Google a "Happy Loser" In Spectrum Auction 162
Large cell service providers won almost all of the licenses in the recently concluded FCC spectrum auction. Google didn't get any and won't be entering the wireless business. Verizon Wireless was the big winner, laying out $9.4 billion for enough regional licenses in the "C" block to stitch together nationwide coverage, except for Alaska. On this spectrum Verizon will have to allow subscribers to use any compatible wireless device and run any software application they want. AT&T paid $6.6 billion, Qualcomm picked up a few licenses, and Paul Allen's Vulcan Spectrum LLC won a pair of licenses in the "A" block. One analyst called Google a "happy loser" because it got the openness it had pushed for. The AP's coverage does some more of the numbers.
Re:Who won Alaska (Score:5, Informative)
https://auctionsignon.fcc.gov/signon/index.htm [fcc.gov]
Login to Auction 73 and click 'results'.
Re:Phone company idiocy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the money? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who won Alaska (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like a newly created VC company made for the express purpose of bidding on this. That sucks for us. The last useless company that won lots of spectrum in Alaska never paid for it, never used it, and it was tied up in court for years because the FCC tried to repo it like a car that wasn't paid for, and the bankrupcy courts said they couldn't take it back. By the time it was done with, the spectrum had dropped in price (they speculated when the bidding was high around 2000, and declared bankrupcy when it was obvious no one wanted to buy it from them). With another no-name company bidding on something they don't know how to use, Alaska will be screwed. Again.
Re:Phone company idiocy (Score:4, Informative)
You needed to change the product code first, so the software update gets the unbranded version. You could find that you now have the most up to date firmware and you'll need to wait for the next Nokia release.
However, you may find third parties who are able to flash the phone to the generic firmware. You'll need to pay a fee though.
Re:Does Open = Without charges? (Score:5, Informative)
Recall that the original auction specs had a mandate to re-sell bandwidth in bulk (costs + reasonable fees), but Verizon lobbied hard to get it dropped for some reason. My random guess is that they wanted to have monopoly and set their own prices (translation: you are screwed).
Also, Verizon is making a killing selling those $100/month "unlimited" plans and $2 ringtones. Therefore, there is no way in hell they would undercut that by allowing something like a reasonably priced VoIP over their network.
Re:Does Open = Without charges? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing new here, the rest of the world has been doing this for over a decade and a half.
Re:Does Open = Without charges? (Score:3, Informative)
" FCC Open Access Requirements Paragraph 222 in FCC 07-132
No charges for using the device by the consumer. Of course, you are still charged service fees and if the contract is 10cents/kilobyte transfered there is nothing to stop Verizon from doing that so long as they charge everybody the same.
"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."
As far as bandwidth shaping goes, the FCC says no. But, they also say that the network is subject to reasonable network management (look to the outcome of the recent Comcast dealings for guidance). The open applications requirement is subject to "reasonable network management" and if the bandwidth limitations inherent in 4G technology makes it reasonable to shape bandwidth, as compared to the bandwidth available to cable modem users, the FCC may allow Verizon to shape the bandwidth.
Google is lucky (Score:3, Informative)
Antenna design scales linearly with frequency. Lower frequencies invariably require larger antennas. There are some ways you can get around this, i.e. accept low efficiencies, or narrow bandwidth, etc. Either way, you DO NOT want to lower your center frequency.
Secondly, and most importantly, the next gen for wireless communications will involve MIMO. I assure you, from practical experience and graduate research, you will not see multiple antennas in the 700 MHz spectrum. Nor will you see it at the 900 MHz spectrum. You might be able to pull it off at 1800 MHz, but you'll get at most two antennas. One needs to move into the 2.5 GHz and above to make a reasonably sized handheld WITH multiple antennas. You can't just place the antennas any which way and expect MIMO to work. The antennas need to have low coupling between them, so you need significant electrical distances between them. It's EASY to design multiple antennas for different frequencies (i.e. Quadband), but VERY difficult to design multiple uncoupled antennas at the SAME frequency (i.e. MIMO).