The FCC Needs To Listen To Google

Plain and simple, The Google wants to serve ADS OVER THE 700MHZ spectrum. Open services is a euphemism for AdSense and aggressive data collection on data channels that they currently cannot access. So yes, Google is stacking the deck in its favor and that as always is less and less pro consumer and more and more pro advertisement.

This is a very thorough update, well researched. But it is troubling when any giant issues an all or nothing ultimatum and can set a bad precedent if they are catered to.

Has Google grown to a point in its ten year history that it has more influence with the FCC than Verizon or ATT?

Hope this Post gets maximum attention

http://digg.com/tech_news/Goog.....Ultimatums

@Jason, So advertisements are anti-consumer? I disagree.

We have had the “MS Model” where you pay for products like Office, and the “Google Model” where we endure advertisements for free products.

I would like the option for either “Model” in the wireless realm. Not just another part of the spectrum that I pay $ to utilize.

@AT&T, “Put up or shut up”?
How about, “at least $4.6 billion”?
What is your number?

The airwaves are owned by THE PEOPLE (or so they say).

@Search*Engines WEB, Are you sure digg provides users that have informative input? Yes, MA seems to like the traffic., but “no thanks”; never led to comment threads that are well-reasoned or insightful. Please stop with these submissions to that.

Yes, this will be a HUGE decision.

The Google juggernaut is nearly out of control. If their sending a letter of demand (This must happen or we won’t play…) to the FCC isn’t proof of that I’m not certain what is.

SEW - I didn’t read it as an all-or-nothing ultimatum (although AT&T says it is). It is simply a public statement of the rules under which they guarantee they’ll participate. Nowhere do they say they won’t participate under other rules. And even if they did, it’s their choice. There are lots of other players in the market to counterbalance their relative weight.

bdb - I agree totally. Google just put up, and shows that they are willing to bid in a model that guarantees less profits by forcing openness. All AT&T has to offer back is words and factually incorrect accusations.

B. Durant - Google made no such demand.

Given the sorry state of the mobile landscape in the U.S. suffice it to say that if the FCC does not adopt open access for 700MHz Europe and Asia will eat our broadband wireless adoption lunch. Then watch more US company technology investments go overseas.

How much new technology can 2 monopolies buy vs an open access playing field ?

BTW, the US spends $500B on defense ( also to a small list of monopolies ) to feed its superpower image.

So FCC Chrm Martin what’s it going to be - more crony capitalism or open capitalism that this country used to have ?

The wireless carriers are correct in this instance. Keep in mind that it pains me to admit that.

Yes, if Google believes that the conditions they laid out are best for the market, then they can offer their products, on the spectrum they win, on the terms they outlined. Users will choose which model they like the best. Google will have all kinds of cool new features enabled by mobile handset data mining. An easy to use social network based on data in my phone’s contact list, that would be cool. Right? That’s pro consumer. Of course I’ll have to take Shameequa’s phone number out of my contact list . . . uh . . . just ’cause. Let’s not forget the ability to monitor my text messages and provide me with useful product suggestions based on the content and recipient. Like the link to ‘blackgirlswholikenerdywhiteguys.com’ whenever I message Shameequa for instance. Oh!!! My personal favorite feature will be the GPS data mining for real time location tracking on Google maps. You know . . . the ‘Click To Stalk’ feature of Google maps. AWESOME!!!

I realize how many WONDERFUL features Google has planned for me. I just think that they should offer their own service with those features, and let the current providers offer services without them. It’s a free country . . .
for now.

bilbo0s - the spectrum is alloted BEFORE these services are offered. By the time the consumer gets to choose the winners have already won. Openness needs to be decided before bids are taken. Otherwise, the guys planning on closed, bleed-the-consumer-dry products will be able to bid more because the revenue will justify it.

A few of the comments herein fail to grasp the big picture here. Although I’m sure Google would ultimately serve ads over 700Mhz if all goes as they’d like, the real issue here is that they want people to be able to access their (or any provider’s) services from various mobile platforms. The 700Mhz block is the last remaining spectrum that could offer this in the US without a major reallocation (which won’t happen). If the net is about the ability to level the playing field for the little guy, then we should all hope that this spectrum becomes open. History suggests that monoplies will place Wall St. interest before consumer interests. Without some open spectrum then we will never be able to do what Korea and Europe can do. To let the telcos have their way on this one would be a negative for the consumer.

I don’t know much about the wireless spectrum…Can Google buy all of the 700Mhz auction, and resell it as an open network?

I think Jeff has it right, particularly considering consideration by AT&T and others to assess fees on content providers (AT&T considering content providers as freeriders). It will be interesting to see how the FCC acts.

