Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


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

Google Ready to Bid on 700 MHz 142

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the protecting-your-interests dept.
Seppanen Style writes "The 700MHz spectrum auction looks like it's going to be heated. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has all but confirmed that Google will make a play for the spectrum that will be on offer next January. 'In effect, this could give Google control of the entire pipe between customers and Google servers, a move that could be very good for business strategy, even if the wireless network is not a major profit center. Companies never like to be at the mercy of other companies, and Google is no exception.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Ready to Bid on 700 MHz More

Google Ready to Bid on 700 MHz

Comments Filter:

  • 700 MHz? (Score:5, Funny)

    by adnonsense ( 826530 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @04:52PM (#20323191) Homepage Journal
    I have one in my closet they can have. I'll even throw an extra 128MB of SDRAM!
  • Last big spectrum givawa^d^d^d^d^d^d^d auction I think most of the spectrum went for some sum just north of the cost of a large mocha. If the telco's get scared pissless from Google here we might just see a very heated auction rather than the collusion assgrab many of these things are in America.

    • What you mean we Kemosabe? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thesandbender ( 911391 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:28PM (#20323445)
      I consider myself a die hard republican and even I can recognize that we have a bunch of incompetent, self-serving grab asses in office. Given that this is the FCC this money should be put to opening a up public spectrum, researching lost cost internet or even contributing to NPR or PBS (yes... I'm a conservative who loves Nova, Frontline and All Things Considered). Instead it will be used to have a go at random super-bowl boobies and censor TV shows that are on when children should be in bed.

      Not that I want an Democratic administration to have the money either.

      Hmm... don't Australians have topless beach, beer, grilled shrimp and beer?
      • A true conservative would want the money to be used as a reason to cut taxes...
      • I live in Ontario, and we have topless everywhere (yes, it's legal for women to go topless whenever they want) and lots of good, Canadian beer. Not so much with the grilled shrimp, but we do have grilled steak. oh and our strippers take it all off too :D

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bombula ( 670389 )
        It's always hard to understand how intelligent, articulate, educated people can be right-of-center in terms of their values. Religion is almost always the explanation, being the card of unreason that trumps all other rationality. If you're not religious, then you're a genuine mystery to me. I'd love to hear some rational explanations for a right-of-center value system. They seem to be in very short supply.

        • It's always hard to understand how intelligent, articulate, educated people can be right-of-center in terms of their values.

          For most people, I don't think choosing political affiliation is a rational decision.I think it's usually a mix of tribal instinct and identity at work. So people vote the way their parents did, because they'd been brought up to believe that anything else was morally wrong. Or you get the ones who vote against what their parents vote out of adolescent rebellion. You get people who'

      • Hmm... don't Australians have topless beach, beer, grilled shrimp and beer?

        It's not against the law to go topless*, but that doesn't mean the chicks here do it too often (apart from breastfeeding). Beaches, we have lots of. Grilled shrimp, if that's your thing. Beer? Yeah, mate, we got beer. :)

        * Source: wiki. [wikipedia.org] For heavens' sake, they're only breasts anyway. See them on a regular basis and they aren't any more fun to look at than anywhere else on the female body (ie. still awesome but it's possible to look away ;).

        • For heavens' sake, they're only breasts anyway.
          Finally hit the acceptance stage of not gettin' any, eh? ;)
    • I don't know where you buy coffee, but the last auction (AWS, in summer 06) raised nearly $14 billion, which ain't exactly pocket change.
  • Does anyone know the specifics of what sort of limitations the FCC will put on the 700Mhz spectrum? Will they be able to transmit up to 15miles? Up to 100,000 watts? Something like that? Who is to say that the G people will be able to convince everyone in the US to use their pipes?
    • Is there off-the-shelf equipment for 700MHz? If not, then anyone buying a 700MHz solution will be locked in to that provider.

      Private spectrum is not really any different to any other kinds of lock-in.

      • Re:Does anyone know 2? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MorpheousMarty ( 1094907 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:42PM (#20323563)
        However this spectrum must be open in two key ways [slashdot.org]
        From the Summary

        This portion of the spectrum also happens to be the one with two open access conditions attached to its sale mandating that all devices be allowed to access the band and that all applications can be able to run across the network.
        This means that it may become the dominate frequency for off the shelf parts, since they know that no provider can actually keep their product off the market. Honestly you combine these rules with a device like the N95 or iPhone, add a little Skype, and what you get is Nerdvana, a network where you only pay for the pipe, but you can flush anything you want down it.

