What is Digg?126 Comments
- Authustian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+324Just for quick reference lets see what google's 'demands' are:
* Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize a hand held communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at a technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
Vs. AT&T:
* give us all your money.
* don't like that? no 700mhz for you.
I choose google. - Irridor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+158Actually, the rules google wants the FCC to put on the spectrum would open it up and be positive.
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+97but I much rather have google in charge then att.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+83I hate at&t so much id rather google win this round.
- beatryder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+67I love my benevolent Google overlords.
- MikeCerm, on 10/10/2007, -48/+97Two monopolies, each looking to extend their monopolies into new areas, accusing each other of being anti-competitive.
Seriously, is this how the free market is really supposed to work? I'm glad Google's doing this, but even with Google in control, it's still one company, in control. - nullcodes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+48If you're an American, I recommend you do your duty and write the FCC to let them know how much you support Google's ideas (over AT&T's).
- plizard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37google better win
- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Except when the head of the FCC is a former AT&T lobbying professional.
Ever wonder how a few government workers are able to live well beyond their government paychecks? - zombieball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Does Google actually intend on bidding all the way on this spectrum though? All they have said so far is they will bid 4.6 billion which was like the reserve price on the auctions.
From Google blog:
Why $4.6 billion? While we think that a robust and competitive auction based on these four principles will likely produce much higher bids, and we are eager to see a diverse set of bidders competing, $4.6 billion is the reserve price that FCC has proposed for the auction. With any concerns about revenue to the U.S. Treasury being satisfied, we hope the FCC can return its attention to adopting openness principles for the benefit of consumers.
Perhaps they are just trying to get publicity and enlighten the public on this upcoming auction so that we will all fight for the open policies Google supports. In that case perhaps we should all do as nullcodes said and write to the FCC. - ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21First, no this isn't how a free market is supposed to work, since this isn't a free market, it's a government controlled monopoly over radio frequency use in the United State of America. (I'll let someone else discuss whether their handling of this monopoly on the spectrum is good or bad.) That being said, Google's goal is more in-line with a free market. They are specifically using their weight to try and promote competition in what could be a huge market for wireless internet access in the USA. I don't understand what you mean about Google being "in control"? They seem to be saying we are going to bid if the FCC agrees to open this band up. That seems to be almost the opposite of "in control."
All Google cares about is getting more people online s that their eyeballs can scan across Google ads.
I'll give you one guess as to what AT&T is interested in... same thing any entrenched telecom company is interested in.
If the FCC doesn't provide some or all of what Google is asking, then we'll know the telecom lobbyists have succeeded, plain and simple. - Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Google is less outwardly evil than AT&T. While I'm not going to say if google is good or evil at this point, AT&T is obviously evil, so google looks better by comparison. The lesser of two evils, if you will.
- korashime2001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15If for no other reason than to make the wireless carriers provide service much as the rest of the world does, I would support Google.
- usherzx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15how many free services does AT&T provide us?
None?
I choose Google. - cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Lesser of two evils. At least google doesn't spy on us for the RIAA. Least not that we know of.
- ImOnlySleeping, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Google would only be entering the market so I don't see how, despite being a gigantic corporation, this would "extend their monopol(y)"
- darknite1979, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10In case you actually want to write to the FCC
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html - icebrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Mike, You really are missing the whole point. Google's list of demands before it bids would force whoever wins to open their network both in terms of devices as well as "sharing" the frequency with other companies. Yes, it will technically be a monopoly on the frequency but more so the way ConEd has a monopoly on the power lines around NY although the electricity provider can be another company.
- mousky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It's irrelevant if a company is a monopoly. It's only relevant if a company abuses it's monopoly position. Besides Google is no monopoly. You may want to believe it is, but that does not make it true.
- Wonderkind, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"Why is that, exactly? Because Google is good and AT&T is evil? Let's not forget that AT&T brought us the transistor & modern computer, C, UNIX, and the internet as we know it."
Not so. AT&T of 2007 is NOT that company. Bell Labs is loooong gone. Everything you mentioned is at least a few decades old. Lately all they have "brought" us is more of their monopolistic focus.
I worked there for years. I refuse to do any business with AT&T at all. - zanzzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8AT&T and Verizon are interested in the continuation of an outdated business model they find extremely profitable. Not unlike the music label conglomerates they are about control and avoidance of competition. Every issue Google has stated regarding the sale of this bandwidth is pro consumer and pro competition. AT&T and Verizon are anti consumer and pro profit. It's really an easy decision for the FCC. Are they more concerned with supporting AT&T's stock price or empowering both consumers and a competitive market?
- KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Wild stab in the dark here, but I'm gonna say that he IS a customer.
- denisio50, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10All these geeks and no one mentions SDR? That is, Software Defined Radio. There is now no need for the FCC to exist at all, or regulate the spectra. SDR allows anyone to broadcast, get paid, serve their customers and customers to receive whatever they want without interference or control. Also, check out Hedy Lamarr.
Everyone, please get educated about SDR! - Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7free Skype cell phone calls??? I think I just came in my pants a little.
- 3adkied, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8AT&T says this "would devalue the spectrum".
Invisible waves through the air don't just grow on trees. These things are EXPENSIVE! - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8While your point about them being an ad company is well-taken, Google seems to understand that unobtrusive advertising (i.e. targeted Google ads) are more effective and less intrusive than the typical used car salesman "COME ON DOWN FOR THE GREATEST DEAL THIS CENTURY" approach, wrapped in a "H3RB@L V1@gr@@" spam motif. If some place is going to advertise to me, I'd rather it be Google. I'm sure AT&T sells my customer info on a regular basis, anway.