A posting from the University of Chicago Law School Blog further examines the design of the auction:
http://lawocracy.com/the-google-spectrum-gambit

The telco business model can not handle this kind of disruption. Google’s approach will help Wall Street and the consumer, we have seen it work online for many moons. AT&T is under attack, and they will not back off easily.

Anyone know when the FCC will rule on this finally?

This is honestly the best article I’ve seen on any blog in at least three months. Finally, something useful to read about

I agree with Google on this. I worked in telecom infrastructure for a long time and have heard all kinds of things about how the carriers operate. I think it’d be great to see things open up.

On a side note, it’s interesting that in this moment, telecom carriers and companies are competing with web companies. British Telecom announced last year its new web services would directly compete with Google. What an interesting world we’re in right now. It’s very cool.

“Google isn’t always not evil..” Ouch! My elementary school English teacher is grinding her teeth. Try rewriting the double-negative as “Google is sometimes evil…”

Mike - your re-write doesn’t convey the message I intend.

Why the hell does the “grammar police” have to come out in every post? It’s annoying as hell. It’s a blog, it isn’t a novel, there must be a lot of perfect SOB’s out there, because there’s plenty here that can only manage to call out Michael with grammar flaws!

@ Chris, I agree. Blog posts are intended to be conversational. I hate having to weed through all the grammar comments.

Though I prefer non-regulated environments where the market is supposed to exercise its choice I don’t see how the market would exercise its choice if the winner of the auction only offers a closed system. So I vote for an open system.

Google is a business and not a philanthropical organization so it is likely making a proposal that will generate profits for Google if it wins the auction.

If Warren Buffet’s fortune is to go to philantropy:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/2.....tm?cnn=yes

this would be a good place to allocate money to. Let Warren Buffet bid, win and help establish a true open system.

I personally would like to get a phone/PDA from any vendor that rides on technology that can penetrate through walls and offer excellent reception quality and bandwidth:

http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_op.....index.html

RAUL

“Less profits by forcing openness?” I doubt it. The arrogant “Don’t Be Evil” mantra of Google shouldn’t be believed by anyone anymore. I don’t have a problem with Google expanding and becoming more successful, but why does anyone still attribute altruistic motives to Google any more?

@ Brandon, even if Google had sinister motives in this, it still doesn’t mean Google will dominate in mobile - we all know Google doesn’t always ace new initiatives, even when it tries

I think it’ll open up a lot more innovation and options across the board. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I have not read any of the comments above, so, I am sorry if I am repetitive of someone else’s comment - I just do not feel like reading beyond the posting

I do not think that Google is batting for us. I think they are just doing what they need to preserve their business model over other. Open anything is very much part of their business model, thus, they are trying to “push” that onto other mediums.

I happen to agree with Google in many of they business moves - not all. And “do no evil” can be a very subjective thing. Google is a business and that is all.

Google is trying to turn the wireless world into more of the internet world, where access to development and content is almost universal and fairly cheap. That is a world in which they have won, and most intelligent people would say if wireless turns into that world, Google will will again (and Google is betting $4.6B that this will happen). But in a truly open network, what is stopping Microsoft, or some other future Google Killer from simply providing better mobile applications on the 700Mhz spectrum? Yahoo, for example, currently makes much better mobile apps than Google IMHO.

The real power of the open 700 Mhz frequency is that there is no “ISP” on this frequency - and free mobile wireless broadband access is the holy grail of internet connectivity (WiMax??) - if Google becomes this ISP (by binding together applications), they will wield a lot of power, but the marketplace will be truly open for any smart apps developers to prosper.

My last words: If Google really wanted spectrum all to itself, it would just bid and win against Verizon and Cingular - no letter required. The company could theoretically borrow $100B in a heartbeat to accomplish this. This is both a PR coup and also a smart business move (if they win…)

Hey, grammar police go somewhere else…

Stop destorying people’s future and dreams!!!

AT&T claim that Google’s requirement “limits competing bids” is a lie, intended to manipulate consumers and law-makers.

Google’s requirements keep the environment MORE open to competition, not less:

“Consumers should be able to:”

- “utilize any …services they desire”

-”utilize a handheld …device with whatever …network they prefer”

Is it not possible that Google’s best interest as a business is also in the consumer’s best interest? That definitely isn’t always the case with Google or any other business, but I’m with Michael on this one that I believe that it is definitely a win-win situation on the surface.

@Chris, Pat - I agree not to (further) detract from more important discussion as nitpicking can be annoying.

Ironically, the same people saying grammar does not matter would have a stroke if a web site was not W3C standards-compliant.

Mike A - You proved my point. Reading your informative posts should not require a decoder ring from Cap’n Crunch.