    • Re:Does anyone know? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @06:34PM (#20323971) Homepage Journal

      Who is to say that the G people will be able to convince everyone in the US to use their pipes?

      I've been thinking about this, and I don't think they need to convince anyone.

      I mean, yes, I'd expect them to use the wireless spectrum to give them a "last mile" connection to all that dark fiber they've been buying up. But I think they'll also hook it up to the conventional Internet, and keep it truly network neutral. Once that's in place, AT&T can packet shape youTube all they want; all that will happen is that the best route will be via Google's fiber and AT&T will lose money because they won't be peering so much data.

      If Google do this right, AT&T will have to stay network neutral just to stay in the game. It'll be typical Google; altruistic on the surface, with a business strategy behind it. It's going to be interesting to see how this issue develops :)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by cez ( 539085 )
        You're spot on, the spectrum is all about the last mile with enough of a backbone...choice! Can I have it? They will turn Net Neutrality against the bastards trying to squeeze.

  • Offtoic, sure... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by veganboyjosh ( 896761 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @04:58PM (#20323247)
    ...but this being slashdot, I rarely rtfa's. Are all of arstechnica's articles well laid out like that? I'm used to some other websites whose articles are 3 paragraphs spread out over 17 pages or the like. I got to the end of this one, expecting more article. Turns out it was the end of the thing.

    Kudos to them, I say.
    • Them and ZDNet do pretty good. You should check out the one from APC on Linus earlier.

      Topic On...

      with the amount of change amount to be thrown around for this spectrum, what I'm really wondering is the complete package to deployed over it. No one, to my knowledge, has yet to say what their plans, all-inclusive are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zakath ( 180357 )
      Ars' articles are normally well written and discussions (usually) have good signal:noise.
    • Ars is a good site.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jagdish ( 981925 )
      Funny you mention this. From their site:

      Ars Technica is one of the most advertising-light tech sites on the 'net (and we don't split up 500 word reviews over 5 pages, either).
    • Yes, Ars tends to have good content and a decent layout. Not all of their writers are the same quality, but they tend to range from good to excellent. John 'Hannibal' Stokes is worth reading on pretty much any topic, while some of the others I ignore unless they're writing on a topic that particularly interests me.
  • This major for Google, and thus major for the Telecoms.

    Google has many multiple billions in cash, and can always raise more.

    vs.

    The entire sucky telecom industry.

    Not only that, but Google ace is open-standards.

    May the best bidder win, and I hope it is open standards.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chyeld ( 713439 )
      Eff the best bidder, I've had SBC and AT&T and their ilk handling my telco needs all my life and I know exactly what I'd be getting with them being in control. A pile of useless crap, over priced and under maintained.

      May GOOGLE win it. Even if they do absolutely nothing with it and just sit around using the paperwork as toliet paper, it's a fair cry better than letting the rapidly reforming Mother Bell have a hand over it.

      Stuff like this makes me want to break out the Christmas fund and invest in Google

  • Looks like it's going to be heated (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:00PM (#20323265)
    I think the 2.4GHz spectrum is where all the heat is.

  • Google wireless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaeMaker ( 221642 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:00PM (#20323267) Homepage
    Here's what I want:

    $29.95/mo 3G wireless internet w/ basic voice plan.
    Free text. because paying for text when it costs the telco so little needs to stop.
    Bluetooth data access that actually works.

    If they can achieve that (by 2009, not too hard), the phone system is done.

    Only problem? the cell towers.

    • If they can achieve that (by 2009, not too hard), the phone system is done.

      Only problem? the cell towers.


      Once they have regulatory backing, cell towers are no biggie. Modern honeycomb towers are fairly inexpensive to build, and are also fairly unobtrusive -- all Google needs to do is lease a few million rooftops, which shouldn't be too difficult (especially if they throw in free access as a park).

      The hard part will be rural coverage.

      • The hard part will be rural coverage.

        If they build the container datacenters at the cross-connects of the dark fibre they own, as has been rumored, put the rural tower on that.

        Done.

        Google should hire us.

