Why Google Doesn't Need To Win the Bid To Win In January 96
explosivejared writes "TheStreet discusses Google's possible strategy options in the bid for the 700 mhz spectrum. The end goal of getting the government to put an open access stipulation on the spectrum, Google's end goal, is almost a given — in the author's opinion. At this point, he says, Google hardly even needs to win to 'win.' From the article: 'Rather than actually winning the auction, Google's participation is likely intended to secure what it sees as the real reward: ensuring that whoever ends up owning the spectrum allows the open access of applications and devices. Indeed, as long as this goal is met, it's hard to see why Google would want to take on the costly task of building and running its own network. But given how much is at stake when it comes to the mobile market, Google's vigilance is shrewd, even if it never planned to own the spectrum.'"
If nobody bids... (Score:2)
Re:If nobody bids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If nobody bids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-Do you really think the FCC is going to pump that money into tax refunds?
-Just where do you think the telco's going to get the money, anyway?
Google, at least, will bill their advertisers. That's who their real customer is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If nobody bids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it'll be used to justify a massively increased annual FCC budget which we'll still be paying 20 years down the road...
If the revenue from this sale were earmarked to subsidizing FTTC, it would make me happy.
Tax on innovation (Score:2)
I think it would be far better to open the spectrum up to anyone who wants to build a wireless mesh network open to all. The Telcos could charge for connecting t
Re:If nobody bids... Google .... (Score:1)
A: Yes (FCC/Congress), the tax refund is very important to maintaining the
_ USA wealth status quo of Corporate-welfare stud servicing (as the farmer
_ would say) the public real good.
What was good for the public in the 1960s
Folks need to accept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was reminded of the same famous quote by the great flaming bush POTUS
The Question was a previous post: "Do you really think the FCC is going to pump that money into tax refunds?"
Yes, I am always highly confused/surprised
!HAVEFUN!
Re: (Score:1)
God Damn!!!! "Huh" is putting it mildly
a hahaa hahah, no kidding!.... That_might have_be_en,,,, the worst syntax and punctuation____f_ck_up, yet scene..(.hereabouts. I got )a feeling a CT scan of that dude's brain might reveal actual physical proof of dyslexia wrapped inside of some sort of House of Mirrors___ shit_uation. On the bright side,
Folks,
the Shitty Sentence Contest is Over!!!! We Have a Winner!!!!!
Congratulations, (Wandering)Point Underscore_Dude!!!
In January Google becomes Self Aware? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In January Google becomes Self Aware? (Score:5, Funny)
Google will instead attack in the only way it can -- by making the top 1000 results for every search point to goatse.cx. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to click "I'm feeling lucky!" come January...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they buy commercially available satellite (or more often (in urban areas) airplane) photography on the open market. You can too if you are willing to cough up the cash.
Re: (Score:1)
NBC censors pro-troop ads (Score:1, Interesting)
They told me that if George W. Bush were reelected we'd see a sort of soft fascism in which corporate media would freeze out views that were politically uncongenial. And they were right!
The ads are surprisingly benign and (one would think) non-controversial. They literally say "Thank You" to the troops and "Happy Holidays". Neither ad takes a pro- or anti-war stance, merely a "support the troops" position. Which is
Re: (Score:2)
And "Support the troops" conveys such vital information the uninformed populace needs. Oh, the humanity.
How can we get the word out the troops need support? Perhaps we could tie it into a message that points out the unsupported troops were sent into a sovereign nation with a deliberately false pretext of military urgency, then prevented from do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed.
I'm going to go to hell for saying this but... I actually do have a problem with that message.
Don't get me wrong - I am grateful to our troops. They pay the price for the freedom we enjoy. I have no illusions there, and I'm grateful.
But in the present day, our leaders have sent them to fight a war that is of our making, and was not our business to get involved in. I don't have a problem with thanking the troops. I have a huge problem with the implied endorsement that message has, that we are in
Not a Google Fanboy (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the article, I agree that is one of the shrewdest business moves I've seen (that wasn't underhanded, repressive, bookcooking, etc.). They're getting essentially who will be their competition with Android to fund the infrastructure on which Android will make money. All the while the consumer is starting to benefit like crazy from the atmosphere of competition.
It's times like these that almost make you want see some good in the world. Yeah, but then another wiki scandal or RIAA atrocity will pop up on the firehose to dampen then mood.
Business (Score:2)
But barring pragmatism, somebody disrupting the market by implementing WiMax in major cities would be great.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - Open handsets means no more lock-in (revenue loss for carriers) and handsets become cheaper.