Hope everyone’s ‘future and dreams’ remain in tact! LOL

I dont know anything about wireless spectrum auctioning, but out of curiosity:

Are there google mobile services in Europe and Korea that are very useful to the end consumer, but simply dont exist here today?

I don’t think there has ever been a breach of public trust by Google, and since any other carrier could theoretically track everyones’ location and text messages to serve up ads (as has been suggested in other comments), these fears are unfounded. I will not deny that Google could make a lot of money out of this deal, but the demands they are making of the spectrum would basically make it, as has already been stated, more like the internet.

The current state of wireless service in America is terrible, but those who don’t study the issue will believe AT&T’s assertions that it’s state of the art! If you were to listen to their lobbyists (and one was actually on NPR’s Talk of the Nation this last week), you’d think that Google was going to steal taxpayer money directly (and kidnap our children, or something.). They’re pulling out the big guns on this one because they’re ready to request the brown pants, so to speak, from their first mates if Google starts providing phone service as open as the internet they advocate.

Don’t think for a second that if the rules aren’t adopted, Google won’t still bid on the spectrum. Also don’t think that ATT et al won’t bid if they are. The amount they will bid will change of course.

The important question is:

If the open rules are enforced, is the spectrum itself worth less to the government and to the purchaser?

Well it seems natural that a closed network would be more valuable to a purchaser as it would allow higher pricing via lack of competition and thus more profit. In turn, the government would get a higher initial payment for the spectrum.

However, if the spectrum is open to be accessed by 3rd party providers, more competition means lower margins and lower profit. So it seems that the government is going to get a lower initial payout. But depending on how the services are taxed, more providers mean more taxees which could mean over time a higher rate of return for the government.

Then you have to consider the fact that the government is not a corporation (haha) and its interests are not purely profit based. Obviously openness is in the public interest but how much does that mean these days.

At the very least companies who already have broadband distribution channels should be excluded from operating a closed network on the new spectrum.

correction– the requirement may limit competing bids from bidders who prefer a less competitive environment.

the result of google’s requirements may be bad for big mobile companies, but it will be good for consumers, because it will open up networks to smaller companies who would otherwise be blocked by a restricted network.

the requirements don’t “stack the deck” in google’s favor, as much as in consumers’ favor.

google is not the only entity proposing these conditions: “Some other groups, such as Frontline Wireless LLC, a company backed by luminaries including former FCC chief Reed Hundt and former Netscape CEO James Barksdale, have proposals similar to Google’s.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01869.html

relatedly, is there any doubt where google stands in the battle to keep the internet free and open to all players, providers, and consumers?
http://www.savetheinternet.com.....eutrality/

@9 your comments are offensive. have a little more taste..

As for ATT’s reponse, i’m surprised that the PR dept for such a large corp would retort in such a juvenile manner(ie,’..put up or shut up’). If they are so passionately against an open platform that they would reply in such a manner, do they really have much respect for consumers…I dont think i’ll be activating my iPhone via ATT afterall.

Either way it goes, it will be interesting to see how hight the bidding war will go…

http://www.pcworld.com/article.....ticle.html

“Femtocells, an emerging technology for improving cellular coverage in homes and enterprises, have attracted the interest of none other than Google Inc.”

I applaud Google on this one - they are turning the tables on Telco’s. This is a net-neutrality watershed issue, the incumbents won’t open the walled garden, so Google decided to plant their own. It is brilliant.

An

I can’t believe these comments are so anti-Google. The US telecoms are some of the world’s worst companies. They seek not to provide a useful service to customers, but exclusively to extract money from them. Walled-garden networks, non-interoperable hardware, Byzantine contracts, and, after all that, the developed world’s WORST telecom service.

I agree Google isn’t always not evil (Mike I, you’re an idiot, btw — Google’s unofficial motto is “Don’t be evil”), but this is Google at its best. Sure, they’ll make plenty of ad money off this if it works out their way, and that doesn’t bother me at all — I am willing to pay, either in money or in attention to ads, for useful services. And, more importantly, Google will have created a more competitive telecom environment, and that benefits the consumer. Always.

Go Google!

Michael,

This is a very good summary of the issues. Obviously we should all assume that Google is acting in its own interests. But so are Verizon and AT&T. They deliberately appeal to our sense of fairness when they demand an auction without preconditions, because they know that - paradoxically - they have a built-in advantage in such an auction.

