digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Open access for all: prime 700MHz Block C hits reserve price

arstechnica.com — The FCC's 700MHz spectrum auction hit an important milestone today as bidding on a nationwide license with open access requirements passed the reserve price of $4.638 billion. So far, total bids have exceeded the FCC's $10.3 billion minimum.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • twrife, on 02/01/2008, -1/+33Will they release who bid what at the end of the auction? I would really like to know who pushed it over the edge.
    • whataboutdave, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7Unlikely, I'm afraid.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 02/01/2008, -2/+19Bet it was Google. They're cool like that.
      • evan119, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Google announced a couple months ago that they would at least bid the reserve, so thats probably a safe bet...
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1Don't rule out MS' contribution..now that they seem to be acquiring Yahoo
    • sockpuppets, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7Google will win it, they have ridiculous amounts of cash reserves. I highly suspect their "secret business plan" hinges on winning this spectrum.
      • Deodrus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+15actually there was an article on digg about 2 months ago offering skepticism that google has enough money to bid for it.

        the article said that google was barely able to muster 5 billlion to invest in this auction.

        it also said that google's strategy was not to WIN this auction, but to push for OPEN STANDARDS (and now that it is a requirement for whoever buys the spectrum, google is already happy and doesnt care who wins it).
        • aladrin, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2That's funny, last I heard they had 5 billion IN CASH. Liquid assets. Plus everything else they've got. I relaly don't think it'll be a problem for them.
          • KibibyteBrain, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6Even then, they have to consider the cost benefit. See youtube as an example of Google's mistaken evaluation of "we have the resources, so we can afford it". You know, its just like I can't "afford" a $500 sweater even though I have more than enough money to buy one. The affordability of things to a good financial manager should always be a pretty non-damaging investment. The only exception, of course, is when you have netted the deal of a lifetime, but I'm not so sure this is exactly up to that standard. After all, worst case, Google loses the bid, and ends up leasing some space from someone else down the road: not that bad.
          • SlimFastForYou, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1Yeah, but buying Youtube still was a good move I think. It's already extremely popular, and provided they keep their Google/Youtube engineers busy working on improving their services, the popularity is only going to climb. They are one of the de-facto Internet media outlets, and with the uproar over the mainstream media as well as improved media centers, I think cable and satellite are going to be competing more and more with the Internet. Think about it, people are increasingly using gaming consoles with services like Orb.com and Winamp Remote. There's also many sites to watch TV and movie episodes online with (usually flash) browser-based video players.
    • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -1/+23The higher it goes, the more we will have to pay.
    • ufia, on 02/01/2008, -1/+11That was me, I am the meddling kid pushing it over the edge. I can't actually afford a license for the 700MHz spectrum, though, I was only doing it for the lulz.
    • elyobelyob, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5Hope they've got a feedback score > 0
    • aarons44, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Rumor has it Google bid at least the $4 billion reserve price to guarantee their open access clauses we be included, as that was the requirement. If it sold for less than that, the open access clauses wouldn't be included. I think the guy that does the tech writing for Popular Science made that suggestion on an article that was Dugg a couple of weeks back.
  • Trention, on 02/01/2008, -3/+196Please let it be Google.
    • xkhaozx, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5Google is not going to try to win the spectrum, why would they bother? By the bid reaching FCC's minimum, googles 'open access' rules are put into place, and therefore google can use the spectrum freely. But they are not, and do not want to become a cellphone company.
    • vipersporthp, on 02/01/2008, -8/+1Apple should buy it
      • digjam, on 02/01/2008, -1/+6yeah Apple should buy it and stick it up ur ass!
      • Audacitor, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Apple couldn't; they're no where near large enough to compete with the telecoms. Fortunately, Apple is on superbly excellent terms with Google, so if Google gets their hands on it, Apple will probably benefit from it.
      • lengau, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Apple wouldn't buy it. The rules set for this piece of spectrum are quite contrary to Apple's modus operandi.
        It's not that I see Apple as not wanting wireless spectrum. It would be quite like Apple to set up their own cell phone service for the iPhone. However, I doubt they'd use a piece of spectrum that, by law, anyone can make a device for. This would mean that vertical integration is out of the window. Steve Jobs doesn't like it when he can't vertically integrate.
  • ChillEnt, on 02/01/2008, -25/+3Dupe: http://digg.com/tech_news/700MHz_C_block_hits_rese ...
    • Eldoo77, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6Put away your wand Dupe Fairy!
    • Stalks, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6How can it be a dupe when this was submitted 2 hours BEFORE yours?
    • Whaines, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Thanks! Pointed me to your story to bury as a dupe.
  • footbag01, on 02/01/2008, -5/+73Anyone want to go in with me? I got $5 on it!!!
    • peaceninja, on 02/01/2008, -0/+133.50 here, we're up 8.50!
      • Netrilix, on 02/01/2008, -1/+12I've got, like, a billion dollars! Oh, that's still not enough? *****.
        • iiBeLiEvE, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6One billion, eight dollars and fifty cents, now!
        • digjam, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I ll in 50 cent just to make it a round number :D
        • digjam, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Income Tax raid on ur way Sir!
    • GeoGrapher, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5God damn Loch Nes Monster!!!
    • nphase, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1i'll throw in $100
    • ftx437, on 02/01/2008, -1/+150$ here..

