What is Digg?73 Comments
- guardianzero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+61Damn it, now Google really really needs to win this.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38Lets see who didn't approve the wholesale bandwidth access:
Robert McDowell (R): Bush appointee and Former lobbyist for the Telecom industries. He is highly praised by Ted Stevens.
"McDowell will have to prove whether he is really pro anything besides the clients he has represented over the last decade, alternately using the rhetoric of deregulation or government mediation, depending on which suited his immediate needs."
This is exactly the rhetoric he used in this decision: "Robert McDowell expressed his own desire that regulation be kept to an absolute minimum." http://llfcc.com/node/39
And the other member, Deborah Taylor (R): Bush Appointee and strong advocate of DRM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Taylor_Tate She was "very lukewarm on open access" - tastypastry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38Godspeed Google.
- chesterjosiah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Let's just hope Google wins this auction and implements the other two open practices they suggested (open services, and open networks). I'm tired of the 2-year agreement required crap that we all HAVE to agree with because ALL of the mobile telcos do it.
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29Great, without wholesale requirements you can use any phone you like, but there will be only one carrier. I cant wait to see the price tag on this one.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24At this stage, I don't think Google, nor America, can afford to lose this. If Google has to do another Public Offering in order to raise the cash, they better damn well do it now, because this spectrum is going to be sizzling hot. The big network runners in America aren't going to want to lose this under any circumstance and give Google any kind of validation, and almost anyone here knows that as soon as the big telecoms get ahold of this spectrum, they're just going to warehouse it; it's better for them just to buy it and dump it into the closet until everyone forgets about those pesky restrictions the FCC placed on the bandwidth than to actually attempt to use it for much.
What's worse, and even downright scary, is the kind of access they're putting on the Public Safety spectrum.. read the article and tell me something doesn't smell fishy about how access control is parroted out. - d03boy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20No, Google said they would bid no less than $4.5? billion if their desires were met.
- IShouldBeWorkin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Ill be interested to see how Google responds to this, considering they explicitly said they would not engage in bidding if their conditions were not met
- TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17How can you be "very lukewarm?" That's like saying "excessively average."
- Ampidire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I hope google still puts up! I want my telekinetic google interactivity!
- numba1xclusive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Seriously, if Google doesn't win this, and we're stuck with decades of closed, divided networks on cellphones, kiss the possibility of amazing phones goodbye. I'm tired of buying my phone with the plan. Dumbass FCC, not seeing the light of innovation.
- transfire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I wonder what we, the populace, can do to help Google win the spectrum? I know the other companies will spend "whatever it takes". So what about a fund raiser? Google could put a blurb right on their search page. Lord knows the biggest Internet ad company should be able to generate the support. I'm in for $20.
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12This is the key point: ALL of telecom should be restructured as a "wholesale" or "structural separation" model where service providers buy their last mile from wholesalers.
- bipto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You can't, but the federal government can.
- zombieball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13FCC = selling off 700mhz spectrum
Google is all like, well if you are gonna sell it we want you to make sure a few things happen no matter who buys it. We want the people to be able to use any cell they want on this network, and have open applications on those cells. Also we wanna make it easy for small startup cell companies to use this network.
At&t is all like, screw that, we wanna buy this bandwidth up and use it how we see fit to get as much money outta ppl as we can.
Atleast thats how I see it all. :P - jnadke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10This basically determines whether the wireless duopoly (AT&T/Verizon) continues. Keeping in mind these are nationwide spectrums. Anyone wanting to deploy a nationwide network needs to buy these.
Google wanted these restrictions so companies would bid less and they could afford it.
Verizon and AT&T will bid any amount to keep it out of Google's hands and deploy new consumer networks.
Contrary, Google is not a "big player". Verizon and AT&T have 5-10x the cashflow that Google has. That's why they want to team up with Sprint to bid on it. Even teamed up, they are about 1/2 of Verizons pockets, and AT&T's pockets are twice as big as Verizon. - 1shawn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Not all of them. Cricket, for example, has no contracts. You pay dearly for your phone and roaming though.
- kooblakhan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9This aligns with the whole Google/Sprint-Nextel partnership that was just announced. I think Sprint is willing to allow openness on its Wi-MAX network. Should be interesting to see what AT&T and Verizon do.
- UberC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Further proof that Bush is regressing the US back a decade (or more).
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm a libertarian and I readily admit that government would do a better job than AT&T and Verizon. But that only shows that corporate fascism is worse than socialism.
- Charbax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Maybe if Google doesn't have enough cash to do no evil with 700mhz, then maybe Google can contact some other huge companies like IBM, maybe even Microsoft, Intel and some others who would find it interesting to get together and purchase the 700mhz spectrum to provide open access, not to necessarilly make much money on access (they may I guess plan over a period of 5-10 years to recoup approximately the licencing expenses), but rather make more money on their online services and on the software and hardware innovations that this open access will bring.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I guess Fedex, DHL and UPS should all leave the business now if it's so illegal to compete against the USPS.