The incumbent carriers can build out a new network much faster and cheaper than a new entrant can, because they already have so much infrastructure. At the same time, they stand to lose a fortune if they allow a new entrant into the market, because the new entrant will take subscribers from them and force them to lower prices to keep the rest. The result is that unless the rules of the auction are somehow weighted in favor of new entrants, rational incumbents will *always* be able to bid more for the spectrum. That may sound like good news for the Treasury, but - again, paradoxically - it can result in less revenue. Why? Because knowing that they are going to lose, rational new entrants will not participate in the auction.

There are lots of way to weight an auction. In 1993, US regulators simply banned the incumbents from the auction altogether in most markets. In 2000 in the UK, the government raised over $50 billion by selling five nationwide 3G licenses at a time when there were only four incumbent carriers, guaranteeing that there would be at least one new entrant. Alternatively, we can impose rules that some new entrants like and the incumbents don’t; rules like open access.

Verizon and AT&T know that if there are no conditions attached to the 700 MHz auction, no rational business will bid against them for the spectrum because no rational business can afford to pay as much as they can. That’s why they’re asking for a ‘fair’ auction. Don’t be fooled.

I testified to Congress on open access last week. More here:
http://skydeck.com/blog/thisis.....rotection/

Jason

Do you have any idea how much lobbying money the telcos, CTIA and the NAB throw at congress?

I’d love tis to happen, but I’m not holding my breath.

google’s history proves that it likes to create products that are better for the consumer. i applaud that. google wants to make a profit without compromising the consumer experience. i applaud that too. and, they are offering to establish a base level of revenue for the government’s auction of a new spectrum–also good. and in return, they are requiring a series of commitments which will likely improve the result for consumers. i support that too. on the other hand, att’s history has been to capture as much profit as possible without regard for the consumers right to a good product or a competitive offering. while they have a constitutional right to operate that way, google should be applauded for their attempt to level the playig field and remove the potential for monopolistic outcome. and att’s response should be recognized for the good “spin” that monopoly money can buy.

“…please learn from past mistakes, ignore the lobbyists this time”

Ignore millions of dollars in personal and campaign funding… hmm… what is this, a democracy?!

Check out funny powerset.com

1. http://www.powerset.com/q?=Can.....h_dot_com?
2. http://www.powerset.com/q?=techcrunch_dot_com?
3. http://www.powerset.com/q?=oh_shut_up!
4. http://www.

Let’s see how to find techcrunch.
Backspace

As far as I can tell, for whatever warts their history or plans for the 700MHz have, Google is the only advocate at this level of business that even pays lipservice to openness. I say they should be supported.

Keep in mind that no matter how open the rules wind up being, someone will figure out how to make it shitty. There’s no reason not to stave that off as long as possible.

The quote that makes Google’s argument crystal clear for me is this one:

“When you go to Best Buy to buy a TV, they don’t ask whether you have cable or satellite,” said Blair Levin, a former FCC official who is now an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Company. “When you buy a computer, they don’t ask what kind of Internet service you have, and the computer can run any application or service. That doesn’t exist in the wireless world. That’s where Google wants to go with this auction.”

I saw that that here: http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....le-web.php

Maybe by the time my 2-year iPhone contract is over we’ll have some real choice!

Michael, Your last sentence proved to me that you understand the issues, “Ignore the lobbyists.” Unfortunately, it’s the lobbyists who help make so many decisions in favor of big business and against the common good. I know nothing about Google’s lobbying efforts but I can only assume that they have a strong lobby. Hopefully, in this case their lobby will beat that of more traditional companies. (By the way, Google is quickly becoming traditional. But I agree in this case we should suppor them.)

@Search*Engines WEB, “Has Google grown to a point in its ten year history that it has more influence with the FCC than Verizon or ATT?”

Do Verizon and AT&T get to exert more influence on the FCC because they’ve been around longer than Google? These guys are 1/2-witted, SCARED, quasi-monopolists, who are AFRAID that a new tech company with the brains, bank account and balls wants to play in their sandbox. Will they serve ads? great, I’ll take them. I bought a 2 year plan w/ AT&T and I still can’t get consistent service. I’ll take a bet that given Google’s business model (which is to provide a solid UI while making $….oh the horror), they’ll work a whole lot harder to ensure my service works, as long as it means serving those infernal ads. Serve em up, as long as I have 3-4 bars on my iPhone.

While I’m wary of Google’s increasing influence across most media channels, I’d love to see an open source spectrum become a reality, or even a Google Phone (monetized by Mobile adSense) - the current state of telecom-controlled closed mobile web would do better with competition.

I find it strangely ironic that people are policing the grammar police now. Anyway, I support Google on this one.

This board is full of middle aged lameduck lobbist and screwballs. They bored me a lot. This is way they grow wrinkles and gray hair.