      we close yet?
  • davidkeithjones, on 02/01/2008, -6/+5Looks like Google will get priced out.
    • nphase, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1This is the part where the fabled apple-google partnership reveals itself? Schmidt and Jobs come out skipping and holding hands to the Gilligan's Island themesong?
  • UnstableMind, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7So, does anyone have a good resource to read regarding what has to be done by the companies who win the bid(s). Like, what is the FCC's definition of open? I've tried looking, but not really finding anything "good".
  • kaelyiesta, on 02/01/2008, -5/+39I'd wager that the Telcos have plenty more money to throw around than google does. Sad, I guess crime can pay.
    • sockpuppets, on 02/01/2008, -1/+29Google is sitting on about 10 billion in cash reserves. I think they're positioned well.
      • 11oops, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2Source?
        • backflipper, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6how about their financial statements...
          http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=NASD ...
          Cash and short term investments of $13 billion at 9/30/07
        • 11oops, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Thanks. When throwing around figures and stats, it's always best to cite the source in your original statement (According to their financial statements, Google is sitting...). With all the BS here on Digg, it's tough to determine what to believe and what not to believe, and I don't have the time to go fact-checking everything.
          My previous comment was actually an edit of a response that I had left on the wrong topic. I left this simple comment rather than leave a blank. Your response (and source) is appreciated (although I still wonder if sockpuppets didn't pull that number out of his ass, because there's still a 3 billion dollar discrepancy, which is fairly significant).
    • Gabberwok, on 02/01/2008, -0/+13Google probably won't win it, but at least they forced the open access provisions. A great move.
  • seldon452, on 02/01/2008, -6/+1Praise the lord, Hallelujah!
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/01/2008, -16/+5I hope Microsoft gets this to screw u little google fanboys
    • noobifiggah, on 02/01/2008, -3/+4Nobody's being a Google fanboy... I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Google is even wanting to use the 700 MHz for... Try using Google to search it if you don't already know.

      ha. Open internet access ftw!
    • thefandango, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Microsoft's not even bidding on it you retard. Go back to Trollville - population: MooseTheTard
  • Gabberwok, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2It's a start. :-)
  • Peko, on 02/01/2008, -1/+11Ok, can somebody dumb this down for me? Can somebody explain some of the possible ventures for using this bandwidth?
    My first thought is expanded cell coverage, but I dont even know if I'm completely off base on that.
    • Dgen_X, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7it's so we can have better TV..duh! don't you listen to the commercials!?

      More or less, it can be used for a wide variety of wireless communication, either cell coverage like you thought, expanded wireless internet, or other things that I can't think of right now.
  • Deodrus, on 02/01/2008, -5/+3actually there was an article on digg about 2 months ago offering skepticism that google has enough money to bid for it.

    the article said that google was barely able to muster 5 billlion to invest in this auction.

    it also said that google's strategy was not to WIN this auction, but to push for OPEN STANDARDS (and now that it is a requirement for whoever buys the spectrum, google is already happy and doesnt care who wins it).
  • zspitfire04, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4okay, I understand whats going on, but can someone please inlighten me on why this is important?
    • ufia, on 02/01/2008, -1/+30This is important because 700MHz is the brain frequency. The winning bidder who own that spectrum get to control our mind.
      • rickcarson, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Hunh. I thought it was the one to kill off the bees and end civilization.