2 - No lock-in reduces wireless carriers to common carrier status, effectively, allowing for wider provision of wireless data services... AND
3 - Carriers will be looking to replace lost revenues as airtime is further comoditized. This may come as a form of wireless broadband access, driving carriers further into the digital networks services arena. Read this as getting the new Razor 3000ip Yahoo! service from Verizon, or perhaps the NoDRM Earthlink Freedom plan with a Nokia handset from AT&T. Or even the 12Gauge ESPN Sports plan from Sprint, with free ESPN handset.
4 - Enhanced choices will instigate further A&M in telecommunications as they fight to get customers on the quadracular or pentacular service plans. The entire thing based on selling ad clients air time on your cell, home phone, television, radio, home entertainment, fridge, car entertainment, and perhaps even your dogs remote finger collar service. While Verizon has a head start with tons of bandwidth to the house to provision all those services, the others are soon to follow. For more information on this, find stories in the way back machine about dark fiber being bought up.
5 - If legislation in North America allows joe bloggs to build and sell handsets, the number of wireless applications could possibly explode, but that greatly depends on UI and functionality. Not something that current clamshell handsets are very good at.
Either way, it looks like the real winner will be the consumer... Thank you Google
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
1. When every service and product on Earth is given away for free to support advertising, I wonder what will be left to advertise...
2. Mr. Albert Einstein, when practicing ancient science, disagrees with your sig.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Albert Einstein, when practicing ancient science, disagrees with your sig.
Mr. Garry Wallace, aka Anthony Michael Hall, also disagrees, at least when practicing weird science.
At least that's how we weigh in in my neighbourhood.
Hmm, Kelly LeBrock....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your never gonna get a decent SLA with an ad supported services, if your paying you can expect and demand a higher class of service and better support.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What google really wants, or rather, fears... (Score:1)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ [fourmilab.ch]
A scenario whereby Verizon, Comcast, AT & T, et. al. have a shakedown-type operation, if you don't want your customers delayed getting to google, pay extra. The cartel of ISPs collude (or, if no collusion/conspiracy, they all just come to the same conclusion as to what strategy they should pursue) to bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you got that fortune cookie too?
Re: (Score:1)
It only takes one company willing to stick their neck out to throw a massive wrench in the best of plans.
Of course, I don't seen any of the current potential bidders taking many, if any, risks with this, but there are other companies out there who might be willing to risk a bid, if only to to cause chaos and confusion.
Sounds like Cringely from months ago (Score:2)
Are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Third??? (Score:2)
Wikipedia says that there are already nine [wikipedia.org]tier 1 providers. So you must mean something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Before all of the Google skeptics come out... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can complain about their purchase of YouTube, their ads in the sidebar for google.com, GMail's vulnerabilities, trying to capitalize on a wireless spectrum auction, etc. etc. etc...
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google. The fact is, yes - they *are* a for-profit company. BUT, that doesn't mean they are evil. Everyone has to make money, and making a sh*tload of money isn't so bad if you think about it, either. You just have to keep your morals and business ethics in check while you do so.
AFAIK, Google has done that thus far. Nobody pays to upload to YT, text-ads in google.com are completely unintrusive by design, all manmade software has vulnerabilities at one point or another, and...well I sure would love to make a lot of money, too. Doesn't mean you have to sell your soul to do it.
Re:Before all of the Google skeptics come out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why thankyou, gracious sir..
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google
I find it disturbing that so many define their relationship with companies in the IT world in terms of hatred (whether lack of or intensity of). Ever really hated? I have, its something of an extreme potition that does not, as a rule, provide comfort in the long term. The most I could ever feel towards an IT company is irritation, and my most extreme reaction would be abandonment of their product. I wouldn't waste the effort to go beyond that.
The fact is, yes - they *are* a for-profit company. BUT, that doesn't mean they are evil
There you go again. Evil? Define it, go on. Does *not* being for profit make you automatically good? (which you infer by your feeling the need to defend it) I has a doubt on that count. Unpleasant behaviour is more often inspired by status and power than money. You can get status or power by working in a charity shop or volunteering at a hospital.
Everyone has to make money, and making a sh*tload of money isn't so bad if you think about it, either
A meaningless statement. The mix of barstards and nice people among those I know is pretty much independant of fiscal status. Getting rich won't make you bad, nor will being poor. Wanting to be rich and acheiving it, while likely to inspire envy and adverse comment, is not as likely to change fundamental character traits as people think.
You just have to keep your morals and business ethics in check while you do so.
Do you? Sounds great, but lets be honest, to succeed you need to be a bit evil. Nice people get bulldozed aside. OK I don't mean it's ok to be a complete asshole, but predatory tendancies are an essential trait for success, or you'll never make it, even if all you do with it is defend yourself from the people who'll take what you have given half a chance. I have a friend who is a great bloke, nice to his customers, and going places. He's got a certain predatory side to him though, it's easy to spot, but you wouldn't want to cross him in business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that "nice" does not mean "naive", or "trusting". It just means honestly wanting to do what's best for everyone, not just yourself. And it is not only possible to do that in business, I would argue it is ultimately
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do not have to destroy your opponents to succeed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not Monsanto.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google.