Oh shut up. Let the young company survive this fight. Google has help many young people create dream jobs. Web 2.0, custom search, tiny widget VC. Google brought many startups: Jotspot, spreadsheet, etc. Now Yahoo, MSN, Ask, Ebay, Amazon dreams is to buy more startups.

What do Verizon & AT&T do all day?
Nothing… Collect… monthly expense and refuse to create jobs. Refuse to shut down telemarketing, hire young people, refuse built futuristic cities for young startups, and buy startups.

Google have alot of aging corporate enimies: Viacom attacks Google,
German & French president attacks Google.

Google is still #1. They help us create economy.

I’ve google “Grammar police”

Wikipedia actually show up the word “Grammar Nazi”.

This is very troubling. Google is trying to take over which will be really bad. I fear this may turn into a legal Monopoly. This needs more attention in the media.

ATT is reasonable in their request, but it isn´t so valid when it is them who are losing. Also, Google shouldn´t be conditioning the government.

For anybody who is being skeptical, I think you don’t really get it. Let me explain you the problem with a couple of questions.

* what if you bought a Honda crv and you can only drive it on hwys that Honda owns? What if you wanted to take another freeway, just to try it out, but to do so you must leave your Honda home and buy a new Ford?*

Google is trying to make sure that you can buy any car and drive it where you want and when you want. Ok so what if to cover their initial cost of their operations they decide to throw a few billboards along the way or let entrepreneurs open drive thru coffee shops and fast foods?

You get it now.

Google is not offering $4 billion to “go to bat for all of us.” It’s offering that money to go to bat for itself. No mistake.

Let me admit, I continue to be puzzled about the entire thing — in large part because Google itself has been unclear about its intentions. First they said they didn’t want bid but just wanted the winner of the spectrum to be able to resell. Then they said OK, we want to bid — but here are our conditions. In either case, they have a business reason for this, first and foremost.

I agree — the mobile operators we have now suck, especially compared to say the UK, where at least when I switch — since everyone is GSM, I don’t have to ditch my CDMA Verizon phone for a GMS T-Mobile one. I just swap SIM cards.

But let’s not let their suckiness make us think Google’s doing this for the people. I mean honestly, the way their post started out, my jaw literally dropped:

“For several years now, many Googlers have been working to identify the obstacles that prevent the Internet from being available to everyone on the planet. It strikes us as unfair that some people should enjoy such abundant access to this rich resource while billions of others aren’t so lucky.”

Really? Well, take that $4 billion and just buy ISP accounts for everyone? Or continue building out your hotspots. Or many other things that could somehow bring that rich global resource …. wait, to the US? I mean of all th obstacles making the internet hard to reach for the entire planet (Google’s words), they decide they need to provide yet another way in the US? Because using a wired or hotspot or cell or cable connection ain’t enough?

The impression I get is that Google wants open access so that it can guarantee more people get directly to its products, which does provide some consumer benefits but is more in Google’s interest. Ideally, it seemed to want someone else to stump up the money, then it seemed likely to try and buy that spectrum at a wholesale prices without making the investment itself. Now it seems to be willing to spend, because I assume the number crunchers have determined that AdSense For Wireless will make Google plenty, as well as reauctioning any unused capacity to other players.

Google should just buy it and open it. The consumers will flock to an open system. Ads aren’t all bad (unless they interfere with journalism), I read the Fry’s section of my newspaper all the time to see what deals are afoot.

As far as phones, it looks like and Intel/Canonical or FIC/OpenMoko future any way you slice it. Unless I can compile the software that runs my phone I’m going to assume privacy is non-existent.

Isn’t part of the Google “demand” analogous to the old pre-breakup Bell system being forced to allow non-Bell System equipment to be attached its landline network in the late 1970s? (Not sure about the timeframe.)

Many many years ago one essentially had to use Western Electric equipment manufactured equipment obtained from your regional Bell company on the network. I could not go to Radio Shack and plug a phone of my choosing into the network. There were exceptions around qualified networking equipment (modems, acoustical couplers, etc), but I recall it was essential a closed system. Then the FCC(?) mandated that the system be opned up and this allowed a greater diversity of solutions and lower prices for consumers.

Any comments on if this situation has historical parallels with earlier telcom network connectivity issues? I suspect it does, and the advantages of opening up the network are as compelling as they were before.

>>Anyone know when the FCC will rule on this finally?

“Anyone know when the FCC will rule on this finally?” - bdb

First, many delicious meals must be consumed at all the lobbyist sponsored luncheons. Then, several ‘fact-finding missions’ (trips) must also be taken by the Commissioners at their expense, so that the Republican majority FCC may determine what is best for the American lobbyist…er, consumer.