      • Leasing rooftops is hard (Score:5, Interesting)

        by wsanders ( 114993 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:37PM (#20323521) Homepage
        There are are more constraints to leasing rooftops than meets the eye. In most residential areas, Joe Blow can't lease his rooftop to a commercial entity without an insane amount of hoopla. Otherwise, all cell phone companies would have 100% coverage everywhere - and it's taken them years just to get to the 90-something percent coverage they have now.

        In my neighborhood, the Metricom wireless network of yore (fairly cheap flat-rate 50 - 100k service, ubiquitous in the SF Bay Area in the 90s) was not available in my town, because the NIMBYs wouldn't allow it. Lot's of other towns with the same bad attitude as mine.

        "Are you radio transmissions going to give my babies cancer?"

        "I dunno - now, how many packs a day do they smoke?"

      • Actually, it will be VERY difficult (Score:4, Interesting)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:43PM (#20323567) Journal
        The majority of those towers are owned by the telcos. Normally, the cross license their towers with each other. But they all want this 700 MHz and now Google is saying that they are going to make wireless be CHEAP. Think that they will be in the mood to share? I think not.
        • Can you say anti-trust lawsuit?

        • Re:Actually, it will be VERY difficult (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rk ( 6314 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @09:01PM (#20325285) Journal
          I'm not a Google fanboy, but if they want to raise a big middle finger to the collective telecom industry, then they can send me their wireless network hardware, some installation instructions, and I'll put it up on my roof myself. Who's with me? :-)

        • I am not sure about the characteristics of 700MHz communications, but it might be viable for Google to team up with one of the third party tower management firms, such as American Tower [americantower.com]. These guys own over 20K towers in the US, and lease access to broadcasters of all types. Some of their towers may already be located in the geographical areas that would be of interest to Google.

          I should also point out that some local governments (such as mine) have tower policies that require the owners to provide space

          • The other group would be the local municipalities. While the telco will fight it, I think that nearly ALL of the local municipalities will push to have Google put up their towers if it gives them cheap broadband in their cities.
      • The hard part will be rural coverage.

        Maybe....maybe not....

        http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/HighAlt [21stcenturyairships.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Here's what I want:

      Unlimited telephone calls for $10/month.

      There. I win.

      What's the point of your post? Are you the God of Telecommunications, so whatever you say goes? I don't understand what you want in a phone service and the price you're willing to pay has to do with the price of tea in China.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by amohat ( 88362 )
      I'll pay $50 a month for that. Or $75.

      Shit, I pay $100 for it now!

    • Re:Google wireless (Score:4, Funny)

      by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <(rustyp) (at) (freeshell.org)> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:56PM (#20323687) Homepage Journal
      Are we saying what we want for a $30 monthly fee?
      Here's what I want:

      $29.95/mo unlimited telepathy+teleportation

      If they can achieve that the phone system is done. So is the airline industry. Probably the education system as well.

      Only problem? We have no idea how to do it.

      OH! Forgot something. I'd also like a pony [i-want-a-pony.com].

    • That's interesting you would list those features... since Sprint's SERO (google it, wealth of information on http://www.slickdeals.net/ [slickdeals.net] http://www.fatwallet.com/ [fatwallet.com] http://www.howardforums.com/ [howardforums.com] provides just that kind of cellphone service for those who sign-up with Sprint's not so secret discount plan.

      My SERO Plan:
      $30/month
      Unlimited data, EVDO rev. 0, rev. A when it is out. (I bought the HTC Mogul)
      Unlimited text (promotion until 9/29, probably extended).
      500 minutes, 7PM nights & weekends
    • Close but not exact, this is what I get for 30/month:
      -500 anytime minutes
      -unlimited weekend/night starting from 7
      -unlimited calls to Sprint numbers
      -unlimited data
      -unlimited text

      Google SERO and Fatwallet for details. /posted from my Smartphone
  • Google is playing with the worst of the worst kind of competitor with the telcos and I doubt they have the finances much less the dirty tricks to pull it off.

    I'm very interested in hearing how others think it will play out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Last time I checked Google had a Market Cap of around 120 BILLION dollars...
      I think they have the money.

      • Re:I Bet Google Will Lose (Score:5, Informative)

        by Arabani ( 1127547 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:44PM (#20323581)
        If market cap was actually an indicator of potential success in the auction, Google would lose.

