Slashdot Log In
FCC Goes Halfway On Opening 700 MHz Spectrum
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 31, 2007 03:34 PM
from the is-the-glass-half-open dept.
from the is-the-glass-half-open dept.
The FCC has set rules for the upcoming auction of 700-MHz spectrum and they went halfway on the four open access principles that Google and others had called for. The agency said yes to "open devices" and "open applications," thus requiring the auction winner to permit consumers to use any device or application on the network. But the FCC turned down "open services" and "open networks," so the winners will not be obligated to let others buy access at wholesale prices in order to offer network services. This vote would seem to mean that Google won't bid in the spectrum auction. Ars has a more in-depth look at the outcome.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Google Set to Bid $4.6 Billion for Airwaves 156 comments
Nrbelex writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Google has offered to bid at least $4.6 billion on wireless airwaves being auctioned off by the federal government, as long as certain conditions are met. 'The Internet search company wants the Federal Communications Commission to mandate that any winners lease a certain portion of the airwaves to other companies seeking to offer high-speed Internet and other services. Such a provision, Google argues, will give consumers — who traditionally get high-speed Internet access via cable or telephone lines — a third option for service.'" We discussed AT&T's objection to Google's acquisition of these airwaves last week; this article would seem to confirm Ma Bell's worst fears.
[+]
Your Rights Online: Verizon Sues FCC over 700MHz Open Access Rules 115 comments
Carterfone writes "Verizon is upset at the open access conditions for the 700MHz spectrum auction, and they're going to court to get them overturned. The company has filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging the court to overturn the rules. 'In its petition for review, Verizon argues that the FCC exceeded its authority in mandating the two open access conditions, accusing the Commission of being "arbitrary" and "capricious," and saying that the rules are "unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." Google is critical of Verizon's lawsuit: 'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"
[+]
700 MHz Auction Begins Tomorrow 187 comments
necro81 writes "On Thursday, after much speculation and wrangling, the FCC will begin auctioning licenses to the coveted 700 MHz band that will be vacated by analog TV in 2009. The NY Times has a good summary of the players (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Google, et al.), how the auction will work, how Google has already scored an open networks victory, and what it could all mean for consumers. The auction will go on for several months, but you can keep tabs on the bids at this FCC site."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wouldn't that be more reason to win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because not including these two levels of 'open-ness' means a higher potential value to whoever is the winner... because there's a greater degree of possible profit... you get to pick your competitors and set your prices
It simply wouldnt be in the interests of the huge telecoms giants to bid too high if they then had to turn around and sell access for next to nothing to anyone (including google) who wanted to use it... but if they're getting total control over who provides service and at what cost... then its worth a lot more money.
If they can charge what they want for access, suddenly you can justify bidding a lot higher
Parent
Abolish the FCC! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Abolish the FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Abolish the FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no problem with this at all. There are no broadcasts of any nature that are worth listening to at present; an entire dial full of stations that changed with location would at least have a chance of coming up with something. Your absolutely ridiculous Scientology example notwithstanding.
I see nothing ridiculous about his example at all. I'm sure that such things would be quite routine if there was nobody to enforce rules against it. Perhaps not scientologists, but there are many fringe groups out there that would love to have a cheap way to broadcast their message at people, whether those people want to hear it or not. Just because you don't like what's on the air right now doesn't mean we should abandon the whole thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You're entirely missing the point. The issue is that no citizen can set up a station to broadcast to their fellow citizens. The whole country is screwed. By law. More to the point, by the FCC. I don't care if you listen to RAP or country or bluegrass or Coast to Coast. These are corporations broadcasting to you, feeding you what they see fit to feed you. This is manifestly different from Joe down the stre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Broadcasting is forbidden in the ham bands.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Half way? (Score:2)
No (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't worry, twitter, you spin it to make it sound like the FCC turned down $4.6B just to be in bed with the telcos.
It doesn't have any basis in reality, but it's hardly like that has stopped you before, has it?
Google May Bid Yet (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you aren't paying attention--
Read the top of this page [com.com] in this interview: [com.com]
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, Google does not have the monopoly status to write checks they don't have money for. Google's founders are wise-beyond-their-years financially, and are running the company in a
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have the political connections or the ENORMOUS resources that AT&T/Cingular has. Never mind that AT&T/Cingular REALLY REALLY wants this spectrum. I mean, it's their wet dream to own that spectrum. It's the future of the company. They essentially will pay whatever they have to for it. But it would be amusing to see Google keep upping the bid on them.
Parent
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so naive as to think that Google is doing this for purely philanthropic reasons... however it's really nice to see a powerful company putting pressure on entrenched monopolies, with an end result that the people get high-quality, more fair access to a public resource.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but I think Google might actually be able to outbid AT&T and the other telcos. I'm not certain, but I think the relevant financial statistic for an auction is "Cash and Short Term Investments," which is what they could make readily available to use for bidding. Here's the "Cash and Short Term Investments" figures for Google, AT&T, and Verizon:
Google: $11,935,920
AT&T: $2,364,000
Verizon
Re: (Score:2)
Google: $11,935,920
AT&T: $2,364,000
Verizon: $3,450,000
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:4, Interesting)
It's never just about having money to buy stuff. You also need to make extra investments and assets to buy this kind of infrastructure. And they cost a lot of money.