In my opinion this is the beginning of a change in paradigm. The power will ultimately shift to the consumer and these “Ma Bell” clones will have to acquiesce and come to grips with the fact that the customer is now demanding full control over what device they can buy, and what network they can choose.

Check out more on this here:

http://tinyurl.com/2lmpf5

Please say NO to Google. We must stop Google.

Wow saynotogoogle I am convinced now. I have seen the light. Thank you for that informative post.

Hmmm… Grandcentral acquisition and now opening up the 700 MHz spectrum… I smell free communications coverage to everyone… Google is great.

Good thing Google has such a fat wallet. They’d better open it wide and start paying some crackerjack lobbyists if they hope to have any chance at seeing this happen. Otherwise expect to see the Republican-dominated FCC side with the big telcos.

first - be ready for some of the most professional lobbying you’ll ever see hit comment boards like this one - this is very big money indeed.

second - yes of course Google would serve up ads over the wireless network but doesn’t the whole idea of making it open mean that anyone can serve up ads, not just some big corp which does a lock-in, revenue share deal with another big corp?

Michael, I love you and I love Wired. I love that Wired did an article about you. It was similar to reading that Klaxons’ Simon Taylor-Davis got a tattoo of CSS’s Lovefoxxx. I think they’re engaged now. Life is sweet.

Michael, you’re post was timely, but is the meat and potatoes. Please consider adding a link to their post in your post.

Writing Respectfully,

Another Huge Fan

the forum blocked my href!

“…timely, but “link” is the meat and potatoes…”

h t t p :// ====>lawocracy.com/the-google-spectrum-gambit

It’s all good that googlers might be able to have a service which might be free, but i don’t think most people will ditch their gsm for this new 700mHz spectrum device. Think about it, if you travel anywhere else… you’ll be unable to get any signal with that device. As with all mobile communicational device, unless the device manufacturer makes a good RF antenna profile to match the band in all kinds of conditions and angles, the service might still be poor.

But the idea of having free calls by just watching and hearing ads, which you have no way of turning off (like those pesky webads pop-ups) is still cool.

I agree with Michael, and it seems that some of the readers don’t understand the differences between an open and closed system with regards to the consumer. Here is an Wired article that explains this into greater detail:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/m.....f_spectrum

I don’t get the same vibe (i.e. greedy and self-serving) from Google as I do from other traditional businesses. I believe if Google has it’s way, the “Free” as in “Freedom” that Richard Stallman talks about may be ushered in on a grand scale. This, to me, is very exciting; we may just see the decline of the closed, or traditional business model in favor of the fluid and dynamic open models.

I’ve a bit more to say on the issue at http://rackit.gartnerwebdev.co.....-stallman/

(OT p.s. sycophants are kinda creepy)

There are more than enough companies that are able to bid on this spectrum auction without Google being a part of it.

What Google has done is effectively make it so that the government can say no to them without even bringing them into the bidding process.

I’m putting my support behind Google on this issue. Considering all the messes with the current carriers and our dismal progress in wireless comparatively to Asia and Europe, I think its time to open up the playing field to some other contenders. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. need a real wake up call to bring there services up to higher expectations without gouging consumers and businesses.

So - - what I don’t understand is why GOOG can’t just bid for the spectrum and open the access if they win. GOOG wants to win without bidding by having the government impose the approach. If GOOG bidding maximizes government revenues -then it is GOOG bidding in an auction with the fewest, not the most, rules.

pixelm

If the FCC allows these restrictions to be put in place, Google can still build on the network even if they lose the bid. This is assuming that anyone besides Google will even bid if this is put in to place. Either way, Google will be able to continue with whatever plans with the spectrum, almost regardless to whether they win or not.

All or nothing for Google! Where AT&T and Cingular use their influence to make themselves more profitable, Google is using its influence to let consumers reap the benefits.

You may go on about Google’s adsense and datamining, yada yada… But realize, with this open network, it is providing a more competitive environment, even competition against Google.

Google is a company that has won over so many consumers because of its innovativeness and charm. Gmail rocks, and even if there targeted ads floating around, not many seem to care. I certainly don’t.

And when the Government subpoenaed user info from Google, Google fought and fought and fount, whereas Yahoo, MSN, and others faltered, without too much consideration for our privacy.

IMHO Google missed out a very important condition, if it isn’t already included in the FCC specs: assigned spectrum must be USED. In Ireland we suffer from a major lack of competition, part of which can be attributed to spectrum squatting.

adam

Google may be acting in their own self interest, but I believe consumers would benefit from the ground rules they propose. Some readers may be letting their fear of Google override their dissatisfaction with the telcos. Is anyone really satisfied with their telco in the US?

