Google Pledging to Bid $4.6bn to Open Spectrum

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."

Familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, haven't I seen this somewhere before [slashdot.org]?

Re:Don't get it

[Wesley Felter]

There will probably be multiple winners, and Google wants the government to set the terms for all of the winners, including Google's competitors.

Re:Don't get it

[mr_matticus]

Google won't own the spectrum. They'll own the government license for the spectrum. They're still publicly owned airwaves, just privately operated.

Re:I'm not a Google Fanboy, but...

[kaiser423]

What do you mean "Oops"?

My initial post was about how hypocritical it was for the CTIA spokesperson to make that statement, and act like Google was doing something new, drastic, and evil, when in reality the people he represents would take the same steps that he so vigorously condemns.

I never said anything about this not fitting in with Google's business plan, or that they were being altruistic. Just that it seems like their plans are shaking things up a bit and scaring some of the typical teleco's.

Re:How does Google make money again?

[RudeIota]

Advertising. Google has been generating (very roughly) around $2,500,000,000+ in revenue each quarter and clears well over a 500,000,000. Most of this is generated through ads. Their Ad-sense program accounts for nearly half of all profit made by Google. The rest is 'site' revenues, which could be any number of things, but I'm sure ads play an important role here as well.

Re:+1 karma

[ajs]

It's not even a mission statement. It's a cute quip that got bandied about and became an "informal corporate motto".

If you're talking about the "don't be evil" line, then you're deeply wrong. That phrase has tremendous legal importance to Google because it appears in their S1. An S1 (AKA a "red herring") is the document you file with the SEC that tells investors what your company does and what risks it takes. If you say, "we sell bottled water, but only to the criminally insane," in your S1, then your investors know up-front what business they're getting into, and have no grounds to complain when you don't make as much money as someone selling water to the general public.

The broad disclaimer in Google's S1 which is further explained in terms of the potential for missed revenue is a legal tool which most other public corporations do not have. It allows them to make choices that favor ethics over profits in a way that other companies cannot (literally cannot, as they would be open to lawsuits from their shareholders for not maximizing profits). Other companies' only guideline for ethics is the law... poor yardstick though it is.

That's not to say that Google is guaranteed to uphold this phrase, or any given person's interpretation of it, but it gives them the option to be ethical in situations where most companies (public ones, anyway) have no option.