- dengzhi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6or anyone living in the US..
- jhbarr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Ever hear of medicare or medicaid. The government is already responsible for a large percentage of US healthcare.
- MrButthead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Before calling someone else an idiot, be sure YOU'RE not one.
- Jrr6415sun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7omg those ads are so expensive to look at, how will I ever make enough money to pay them off.
- LawSchoolBound, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It doesn't matter if google wins the auction, only that the FCC will agree to the rules they put forth. Google almost certainly can't actually win in a bidding war but if AT&T wins but has to play by the rules requiring the spectrum to be open then it seems like we the consumer win. So lets hope the FCC agrees to these rules then it won't matter who wins.
- dude187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Yeah and have you ever heard anything good about either? Please speak up if you have, because I most certainly have not.
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"I'm sure AT&T sells my customer info on a regular basis, anway."
Educate yourself....
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php - mrfunybuny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6How is Google a monopoly?
- weebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Those four providers have done more damage than good. They take basic rights of the consumers, and turn them into cash for themselves. They lied to the consumer by telling them they are unlimited, when in fact they are not. They forced them into long contracts. Now they want a shot at the 700 MHz band, so they can lay it onto the consumers some more. We already can't breath because of the prices. Cell phones should of dropped more in price by now. In my area the average price is $80.00 and up. To get a so called deal which it isn't a deal, you have to get the packages. But what is the sense in it, if your not using the thing night and day? I always have minutes left over, and for most of the companies unless you have their deluxe packages, the minutes don't role over. It's nuts too because most want you using a cell phone. So out the door went the home phone, but I am paying more for the cell phone than I ever did for the home phone I had. Sure it saved me from paying two phone bills. But that is all it did.
I hope in a lot of ways that Google does win this. Maybe it will open the eyes of the four major competitors, and make them realize that you can only fool the public for so long. The FCC has a chance now to fix this right. I just hope when they haggle over the paper work, that they don't forget the consumer. We need a break, we deserve one. - sannm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The reason I support Google in this particular case is simple, at&t simply wants to hoard the spectrum, and or make it totally proprietary to at&t keeping their other services making lots of money. Google wants the network to be open and "all access" if you will, they want it to be an unlocked network on which anyone can put any device. This open development will allow a new age of mobile electronics to be created and create great competition in the somewhat stifled mobile device field. If Google wins then we all win because we will have a new "open" spectrum which means lots of new competition from device manufacturers, but if at&t wins they will attempt to stile innovation to further their other sectors of their business.
- eschompthis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4is all you iphone people happy now? you have a contract to support this ***** for 2 years
- sclifford, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3>>It would seem like ATT would almost go
>>bankrupt to win the bid just because if they lost it,
>>they are pretty much dead.
@Sirberus, you say that like it's a bad thing. ;) AT&T along with other providers need to realize that open access benefits *them* in the long run. - SIRBERUS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Honestly though... does Google have a chance at getting it?
I mean... yes, google has a lot of money for this "project"... but this is ATT life at stake.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if google opened up this spectrum... wouldn't it lead to free-cell phones or something or atleast skype cell phones?
It would seem like ATT would almost go bankrupt to win the bid just because if they lost it, they are pretty much dead. - UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because they hijacked my Cingular contract. $200 to not be bugged by the NSA for a year. =(
- wiremonkeymommy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hope it made a satisfying *cracking* noise upon impact ;)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Go google let's hope that they give it to the people!
- SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A perfect example, I ordered two business lines, within 24 hours of activation, I get non-stop calls from folks trying to sell me stuff for my new business. How did they know my new number and name of my business?; I haven't published it anywhere yet, hell it was just turned on. My investigation, resulted in them giving me two new phone numbers, not unpublished, but un-sold as a new business in town, and guess what I had to pay, a fee, to keep them from selling my info to the wolves. They sell it, that's for sure, and if they can't, they charge you for not being able to sell it. ALthough, may don't know, when you do a formal change of address with the Post Office, they too sell your info, that's right, they sell your name and address and make money off selling the lists. So, this selling of your info, is nothing new.
- lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wasn't there a story about the FCC already suggesting that the 700mHz band be opened? I'm sure Ma Bell will be spending a lot of money pressuring congressmen and such to keep things closed.... I guess we have to start working overtime to get it open... It's a good thing Google is doing... let's hope that this is the right strategy.
- ptFoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5As Jesus once so eloquently put it:
"***** AT&T" - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And the other companies will have the same benefits. A fair market. How bad is that?
- Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3' we as overlords decree that you must be free otherwise we're not going to take over the world. if you don't want to be free, we'll just sit back and do nothing, okay? '
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'll take the innovative forward thinking company who likes to give their customers a great value over a dinosaur of a company who only cares about its own bottom line, while at the same time acting against its bottom line by being a dinosaur of a company.
- morel42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google is one of the very few companies that can look at AT&T's bank account and proclaim "That all you got bitches?"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No we haven't forgotten that google is an advertising company and I am sick retards acting like they are the only ones who remember. And then you undo your premise just like the rest. "If Google doesn't do it ... somebody else will." Do what? "As an advertiser, why wouldn't Google translate their AdWords/AdSense technology to voice?" I don't know, and neither do you apparently. What do you suggest? A ***** co-op for 700mhz? Okay then start raising money. Or maybe they should just not license it. Will that make you happy? How about we just jam the entire ***** spectrum so we won't have to fear your imaginary advertising schemes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is