The only reason the iPhone is such a hit in 2007 (as opposed to 1997) is that the carriers stifled innovation in devices and software until they met their match in Steve Jobs.

The industry would do much better if the 700MHz spectrum where truly available for entrepreneurial innovation. It’s time the US caught up with Europe and Asia in the mobile arena.

Does anyone think that ATT and other closed system advocates will even build out this spectrum? They would pay billions to “win” this spectrum and then bury in a deep dark hole just to keep control of the last mile of broadband access.

I here the grumblings from the privacy folks about Google and data mining; If you use Microsoft Windows, you agreed to data mining and the assurance that your personally identifiable information will not be SHARED when you turned on the machine for the first time. At least Google is up front about what they do with this data. They don’t hide it in a EULA with a catch 22 clause of acceptance by installation.

It seems like the federal government is owned by corporate interests.

The federal government doesn’t seem to be serving us as much as they are hearding us like cattle. This the reason our civil liberties are being chipped away without doing simple security (i.e. enforceing laws on ill legal immigration).

This is not a partisan issue. Both republicans and democrats are bought and paid for.

I will be very surprised if the FCC goes with Google’s suggestion. I suspect AT&T, Verison, and other huge telecoms will consumne that bandwidth and make everything proprietary. It is their greed and dominance that has put us so far behind Asia and some parts of Europe when it comes to telecommunication technologies.

People seem to think that Google’s proposed terms were thought up to limit competition so that Google could win. I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure Google just believes that an open network would be a great idea, so these terms are here so that no matter who wins the auction, the open network is created.

If Google REALLY wanted to simply win, they’d just bid away billions without offering terms.

Michael Arrington.. why do you hate freedom?

@LEE
who said: “If the FCC allows these restrictions to be put in place, Google can still build on the network even if they lose the bid. This is assuming that anyone besides Google will even bid if this is put in to place. Either way, Google will be able to continue with whatever plans with the spectrum, almost regardless to whether they win or not.”

I agree, LEE. If the FCC doesn’t go with their suggestions they can just use that 4.6BILL to do to major U.S. cities what they’ve done in Mountain View California put free wireless everywhere.

http://news.com.com/Google+bla.....56837.html

@Jason

Dude, seriously “Google wants to serve ADS OVER THE 700MHZ spectrum” is one of the douchebaggiest statements I’ve ever heard. What do you think is going to PAY for the FREE wireless internet we’re going to get? You must have no idea about how Google is able to provide all of their services for FREE. If you want free stuff that every other company will be happy to rape you for, then you’ll have to deal with the ads. Plain and simple.

this may be a somewhat jaded view… but i think that data mining and smart ads are somewhat of an inevitability.

the government and possibly even businesses (like Google) will do this regardless of whether it’s made public or not. if you wish to keep personal information to yourself then keep it on pen and paper and force the FBI (or whoever) to obtain the old-fashioned way.

in terms of sheer practicality and usefulness and just plain principle, i think Google is doing a good thing. they’re embracing what most people truly want, whereas communication firms like AT&T, record companies, software companies, basically the whole spectrum of business want everything to be on their terms in a privately regulated top-down world. i’m sick of living in a world where business functions in that way.

July 23, 2007 ― Ex Parte via Electronic Filing

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin

Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20554

RE: WC Docket No. 06-150;PS Docket No. 06-229;WT Docket No. 96-98

Dear Chairman Martin:

For the past few years, I have been following the debate over the 700-MHz spectrum auction and have written many articles regarding the same (www.andrewseybold.com) in the form of my Blog and my industry Commentaries. Since the mid-1970s, I have been involved in both First Responder and Commercial Wireless services, first working within the industry for major corporations, and since 1985 as an independent consultant, educator and author.

While the issues you are facing are complex in nature, what I have seen submitted to the FCC in the way of Ex Parte Filings has not addressed the basic differences between wired and wireless broadband capacity, and the fact that the Internet, as we know it today, cannot be considered a Mission-Critical network. Yet there are those who have asked you and your colleagues to take a portion of the finite resource we have available to us and turn it into a mirror image of the Internet with all of the same potential for the disruption of service, and possible cyber attacks.

The key difference between the Internet net and the wired and wireless infrastructure used to provide access to the Internet is that the networks that carry the traffic not only for Internet access but for other forms of information distribution is that they are managed networks and the Internet is not. A managed network requires sophisticated ways to manage the traffic flow to make sure the maximum number of customers can be served with limited and shared bandwidth.