        The telecoms:
        AT&T: $242 billion
        Sprint: $53 billion
        Deutsche Telekom (they own T-Mobile): $79 billion
        Verizon: $121 billion

        Versus:
        Google: $160 billion

        Luckily, there's more to this game than pure market caps. Google is probably better able to raise cash, and may also have more cash on hand, than the telcoms. On the other hand, though, you have companies that have been around for a long time, and are fairly good at getting what they want. Regardless, I'm looking forward to the auction. A Google win would be awesome, but the actual event should turn out interesting as well.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          Why Google's market cap is bigger than all of them but AT&T? But my point is they are not too poor to be in the bidding.
        • If market cap was actually an indicator of potential success in the auction, Google would lose.

          But it's not that whoever has the biggest market cap wins... it's that whoever has sufficient money to bid may win. All of the named players seem likely to have sufficient money.

          Beyond that, Google's market cap is significantly less diluted than that of the others, IIRC. Which would mean they'd have an easier time reallocating that money.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tomy ( 34647 )
          Of course, this also assumes that it will be Google vs. the Telecoms. I can think of quite a few tech giants that might benefit from having this spectrum in the hands of someone other than the telecoms. MS, Intel, Cisco, Yahoo, etc. all would likely gain from having a neutral owner of this spectrum. Or better yet, have a consortium of tech companies purchase it.

          Of course, by the same token, all the last-milers [wikipedia.org] could see this as a major threat to their monopolies and also band together.

    • Google will win (Score:5, Interesting)

      by HaeMaker ( 221642 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:27PM (#20323437) Homepage
      They have the money to be the loss leader.

      They can go in and undercut everyone to bring some sanity to the cellphone market.

      Paying to text is absurd. Paying to send email is absurd.

      They will probably come in with some kind of deal where you pay for voice and everything else is free. Given their infrastructure, they can probably pull that off.

      If they go GSM with some advanced, high-speed data underneath. They will win, big time.

      Get the google quint-band phone with GSM (700Mhz, 850 MHz, 900Mhz, 1.8Ghz, 1.9Ghz), bluetooth, cameraphone with automatic youtube and picasa updates. Total market ownage.

      • Get the google quint-band phone with GSM (700Mhz, 850 MHz, 900Mhz, 1.8Ghz, 1.9Ghz), bluetooth, cameraphone with automatic youtube and picasa updates. Total market ownage.
        And it will run on Linux!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by b1ng0 ( 7449 )
        Let me correct that for you:
        Get the google quint-band iphone with GSM (700Mhz, 850 MHz, 900Mhz, 1.8Ghz, 1.9Ghz), bluetooth, cameraphone with automatic youtube and picasa updates.

        Eric Schmidt is on Apple's board of directors after all.
      • I doubt Google will buy the spectrum themselves (although I could be wrong), but what I do think likely is that they will make enough noise to make one of the other companies file a joint bid. Google doesn't need to own the infrastructure, but their business model relies on cheap bandwidth being available to consumers. The relationship between Google and the telcos is similar to the relationship between Microsoft and IBM in the '80s. It's in Google's best interests to see the products offered by the telc

    • For all their foibles, the telcos are regulated, at least in some sense of the word -- either by laws or by competition. Google doesn't like laws or competition. They'd love to acquire another monopoly they can leverage.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kelbear ( 870538 )
        Google is the one who made the minimum bid proposal of 4.6billion that got this auction reserve to be set at 4.6billion. And this proposal was on the stipulation that the winner would be required to lease out to competitors. Thus, competition. Even if Google wins. Even if Google loses.

        Google isn't worried about competition, they're worried about being locked out.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Seems sensible (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mike1024 ( 184871 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:15PM (#20323375)
    The fact that Google offered to make a $4.6 billion bid for the spectrum implies (1) Google has $4.6 billion in capital available, and (2) Google has a use for that spectrum.

    It seems reasonable to assume they would make a bid, even without the four openness rules - after all, if they win they can make their own openness rules, and if they don't win, it costs them nothing.