The Google business model is to gather as much information as possible about people on the Internet and then sell it to marketing companies and governments. Google has given information on individuals (normally dissidents) to totalitarian governments, who then used that information to imprison and kill them.
Basically, Google is a massive advertising company whose job it is to help other people sell you shit by telling them personal information about you. I don't really see why I should *LIKE* such an outfi
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see proof of this...
Why not bid to win? (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of analysts are certain Google's not bidding to win, just to make sure they hit the reserve price and ensure openness provisions kick in. Everybody's sure Google doesn't want to be a network operator.
And they may well be right on that count -- but who says they don't want to be a network *architect*? Google has, as TFA points out, $13b in cash. They could easily afford the final sticker price on the licenses, then lease the spectrum to players who have to play on *precisely* their terms (which probably entails not just open access, but a dumb pipe -- just providing bandwidth, instead of mobile phone service.) That pushes the buildout cost away from GOOG, but still might allow for a hellacious ROI.
I can't take credit for these insights/speculations myself -- check out Harold Feld's take [wetmachine.com] and a great deal more detail.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with the Feld/MAP analysis: Google will build the architecture, then get a bunch of also-rans to actually sell the service on to end-users. This situation is analogous to the previous ISP golden age, back when the power of AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe w
Re: (Score:2)
1] These are practically a license to print money. Buy the spectrum, then license it out to third parties, and make money without a costly network build-out or much of any other activity, really.
2] Use the frequencies as leverage to get the people you license (for $$$) to use it to play ball on your terms.
The question I'm wondering is...
What would it cost if you wanted a good chance at winning ALL of the spectrum? And how many years would it take to break ev
Re: (Score:2)
Bid and win enough licenses to prevent the other players from being able to assemble a national network, without dealing with Google for the missing pieces. At which point they can negotiate their terms. Could be a play for long-term influence over the cellular industry in the US. Which would totally play into Google's long term strategy, since they are planning to push mobile specific services, advertising, etc.
Printer Friendly links are obnoxious (Score:2)
Re:Printer Friendly links are obnoxious (Score:5, Insightful)
Please continue to link to print pages for multiple-page stories.
Another idea for corporations (Score:2)
Re:2.4 Ghz (Score:1)
Add Net Neutrality to the mix. (Score:5, Interesting)
If memory serves me, wasn't Google buying up gobs and gobs of dark fiber networks? If this is the case, then couldn't they light the fiber, using it as a backbone, and use the wireless spectrum for the endpoints - creating a massive Googlenet?
Now, add the much talked about gPhone and Google's demonstrated desire to offer free WiFi and you have a very enticing way to attract customers - which is really what Google wants...more eyes on more advertisements.
Either way, it is a win-win-win situation for Google.
I think it is for navigation. (Score:2)
Navigation and search go hand and hand.
I see this being more for search and teaming up with the car makers. Forget DVD updates and all that mess. Not only that but it could monitor where you drive at all times. Not for spying "But but it could be used for that" but for routing.
By seeing how local people get from point a to point b Google can find the optimum routes. Then you add in real time traffic monitoring based on vehicle speed an locatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine a device like AppleTV that uses this spectrum to provide a WiMax like connection. As a bonus you can get broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger Players? (Score:1)
Google Will Own Spectrum (Score:2)
Google Intends to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I think they will bid, and it will be a very serious bid meant on winning. And after they win and build the network out no other provider will be able to go against network neutrality as if they do Google will run ads about switching to Google Internet for unrestricted internet. Not only that but they will likely drive the price of mobile internet down such that everyone can afford it, something they VERY much want (think google maps and search for local businesses, competition against the local yellow pages). Think about cheap unlimited mobile Internet that just happens to be google based and serves advertisements based on where you are. Imagine driving by a store and having your phone pop up and advertisement (to that store) for a product you were searching for on the Internet earlier along with a map of the store to show you where it is in the store and how much it costs.
I think it would be crazy for them NOT to make a serious bid and win.
Re: (Score:2)
In many areas existing cell phone providers have to put in more towers than needed for coverage just so that they can run everything at reduced power and get less interference.
If you have 22MHz in bandwidth, and split it up among 1000 users, now each have 22KHz of bandwidth - which is probably marginal for voice (I am not an expert). If you have 100,000 users each wo
building a network is hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if there is one thing Google doesn't know how to do, its build networks with lots of computers and network them together.
loss (Score:2)
In case the details of Auction 73 are a mystery .. (Score:3, Informative)
Google what? (Score:1)