- Doghound, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You own it the same way you own a piece of land: some piece of paper at some government building has your name on it (or the name of a company).
If you want to get all hippie about it, then, yes, no one physically owns it. But here in the real world that's not how it works. - Vash265, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I feel so completely incompetent right now...Can someone please explain all this business to me in layman's terms?
- egrumling, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, they'll promise to deploy wireless to everyone, but it will take 15 years to reach 99.3% and they'll stonewall and find any reason they can to hold up deployment in areas that have more than a 18 month payback.
So, you'll see it in Washington DC within a few weeks of the auction. Then about a year later, it will be in NYC and SF. A few months later sporadic coverage in LA and Chicago. Then the secondary cities will start to get one tower in the rich part of town. Someone will sue because they don't want a tower spoiling their view. The winner will present this lawsuit as reason why deployment has been so slow.
The thing I don't understand is that I thought it was going to be the first nationwide spectrum auction. According to the article they are going to use the regional/ADI method again. That will mean even more delays as deals are made to get contiguous areas and regions built out. - d03boy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If Google brings me cheaper phone/internet service I don't care what they do.
- egrumling, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9what would be so bad if the government did run the spectrum? Really, I mean why is it so terrible to think that a government run system would not be somewhat useful, if not good? Look at the USPS. It is not run with any taxpayer money, but can still efficiently and effectively send me 10 pounds of junk mail a week that goes straight into the dumpster. Once in a while I get a bill or something I actually asked for, in a decent amt of time and in reasonably good shape. There is no law forcing me to use the USPS, and there is a lot of competition in package/letter delivery. More to the point, the USPS competitors don't even want to send the volume of mail the post office sends.
Compare this to the typical ISP. I pay a somewhat higher than world average rate for lower than average service levels. They deliver thousands of KB of SPAM and flash-y ads that are blocked before I even realize it (thank you AB+). Even if I wanted a higher level of service (say, 100MBps, like it developed Asia), I cannot buy it. Now they are talking about charging both ends of the service, for some strange reason. ISPs have defined the baseline of what service is, and they are trying to do the minimum necessary to keep you from going to their competitor.
Now, what about the cellular companies? If I wanted to use Skype or some other VoIP service on my smartphone, I am not permitted due to the contract restrictions and I would promptly be forced to pay "damages" or have my service shut off. If I wanted to purchase a better phone than what is offered, well, that's just too bad. In some cases, if I develop a product you might be interested in, I may have to pay the phone company (and the phone manufacturer) a license fee that just about insures that small potatoes can't even get their foot in the door, let alone the hobbyist that wants to share a neat little application with his friends.*
What if the government set up a system, much like the post office, that offered a minimum level of service for a minimal price? That would get rid of all the price problems with the current system. Sure, your phone call may sound like a tin can, but hey, it was cheap. If you want good, too, check out some of the other guys. Oh, some of them will have great service, but force you into their phone, and some will let you send just about anything, but it may cost ya, but in the end getting rid of the bottom feeder customers would allow the phone companies and ISPs to focus on customers they never thought about before. And it could all happen if the government would turn the 700MHz spectrum over to themselves.
But, since Ron Paul would shut down the FCC and start a transmitter power war (look for the Federal Radio Act of 1927), I'm sure this will be an unpopular proposal.
*I'm a Ham radio operator. I have lots ham specific software, some of it free, all of it written by individuals just messing around, that would never be created if the authors had to pay licenses and fees. I doubt I would have bought it, either. - dawgma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You're just making this ***** up, man. Google did not explicitly say this. They were not "explicit" at all about removing themselves from the auction if their proposed ideas were not met. In fact Richard Whitt's response to such questions heavily suggested Google would continue to bid despite the lack of regulation.
Like.. what the hell? - Solis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They're digging him down because they've never heard of "Cricket".
- thedsack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Could we start a collection to support Google, in its bid?
I would start it by adding $100 - williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't digg mbo down. It's a legitimate question. With software defined radio, you don't need to "own" spectrum. It would be far more efficient to allocate all spectrum on an on-demand basis.
- Prospero424, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately, as the rules now stand, Google has little chance of winning any auction. Pretty much every expert I've read on this topic says they have very little chance of winning the sort of bidding war the big telecoms are going to go all-out in so they can close of the market to potential competition.
the AT&Ts of the world will spend ANY amount of money to bar competition, and it seems to be the primary job of the FCC these days to facilitate that.
What this issue needs is widespread public attention and activism. But the headlines just don't pop like the "missing pretty white girl" ones, so there's little hope of that. - spiffytech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wikipedia tells me that they've been around for a while, but until they started sticking signs up everywhere last month, I hadn't heard of them either. Small wonder, since I had no idea what they did. The signs said "Cricklet wireless", but I didn't know if that was voice or data.