  • Secret phone recordings suggest that Royksopp [wikipedia.org] are also involved in some shady underhand negotiations for 700MHz

    (Phone rings) "Hello?"
    "Yeah it's me... I wanna give you some good frequencies; 1710, 2.6, 2245..."
    "Yeah"
    "3032, 700"
    (Surprised) "Seven hundred?!"
    "Yeah."
    "I'm coming right over."
    "Do that."
    "I'll be there in two seconds"

    (Later)

    "You bastard! You sold me 700 Terahertz!"
    "That'll teach you to be more careful with your units next time."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nuzak ( 959558 )
      > "You bastard! You sold me 700 Terahertz!"

      Yeah, but then they own the color purple. Take that, Alice Walker.
  • Do they accept paypal?

  • Bargaining position? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morissm ( 22885 ) <morissmNO@SPAMlexum.umontreal.ca> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @06:20PM (#20323861) Homepage
    I am not sure Google is really interested in winning the auction. Their play might be to put pressure on the telcos in order to strike an access deal with them.

    The telcos have something that Google wants: unfettered and maybe even exclusive access to their users. Telcos however are notorious for their habit of restricting their devices' access to services that net them more profit. Google knows that and knows that wireless devices may be tomorrow's prime mean of accessing the Internet. If this were to happen, search and content providers would have to strike very onerous deals with telcos in order to maintain access to their clientele.

    As a result, the FCC's decision not to require open access to the Internet for users of the 700Mhz spectrum threatens to put Google's future in the hands of the telcos.

    The menace to enter the telcos' market strenghtens Google's barganing position because
    a) Google has the money to make good on that threat and may chose to do so as a defensive measure
    b) the telcos need that spectrum a lot more than Google does.

    I wouldn't be surprised to hear in the coming months that Google has struck many major long term deals with several telcos and has finally decided to bow out of the auction.

    • Re:Bargaining position? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frenchy_2001 ( 659163 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @07:01PM (#20324231)
      That's where the fun is: They "win" without even paying a cent. They succeeded in adding the openness term to the auction. Now, they just need to place *ONE* minimal amount bid and look at the other players rip each other's throat to block them access to the airwaves. But, by placing the bet, they ensure that the openness clause will take effect

      In the end, they'll just have to put out a device on the standard.

      Now, they definitely could use that spectrum to actually create a last mile connection network. As they are rumored to already own a bunch of dark fiber, they would have a top to bottom network infrastructure. Enough to scare the telcos. Maybe Google will enter that market to ensure a free (as in unrestricted) connection to their customers. Maybe they'll just stick to online service and enter devices on a free network. The uncertainty will push the telcos to bid higher and they certainly don't have as much cash laying around as Google does...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jnnnnn ( 1079877 )
        I think it is time to stop using the word "free". Use "no cost" or "unrestricted" instead.

        At this rate, "free" will have about the same semantic content as "good".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by morissm ( 22885 )
        That's where the fun is: They "win" without even paying a cent. They succeeded in adding the openness term to the auction. Now, they just need to place *ONE* minimal amount bid and look at the other players rip each other's throat to block them access to the airwaves. But, by placing the bet, they ensure that the openness clause will take effect

        First, Google didn't get from the FCC what they really wanted: unfettered Internet access for the users of that Spectrum (see condition 3 of their open letter [google.com] which

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by GeckoX ( 259575 )
          Do you really think Google missed that point when that is the entire point? I suspect you're possibly missing something, and if not, one would have to assume that Google isn't actually intending on placing a bid, but is keeping quiet to attempt to game the telcos into future agreements with Google beforehand...who knows really though? What I do know is that Google is not stupid, and they most certainly understand what is going on and most certainly have a plan here.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mekane8 ( 729358 )
      interesting, but...

      I just signed up for a Verizon plan, which came with a free month of the premium services. Also known as: Web access, expensive video downloads and shitty resolutions, and actual use of the GPS which is there anyway.

      I've actually tried the web access, but quickly decided that the only reason I would use it is if I'm nowhere near a computer and feel like checking my email. In other words, wasting idle time. In fact the web experience has been so dismal that the only web pages I've visited

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bsims ( 895751 )
        I have a Sprint LG550... and my GPS works...

        I did have to call tech support to get the
        developer password for my phone... then a simple
        install of mgmaps from www.mgmaps.com and it
        Just Worked...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by morissm ( 22885 )
        Google's worry is not that Verizon will offer better services than them, just that Verizon will cut your access to Google altogether so that you will have no other choice but to use their "gimmicky" stuff.

