AT&T has reversed it's previous stance, and broken ranks with the other major cellular providers, by endorsing FCC chairman Kevin Martin's plan to require open access to 22Mhz of the 60Mhz to be auctioned by the FCC in the 700Mhz band [rcrnews.com]. This statement prompted Verizon to reiterate their opposition to any open access requirements, and Google to state their wish that the entire 60Mhz be auctioned with open access requirements.

Open access rules would require the auction winner to allow any compatible device to connect to their networks on the effected spectrum.

Re:Explain this "innovation" to me...

[moderatorrater]

Google's trying to make it so that whoever gets the spectrum has a certain price they can't charge above for leasing the spectrum. As it stands now, whoever gets the spectrum can charge whatever they want, or just block someone completely. Right now, the entry barrier is so high that it's almost impossible for smaller companies to get any slice of the spectrum. If Google gets its way, the entry barrier will be much lower, but still there.

Re:Anyone entrenched in cable or land-line phone..

[ZDRuX]

Because companies like AT&T and Haliburton either are presently, or have been in the past run by people who were high up in the government tree at one point (or vice-versa). Dick Cheney left Haliburton in 2000 to become Goerge'e Bushes mate. It's not about companies, it's who runs them and who's connected.. they're all buddies and pals and I bet Google isn't friends with any of them and they're scared.

Re:AT&T now supports open access for 700Mhz ba

[LnxAddct]

Google's intentions here really are good. The theory is this: Decades ago, AT&T wouldn't let anyone plug anything other than AT&T devices into their lines. It wasn't until this restriction was lifted (which required quite a few years of effort) that fax machines, modems, and many other innovations were able to take place and develop without serious barriers. The wireless spectrum is currently in the same position that landlines were before. No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first. Google wants that lifted, and wants the control to be taken away from certain unnamed corporations who have proven they can't be trusted. Opening up the spectrum should enable innovations that aren't even "on the radar" yet. Yes I'm a Google engineer, no this isn't an official response or anything... just another /.er's point of view, but opening up the spectrum is a win for everyone no matter if the final solution is "perfect" or not.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Why open access?

[PPH]

I don't think open access equals free access. You can charge for the bandwidth, but not restrict access to a limited set of services. On the client end, as long as the client complies with your protocol specifications, there are no restrictions on the applications build on them.

Re:Why open access?

[tkrotchko]

Google wants it because their services are delivered via the last mile from Verion, Comcast, AT&T, and a few other that essentially controlling Google's destiny. It's related to network neutrality, but only slightly.

Ultimately Google knows that a handful of ISPs control the entire consumer network, and they're trying to poke holes in it to give themselves and others a shot at competing.

Re:The cash offer is just a PR stunt.

[FreeKill]

The article says that they offered the 4.6 Billion as a first offer because the FCC has said that they need to meet 4.6 at least. This is basically saying, no matter what, you will meet your minimum, so how about considering some of our stipulations because of the nice thing we did just there...

Re:Explain this "innovation" to me...

[Dhalka226]

I though the US had Local Loop Unbundling? Or is the FCC not in the habit of enforcing a competitive market?

Well, the fact that AT&T has basically reassembled itself after being broken up a few decades ago should be proof enough that no, they're not in the habit of enforcing a competitive market.

However yes, at the moment we still have local loop unbundling and a number of other things that allow some competition over phone lines. It's why you can get your DSL from companies like Earthlink instead of your phone company. That is not true of wireless. Nor, by recent FCC decision, will it be the case for fiber lines, which is why the phone companies are suddenly so gung-ho on building out their fiber networks when they sat on their hands for years. It's also undoubtedly why so many of them are cutting your copper when they install fiber; with a quick snip, they eliminate all competition for Internet services on their lines.

The remaining competition for Internet access is via different media: Cable (which the cable companies need not share), and wireless/satellite, which nobody needs to share. At least not yet.

Re:I'm not convinced

[644bd346996]

At the end of 2006, Google had about $11.2B cash on hand according to their 10K filings. As of the end of last March (after the BellSouth acquisition), AT&T reports $2.3B in "cash and cash equivalents", and only $24.5B in "total current assets". I'm no broker, but it sure looks to me like Google is in the same league as the telcos.

Re:Isn't it great

[mblase]

But of course, what you're buying is the legal rights to access the thing, not the thing itself. I can't buy a lake -- how do I intend to control what rain falls into it, or where the water flows out of it? -- but I can (and should, in any capitalist economy) be able to buy the right to boat on it, stock it with fish, swim in it, plant trees around it, and keep other individuals and businesses from emptying or polluting it.

Buying the right to use a portion of the EM spectrum is, fundamentally, no different than buying the right to control land, bodies of water, airspace, etc. It's only foolish if you look at it literally.