- jnadke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Verizon/ATT: Please! Please! Give the space to us! We'll deploy wireless internet to every man, woman and child in the U.S.! (*cough*But we'll charge you $0.25 per MB, and $0.50 per MB if you connect to Google*cough*).
Google: Sell to them and we're all screwed. - Devrdander, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4the alternative is pre-pay with notification of near overages...
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3All the proposed plans suck. Even the FCC is shooting itself in the foot here. A current issue for the FCC is its proposed licensing of BPL (Broadband over power lines), a technology so fowl and "dirty" in its implementation that it could effectively wipe out HF communications (read, any radio capable of going beyond line of sight), and since HF signals can bounce all over the world, could actually cause worldwide radio interference. This spectrum has the potential to solve that problem if it was opened up to Wi Max type technology.
Do people forget that this is *our* spectrum they are "auctioning"? It belongs to the tax payers of the US. What would you rather have, another cell phone service (even if it's run by google), or high power, long range unlicensed nationwide wireless networking that allows for anyone dropping in and out at will. Your watch, your PDA, your phone could all have a free wireless data connection, as well as providing for public safety. This spectrum should really become the "Digital Citizens Band". It's the FCCs job to develop this spectrum in the greatest public interest, or license it to someone who will. - egrumling, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ummm, no. Sure Goog is the flavor of the week as far as people liking them, but it wouldn't take much for the company to change, sometimes dramatically. At one time, there was this great company called Yahoo!. They were hipster cool web guys who spent all the time telling everyone else they didn't "get it" and that Hollywood was on its last legs. Then they sold out, put a former Viacom exec in charge and became a mess.
Another "great new" company was @Home. They were so cool they didn't even try to woo Hollywood. Then some idiot put a Hollywood type in charge, and they went out on a buying spree ($6 billion for a greeting card company?!!?!), and wrecked up their relationship with their customers.
Ebay made us all rich. Then they threatened to raise the listing fee and pissed off everyone. Now they are about the same level as the "antique malls" that have professional ripoff artists not selling junk for 4X the worth.
All it would take is for one of the founders to be in a plane crash (WOZ), another to be fired (Jobs), someone to get sick, or just decide to buy a small island in the south Pacific and the whole corporate culture could change. - Matty2Jay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Google is the Hogan of the bidders!
- drgruney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3but it's not like you have to constantly be under contract... once the contract expires you're fine. if you picked a plan that suits you well. and you don't NEED the fanciest phone constantly.
- dreesemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hate current wireless companies so much, if Verizon/ATT would win the bid all hope would be lost. Wireless plans are so overpriced it's ridiculous. Back in the day, I got pretty much the same time of anytime minutes, the same nights & weekends free, and unlimited text messaging for $20/mo. Now I'm lucky if I can squeeze under $55/mo and I use MAYBE 100 minutes total each month. Freaking ridiculous. I hate you monopolizing wireless cellphone bastards. Please save us, google! If I'm paying $50 I want unlimited web access and text messaging. I'd happily write that bill every month. Google could do all that for $20/mo or less. Godspeed, google.
- psygnisfive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is one of the big questions in spectrum regulation. I believe both Cory Doctorow and Lawrence Lessig have given talks about this issue. There are other amazingly ***** things that are done, like prohibiting the use of digital devices on the empty frequencies between radio stations and such. The telecoms have done everything in their power to block that, even tho it doesn't cause interference on the radio stations.
- Azdak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wow...this is exciting. god i wish i held stock in google
- jgzman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3In this case you 'own' the right to broadcast on a particular wavelength. This particular range of frequencies is particularly nice because it is better at penetrating solid objects, if I remember correctly.
- Mohonri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's right....sorta. Google guaranteed the FCC that IF the FCC mandated the four conditions (apps, hardware, wholesale, and I forget the last one), then Google would bid at least $4.6 billion. They didn't exclude themselves from the bidding if the FCC didn't go with the requests, just guaranteed that amount of money if they did comply.
The reason behind the $4.6B guarantee was this: If the FCC required those four conditions, then the big telcos would not bid as much, because not having the privilege of vendor lock-in would reduce its value to them. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Link please. I couldn't find this on ebay.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So buy stock in Google.
- Doghound, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good points Solis and spiffytech.
Hadn't thought of that :D - RCourtney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Every business is there for one overriding reason - to make more profit. Every business, no matter how well it aligns with the public interest to begin with, will inevitably end up sacrificing what's "right" for what's profitable when push comes to shove because shareholders want more money, not more of what's in the publics best interest (unless of course doing so will make them more money).
- mkrygeri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am so building my own asterisk server for this...
- ikesauto, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1So the wholesale of the radio chanell is not alowed. I should add it to http://www.merchandizeliquidators.com
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is