        The terms they came up with were designed to mitigate that risk. I suspect that their promise to bid several bllions was just to get everybody's attention.
  • If i had to choose between Google and at&t, id choose google.

  • Companies never like to be at the mercy of other companies, and Google is no exception.

    In my experience companies are perfectly happy to be at the mercy of other companies. It's hardly unknown for a company to source software products from a single company, for example, with no easy migration path to any other product.

    Perhaps Google is the exception after all.

  • Is my guess at what the winning bid will be, and it's still chump change.

    It translates into roughly $280 per household, which translates into $23.33/month. Currently the exclusive iPhone/AT&T packages run $50+ per month.

    Quick ROI even at $28 Billion, methinks.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by 9Nails ( 634052 )
      Well, the 28B would buy them a frequency. But they'd still need to put towers out there to feed the network. I'd suppose that the towers run between $50k - $100K for each site and $500/month to lease the land. And I'd guess that they'd need 1 tower for each 1K of populous. All of my guesses there...

      So I can see that they would cover the cost of the frequency with your numbers. The bulk of the infrastructure investment could come from licenses to cell manufacturers, customers, and advertisers and pay off the
  • Telcos make money by charging a customer (you a corporation etc..) to access their network. I read here everyone saying "Google give me free wifi....". Sure they will... and how will Eric Schmidt recoup this $4.6B plus maintenance, plus deployment costs, plus support costs..... etc etc) investment? Do you really think that the idea of "If I give everyone free wifi, they'll automatically use my search engine, Gmail, more?"

    I forsee one day... a /. post/comment that complains "Google hasn't brought WIFI to
  • Google is using its network, including all that dark fiber it bought, and the new wireless spectrum, to make a new "phone company". That will include integrated email, video, social networks, maps and everything else Google offers. That's why it tried to force this 700MHz spectrum to be "all open", including requiring all mobile devices using it to be unlocked.
  • The current carrier lock on licensed bands is a terrible drain on the U.S. economy and stifling innovation to an absurd degree. If it weren't for the carrier attitudes, the U.S. would have a true mobile Internet, probably hundreds of thousands of additional jobs in mobile device and app development, and a plethora of devices and apps that would make the iPhone seem archaic. Google is finally a tech company financially large enough that it is getting hurt by essentially arch anti net neutrality in the mobile
  • Google is powerful, yes.

    But name the lawsuit that Google has for illegally wiretapping US citizens and giving control to the NSA.

    And name the shifty business practice Google has for overpriced services, fees for EVERYTHING (including disconnecting certain services), and...oh wait, what was that again? Secret wholesale of Teir 1 backbones.

    And name one horribly bad thing that Google has done in the name of user privacy. Name their practices with security, openness, and usability. Humor me by saying they charg

  • advertising (Score:4, Funny)

    by delvsional ( 745684 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @02:52AM (#20327427)

    Phone Rings

    Husband: Hey honey, What do want for dinner tonight?

    Wife: How about some chicken?

    Husband: That sounds good, how about some popeyes?

    Wife: That sounds good, or we could ...

    recording interrupting....

    Recording: (uber-cheerfully) I hear you're looking for chicken in your area.... I'd just like to let you know that there's a KFC on The corner of Campbell and Howard. There is also a popeyes on the corner of vero beach and tracy, a KFC on the corner of

    Husband: Shut up!!! I know where the chicken places are, I live here.

    Recording: juno and tibedeau and there's a popeyes at 945 Main

    Wife: just let it finish.

    Recording: Street and there's a Publix at 177 center street.

    husband: Damn Google and this cheap phone service. I can't even have a conversation anymore.

    Recording: I heard google, Would you like to look something up? Perhaps how to buy 'conversations' on E-bay?

  • bittorent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wwmedia ( 950346 ) on Thursday August 23, 2007 @06:25AM (#20328339)
    so what woudl happen once every torrent user moves onto their network?

    will the "do no evil" moto have to change then?
  • Hope they win it. Of all of the companies that seem to be in the position to make a bid, I think google will be the ones who will try and benefit the community instead of close it up and abuse it. It's our airwaves afterall, our appointed officials are just selling it on our behalf.

    Personally I'd like to see it default to amateur radio.

  • No really, I welcome them! Hurry it up, guys, take over!

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close