        Guess I'm bidding in the wrong auction then...
  • Lazyboy0172, on 02/01/2008, -4/+62L@@K NICE NIB 700mhz SPECTRUM RIGHTS (NR!!!)
    • gfnw, on 02/01/2008, -0/+14(not 600mhz, 500mhz, 400mhz, cellphone, BMW)
    • eoncire, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8D+ Item description was incorrect. There is a reserve on the auction "passed the reserve price of $4.638 billion"
    • sexydawg, on 02/01/2008, -0/+38INSTEAD OF WIRELESS SPECTRUM PACKAGE CONTAINED BOBCAT. WOULD NOT BUY AGAIN.
    • jkoke, on 02/01/2008, -0/+14ITEM AS DESCRIBED, BUT NOT PACKED WELL. SPECTRUM ARRIVED BROKEN AND SELLER WOULD NOT REPLACE. DO NOT BUY FROM SELLER!!!
      • floejoe, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1It wasn't broken when I shipped it. Packaged well w/clean diapers, items didn't break, complained it wasn't w/newspaper
  • macwac, on 02/01/2008, -8/+2I'm crossing my fingers for Google - please google scrape your money together! (then all of a surprise Apple wins the bid ..=P)
  • mihnea008, on 02/01/2008, -6/+4Please GOOGLE, please, please, please
  • Bornhuetter, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Correction - all Americans.
  • nicejai, on 02/01/2008, -1/+62I really hope Google wins this, because every single one of you know what's going to happen if those other big telco's win this. They'll pull some ***** like redefine the words "open", and "access" like how Comcast called their intercepting and impersonating of torrent traffic into "delaying" torrent traffic; or how the government redefined torture to not mean torture; or how advertised "unlimited internet" is simply redefined to mean "unlimited connectivity"... even though there's a limit to even that (a month can only have so many hours)!... etc etc. Large organizations are redefining words like it's going out of fashion to get themselves around inconvenient laws. And who can stop them? It's not like we're the lawyers or politicians or have the deep pockets to buy some.

    I really hope Google has sociologists and psychologists to realize that if those other telcos win they *will* go as far as changing the dictionary if it meant they could restrict access.

    The only company that has moral fortitude to do what's right, will be Google.
  • senatorpjt, on 02/01/2008, -6/+1"Open access for all". Yeah, for all of us that have $429 million to spend.
  • ssj2119, on 02/01/2008, -4/+6Someone explain what 700mhz, is, what it will do and what it means for the internet? Thanks.
  • YodaJones, on 02/01/2008, -6/+3I think they should use the spectrum to transmit black and white only television. Oh crap, they already did that.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 02/01/2008, -8/+7Open access for all?

    Maybe we would have open access for all if the government didn't illegally lay claim to all radio frequencies as its own property, and then "auction them off" to the highest bidder.

    The FCC is an antiquated, corrupt entity that needs to be shut down.
    • GeauxLSU, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10It is public airwaves....Been established long ago.

      AND...The government aren't selling the airwaves, just the license to operate in that specific space.

      Anarchy in those airwaves (i.e. everyone does as they wish) would be a mess. Watch what you wish for.
    • time4wrk, on 02/01/2008, -7/+1I completely agree with you on this absurd paradox. How dare the government claim airwaves as there own, this causes so much hands being tied and does not allow for innovation.
    • localzuk, on 02/01/2008, -0/+12So, instead you have 2 million people all trying to use the same frequencies and get a mess of interference and useless radio frequencies? Brilliant idea. Whilst the FCC has its problems, it also is a necessary part of the USA. Without out, your mobile phones would not work, neither would your (non cable) TV, how about cordless phones, wifi, bluetooth, emergency services' radio's etc... All someone would have to do is have a stronger transmitter to destroy your business or disrupt the police etc...
    • ilikesboobs, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10If not done by the FCC, you'll have bunch of different companies polluting the frequency by claiming it for their own. You're going to end up with interference and then you're just going to end up with lawsuits over who had the frequency first. Then the governments going to end up deciding anyways, because most likely it won't be a trial by jury.

      So either way your wish for government not being involved is doomed.
    • CCB0x45, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1Like everyone said previously, you are an idiot... there has to be government control or the stations would be completely useless.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1I disagree with all of you, whom have all pretty much said the same thing.

      I really don't believe that people would be stepping all over each other. Think about it logically. First of all, the spectrum is huge... its the government that makes it seem so small. Secondly, those who want to use the frequencies are incentivized to find a clear frequency, otherwise they would obviously be wasting their time. Market forces would prevent any kind of overlap. As for intentional, malicious, disruption, people can already do this... why don't they? I'm guessing its in large due to the high cost of powerful radio transmitters. People who invest are legitimate.

      What a lot of you are saying is downright scary. Especially localzuk -- the idea that TV, cordlessphones, wifi, etc wouldn't work if it weren't for the FCC is ridiculous. You act like someones going to put up a megatower thats just blasting junk on all frequencies. Its simply not going to happen.

      And GeauxLSU: The ability to license implies ownership. Can I license you to use your own computer?

      It seems to me that everyones simply afraid to work things out for themselves, and need a big mommy government to hold everyones hand.
      • Marmot, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1>>> "As for intentional, malicious, disruption, people can already do this... why don't they? I'm guessing its in large due to the high cost of powerful radio transmitters. People who invest are legitimate."