Today, wired service providers have to manage bandwidth demands from their customers. Cable operators, and those providing wired access, are limiting the amount of bandwidth available to their customers because bandwidth is not unlimited even in the wired world. In the wireless community, this is even more evident. A cable operator can increase capacity by adding hubs in order to provide service to fewer buildings per hub, while wired operators can and do add capacity in their switches and by pulling more copper or fiber. But wireless providers have only two options: Add more channels at a cell site (if those channels are available) or build new cell sites closer together. For the past few years, I have been actively working with local communities and educating City and County planning commissions regarding these issues, but as you know, building a new cell site is a tedious, expe nsive process that can take three years or longer, meanwhile demand for services continues to increase.

Google and others may not comprehend that wireless bandwidth is not the same as wired bandwidth, and that there is not enough spectrum to replace the wired Internet with the wireless Internet. The 700-MHz spectrum, and how the FCC deals with it, is vitally important to this nation, for the First Responder community, Rural America and new comers and incumbents alike. But the portion of the 700-MHz spectrum that is to be auctioned should not be likened to the Internet, nor should the Internet method of connectivity be permitted to be extended to this spectrum.

If Google, and others, seek this spectrum for their own networks and services, I believe the most effective way of handling the auction is a fair and open auction with a minimum of usage requirements, and that each winning bidder be able to determine how their network will be deployed and accessed. In other words, if Google wants to provide: 1) open applications, 2) open devices, 3) open wholesale services and 4) open network access, it should take part in the auction, outbid the competition and set out to build a network that includes these attributes.

Many within the “open access” community point to Europe as an example of open access, but they fail to point out that in the United States we pay far less per minute of voice use and much lower prices for wireless data access. Further, our Nation has made tremendous progress in increasing the spectral efficiently of the networks because the FCC has not required a specific technology to be tied to a specific portion of the spectrum and there is free and open competition in the marketplace.

What exactly is “open access” as defined by Google? Today, I can use my notebook computer and my wireless card and access the Internet and any content on the Internet, I am not blocked by my network provider. I can also use my BlackBerry’s browser to go anywhere on the Internet I want. The only thing I cannot do is download an application to a handheld device that is not compatible with that device. In many respects, we already have “open access.”

In some of your past comments, you stated that in other parts of the world they are ahead of us when it comes to combining commercial and Wi-Fi capabilities into a single phone. I would like to point out that T-Mobile has just rolled out its HotSpot @Home program, using this type of device, although it is not using VoIP for its Wi-Fi voice communications but rather OMA technology that “wraps” GSM voice in IP because it determined that VoIP services over Wi-Fi are not advanced enough to be deployed in a nationwide rollout. Around the world, there are different degrees of tolerance for stable, reliable networks and services. In the United States, we have come to rely on our telecommunications infrastructure and it has served us well.

Over time, it will become clear that the “Wireless Internet” will evolve into a very different Internet than the one we access every day on our desktops. It will take smart networks and smart devices to shape the mobile Internet into a useful tool for consumers and businesses.

The concept of open and fair auctions has served the citizens of the United States well over the years. Changing the rules of engagement to favor one group or another will devalue this spectrum and the outcome will be less money for the Federal Government, more costly devices for consumers and less-than-mission-critical managed networks we have all come to expect and rely on.

I cannot pledge $4.6 billion for spectrum in the upcoming auction, but I can, and am, asking the Commission to keep the auction fair and open and let competition, fair and open competition, rule the day.

Andrew M. Seybold

Senior Partner

Andrew Seybold, Inc.

cc: The Honorable Michael J. Copps, FCC Commissioner

The Honorable Jonathan S. Adelstein, FCC Commissioner
The Honorable Deborah Taylor Tate, FCC Commissioner

The Honorable Robert M. McDowell, FCC Commissioner

I agree with two important points in this letter. First, no auction changes are required for open devices and open applications. Second, the public, wired internet is not a mission-critical network. For more information, see my web site http://www.pwiner.com.

TechCrunch commenters, don’t be intimidated by Seybold’s loooong letter: it provides juicy falacies to counter. Let’s dissect it, and hopefully someone with clout will ex parte our collective reply.

Some points:

Whatever Verizon has “just rolled out” (woop-de-doo), other parts of the world have surpassed the usa network capabilities for decades.

His claim that open-access equals higher rates is illogical. When competition goes up, prices go down– a well-proven truism. That claim is the usual big-business manipulation: they label their own monopolistic behavior “competition”. And when a competitor wins by delivering quality, the loser-dinosaurs call it “monopoly”. It’s ironic that so-called ‘Free Market Conservatives’ lobby for rules which inhibit free market competition.

“a …fibre optic cable …linking West and Southern Africa has not provided the benefits of cheaper, faster internet access because it is controlled by state-owned monopolies - or their privatised successors - which still enjoy near monopolies.”