FCC Goes Halfway On Opening 700 MHz Spectrum

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.

Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't google bid so that they can enforce the openness they want, rather than letting someone else win and keep it closed?

Halfway is no good

[realmolo]

See, "open devices" and "open applications" probably means that you are free to use any device or application that has been approved by whoever wins the auction in question. I fully expect AT&T (or whoever wins, but they look like they will) to announce some kind of ridiculously elaborate and expensive "open licensing program" where if you want to make a device or applications that works with their network, you'll have to pay them gobs of money. They'll say it's for "adminstrative fees" or "Homeland Security Wireless Management and Auditing Charges" or some such crap.

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:Google May Bid Yet

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It would be a good PR for Google to bid 4.6B for it, knowing fully well it will be out bidded by AT&T and Verizon.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[realmolo]

The whole problem is, Google really has no chance of winning.

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.

Re:Is there a purpose for the FCC anymore?

[Applekid]

To impose moral values on the public at large through the banning 7 dirty words and other nanny-says-no naughtiness.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[stinerman]

I wouldn't abolish the FCC, but I would considerably reduce their scope. The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like. I'd let them regulate power, frequency, etc., but remove their ability to censor people. They'd also have no say in anything not owned by the public at large.

Re:Google

[rootofevil]

given who they have been trying to push, and for what they have been trying to push for, i applaud their efforts.

its about damn time someone at least pretended to stick up for the little guy.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[shaitand]

'Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?'

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 four principles?'

Translated marketing babble. We all have glowing halos atop our heads and are wonderful and good. We have not committed to any course of action or lack thereof and never will. (Actually this is what almost every PR drone statement translates to.)

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[kebes]

Exactly. Google is upping the bid, because they know that they will be out-bid by the entrenched telcos that can't afford to lose that spectrum. If they call Google's bluff, Google will happily buy the spectrum for a few billion and make a killing. But, since the entrenched telcos will certainly continue out-bidding until they win, it's in Google's best interests to at least put some pressure on them to make the eventual spectrum a bit more open--that way Google can capitalize on that spectrum in some way. (A nice by-product is that this is way better for consumers.)

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.

Re:Wouldn't that be more reason to win?

[jamieswith]

This has some merit, but I can think of one reason why the lack of these makes Google nervous of getting into a bidding war...

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

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[mabhatter654]

What will happen is AT&T and Version will only bid high on the major areas with population and let the rest go by the way. Look at the cell phone industry to see how that played out. Later, they buy up anybody gutsy enough to compete while forcing THEIR rules on the whole industry if you want to talk to their customers.

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 manner to keep it free of debt and owing to the bankers. The telcos know they won't win all the channels, but they'll bet big on the important ones, cut illegal deals once the dust settles, and let the little ones go for cheap. Google needs to pay careful attention to the little markets that will be cheap and buy them anyway. Google's "mistake" is that they expect government and banks to play fair...They wanted to make a fair offer knowing what the actual outcomes will probably be in terms of cash. They miss that the whole point of auctions like this is for the big players to always win.. if they want to. this situation really calls for Gates or Jobs that are good at whipping up the business players and making the "stab in the back" deals behind closed doors... The Google founders are too much of "nice guys" for this type of deal.

Re:Google May Bid Yet

[gad_zuki!]

>But it would be amusing to see Google keep upping the bid on them.

Yes, and as a cell phone customer it will be extra amusing paying for this bidding war via raised rates.

Re:Google

[ajs]

Google not bidding means they never really intended to win, they were just using this as publicity to try an force the stipulations they wanted without having to be the high bidder.

Google sure has been trying to throw their weight around a lot lately.

Why don't you wait and see what happens before making judgments about a company based on what you think they'll probably do....

Re:Google

[MontyApollo]

I wasn't really making any judgments, don't get defensive about your favorite company.

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).

Re:Halfway is no good

[TooMuchToDo]

Actually, Google is quite close to having it's own private darknet across the country. They fear the last mile being taken away by Comcast, AT&T, et. al. This is where 700mhz comes in.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[Suzuran]

Without the FCC, I can also set up a large broadcasting station that transmits many signals throughout the FM broadcast band, strategically placed over the top of any existing stations, for the purpose of promoting Scientology. All it takes is one person with a few hundred dollars to talk over the top of any station they want for a few block radius. One guy with a few hundred dollars doing this trick in the HF spectrum can ruin use of a frequency for an entire continent. Don't like it if the guy down the street decides to put a hardcore gangsta rap station over the top of your low-power talk station? TOUGH.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.

No. Broadcasting is forbidden in the ham bands.

If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.

I hold an extra class ham license and have for many years. It is still illegal for me to broadcast. Or any other ham, for that matter. I am quite familiar with the rules and the technologies. In fact, some years you can find my name and call in the radio amateur handbook; I've done some innovating in ham radio, including some designs that were sold by AEA, way back when.

So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first.

This is true, however, you are still forbidden to use it to broadcast. The reason the bands are valuable is because instead of making them available to the citizens, they are auctioned to those with the most money. What is your objection to a broadcast band, let's say 50 to 100 MHz in size, being made available without power, content or range restriction to the public with broadcasting being expressly allowed?

...you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.

Exactly - you are locked out of broadcasting. That's the problem, all right. If I want to share my views live with a random single local individual, this is a capability that is already available to me without the need of radio, though yes, I can also do it as a ham or as a citizen's band user. If I want to share my views live with thousands or tens of thousands of local people at once, RF broadcast is not an option. I think it should be. Other than greed, I see no reason why it should not be.

Re:No Way.

[Achromatic1978]

Uhhh, here's a clue: the FCC only gets the money of the winning bidder, not of all bidders. The winning bid would have almost definitely been more than $4.6B.

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?

Re:Google 700mhz Fund?

[Achromatic1978]

And the promise that they will put that money towards the greater good is, where, exactly?

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 its success, not mine, as its goal.

Re:Abolish the FCC!

[fyngyrz]

just because YOU Live in a terrible radio market, it doesn't mean the whole country is screwed.

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 street who has an idea about building a local park, or Jane, who writes children's stories, or Leroy, who thinks the local government's upcoming law on trapping stray cats is cruel, or the local libertarian, atheist, other person without much of a voice, who would like to have some open discussions without being the victim of a broadcaster who has already made up their mind and will edit them into oblivion. That is why the ability for citizens to broadcast matters. Not because you can get Sirius or XM or you live in a city, but because all of those things are moneyed interests speaking to the people, or sponsoring speaking to the people, or deciding what is entertainment and what is not. You have NO radio-based opportunity to listen to your neighbors, and they have NO radio-based opportunity to speak to you.

Radio is unique in that it can, particularly in the guise of bands like the FM band, address the area around the station in a high fidelity, live and timely manner for citizens who are parked in their recliners, jogging, or just out walking their dog. There is no other communications medium that can do this, and you're not allowed to use it. If you'd think about this for a moment, really think about it, I'd hope it would piss you off at least a little bit.

i'm not fan of the FCC's policies, but somebody has to keep stations from stepping on each others toes.

No. There are numerous bands where toe-stepping would be a problem, and the FCC has neither the manpower nor the inclination to regulate those bands. The only place it is *really* a problem is where propagation allows signals from far away to regularly come in locally, I'm thinking of the citizen's band at 27 MHz in particular. Providing an unregulated band - in the sense that inside the band, one could broadcast to one's neighbors without breaking any rules - that is local by nature, say around 110 MHz for 20 MHz, is a perfectly reasonable proposal that poses danger only if citizens communicating with each other is dangerous. And if that's the case... we have other problems.