Spending half of Google's money on airwaves would also mean opening thousands of new jobs, creating new departments and searching for customers. And the investors are not happy with the current situation of Google. "I will not innovate if I can just use the investor's money to buy commoditized stuff and partially-inovating trendy companies like YouTube" will really hurt Google in the long run. Yeah, ok, the new market of internet advertising might grow to dozens of billions of dollars a year. That's why Google is worth so much, because of a new market. Investing on telecom commodities is not why they have so much money, to create this kind of old-business infrastructure.
What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"? I'd be pretty pissed off if the company holding my money (shares) started abusing it.
Parent
Re:Google May Bid Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and as a cell phone customer it will be extra amusing paying for this bidding war via raised rates.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is going to be on hell of a bidding war, I'll tell you that!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe this will help:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=google [google.com]
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AT [google.com]
The part you want is 'Mkt Cap' where you'll find google is at $158 Billion and AT&T is at $241 Billion, and AT&Ts net income is over twice Google's.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Translated marketing babble. We have no committed to any course of action or lack of course of action and never will.
'So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all fou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/07/sig ns-of-real-progress-at-fcc.html [blogspot.com]
Just two months ago, the notion that the FCC would take such a big step forward to give consumers meaningful choice through this auction seemed unlikely at best. Today -- thanks in no small part to broad public support for greater competition -- the FCC has embraced important principles of openness, and endorsed the unfettered workings of the free market for software applications and communications devices. Moreover, over the last few weeks several leading wireless carriers have reversed course and for the first time acknowledged our call for more open platforms in wireless networks. By any measure, that's real progress.
By the same token, it would have a more complete victory for consumers had the FCC adopted all four of the license conditions that we advocated, in order to pave the way for the real "third pipe" broadband competition that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has been touting. For our part, we will need time to carefully study the actual text of the FCC's rules, due out in a few weeks, before we can make any definitive decisions about our possible participation in the auction.
Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Google sure has been trying to throw their weight around a lot lately.
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
its about damn time someone at least pretended to stick up for the little guy.
Parent
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Google sure has been trying to throw their weight around a lot lately.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, there is nothing wrong with Google doing this if it will benefit the consumer (which is what they claim they are trying to do).
Halfway is no good (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, while I like what Google is trying to do, I think they should stay in the bidding anyway. I'd much rather have Google own the spectrum than literally ANY other telco corporation. Google isn't nearly as evil as those guys are.
Re:Halfway is no good (Score:4, Funny)
Make it a habit to start your day with a google search for some Wireless [google.com], Cell [google.com], or AT&T [google.com] related topic and then visit one or more AT&T spomnsored links on the top of the page :)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Halfway is no good (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Does this even make sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you have one without the other? If the winner is required to allow free use of the spectrum for devices and applications doesn't that include devices used to provide services? I mean sure, they wouldn't have to let you use their infrastructure or buy access at wholesale prices, but they couldn't stop you from building your own infrastructure.
They mean open client devices, of course (Score:2)
"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothing (Score:2)
Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin (Score:2)
Re:"open devices/applications" accomplishes nothin (Score:2)
CableCard will succeed only when cable companies stop scrambling premium channels. As long as there are concrete benefits to using the cable company's boxes (premium channels and subsidized DVRs come to mind), people will use its boxes. And people making third-party boxes need to advertise!
Google 700mhz Fund? (Score:2)
Like them, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or will it go into expanding the ad service, infiltrating it further into our lives. I don't know, but that seems a logical end-result of "Hey, ad revenue is up ten per cent this quarter!", not "Hey, that extra $500M we made on ads, let's blow it on that FCC auction".
Forgive me, but I have little to no interest in funneling money to a for-profit corporation that, all mottos, blinders and fanboys aside, has profit and
Comparable to the Retail Electric Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
The US essentially has two types systems for moving electricity around: the Transmission System and the Distribution System. Transmission System lines are typically high voltage and used for wholesale sales of electricity. They are predominately federally regulated. Distribution System lines are typically lower voltage and used for distribution of power to retail end-use customers.
However the open access requirements are quite different. Transmission Systems are open to any user (with lots of strings, but in theory anyway). So someone who wants to sell power at wholesale essentially has the same right of access to the transmission lines as the utility that owns the lines does. In other words, the utility's transmission functions are no longer vertically integrated (at least in theory) with their power generation functions. This concept is known as "comparability." Sadly, the FCC rejected this type of open access.
For distribution systems, the utilities are still far more vertically integrated and largely control who has access to their power lines. While they still have to provide some level of access to competing users, there's no comparability concept and no sense that the utility is in the business of "renting" its system to all users and that its affiliated branches are just another user. Instead, we are going to continue to see integrated networks where the owner of the spectrum is able to stiffle innovation. Requiring that the purchaser of the spectrum re-sell it to competing companies would have guaranteed far more interesting uses of this spectrum.
Of course, allowing for phone transferability and the other items are good; but is a public safety system really the biggest concession that the FCC could extract? Yes, it is important. But nobody was going to object to giving fire fighters the communications equipment they needed.
Sad.