        I would imagine it has to do with very tough enforcement by the FCC, and not the cost of mega transmitters. The cost of such jammers would be no barrier. Think of it this way -- if there were a demand for mega transmitters that might disrupt your competition, suppliers will compete, thus bringing down the cost to the point that anybody who wanted to disrupt communications could afford to do so.

        Oh wait -- you mean I might make some sort of deal with a neighbor where I use a particular frequency and he doesn't, in exchange for payment. In other words, a market transaction. What's to stop a third person from setting up shop and using my frequency? Do I have to pay him too? What if I pay him and he transmits anyway?



        >>>>"What a lot of you are saying is downright scary. Especially localzuk -- the idea that TV, cordlessphones, wifi, etc wouldn't work if it weren't for the FCC is ridiculous. You act like someones going to put up a megatower thats just blasting junk on all frequencies. Its simply not going to happen."

        TV works because everybody agrees that broadcast television is transmitted in the same frequency range, on defined channels, and in the NTSC (or PAL or SECAM) format. Manufacturers can make televisions that will work anywhere, rather than having to tailor theirTV tuners to work on whatever mix of frequencies might be in use in a given locale.

        Wifi, cordless phones, etc all work because there is unlicensed spectrum available for such use, and rules that everybody must follow when using it. Unlicensed doesn't mean unregulated -- there are transmitter power restrictions in place that effectively control your broadcast range, and minimize the likelihood you'll interfere with your neighbor's phone.


        >>>>And GeauxLSU: The ability to license implies ownership. Can I license you to use your own computer?

        No, but you can prevent me from using yours. If I use mine and you use yours, it doesn't matter if I run Folding@Home or pump out massive amounts of spam, since it doesn't take any resources from you.

        If we both share a computer, the more heavily I use it, the less is left over for you to use. What if I decide to run Folding@Home, or some IRC bot, or a spam zombie, or some other resource hog software on the shared computer? Why shouldn't I? How would you stop me, and why should I stop?
  • Trollmaster, on 02/01/2008, -6/+5[Insert random Google fanboy quote here.]
  • odiego, on 02/01/2008, -7/+5Please be Microsoft..
    • JenniferSlayton, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I hope google gets stuck with the C block.
  • ryno4, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2all you google fanboys do realize that google is not trying to win the spectrum. They really have no use for it. What google did instead was to promise to the fcc they would bid the reserve price if they put an open access rule on the spectrum. Google just wanted to push bidding over the reserve, so the rules stay in effect, but still lose the auction.
    • th3heretic, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2WRONG.
    • CCB0x45, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Unless they pushed it over the reserve and nobody outbid them... then they are stuck with it.
  • RyeBrye, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8If you want to sign on and get in on the bidding, go here:

    https://auctionsignon.fcc.gov/signon/index.htm

    Be forewarned, though... PayPal fees on a $4 billion transaction are pretty steep.
  • ndorox, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1This is a fascinating article on the subject from Cringley.. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industr ...
  • digjam, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_MHz_wireless_spec ...
  • KingTrask, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1This is a big thing. People don't understand this, but one of google's goals is to make internet free or next to free for everyone. If they win, they could make it very cheap. But if microsoft wins, then yeah...

    Anyway, why would you ask what this is about? It's obviously about the wireless spectrum. It shouldn't be treated as if it doesn't matter. This is BIG. Apple sucks ass btw.
  • Enuratique, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I can understand why all the analysts would say that they only are interested in getting the open access requirements in place and will gracefully bow out. But as nicejai pointed out, the telcos shouldn't be trusted to play by the rules. If you're Google, the only way to 100% guarantee your strategy will come to fruition is to actually acquire that spectrum.

    Also, lets not forget the hubbub over network neutrality. With all the dark fiber and data centers they have sprinkled all over America, they could very easily cut the legs out from underneath the telcos and use their own backbone. I hope that THIS is the case - not to become a cell phone provider (obviously that's a dumb move since the current industry is already crowded and subscribers already chosen their provider)... It would make much more sense to use this spectrum for data NOT voice. Data is the last bastion for the telcos... Voice plans are relatively cheap compared to how they nickel and dime you for data. AT&T must love the iPhone since it generates SOO much data traffic for them. That is the future of cell phones - data, not voice. So if Google can come in and offer nationwide WiMax for free (ad-supported) or a nominal fee, it will either bankrupt the telcos or force them into being actually competitive instead of colluding on price.

    Or perhaps the all the analysts are right, and I'm living a pipe dream. Still, I feel like there are enough bright minds at Google to realize this is a once in a 50 year (maybe even more?) auction/opportunity. This spectrum is far, FAR more valuable than youtube could ever hope to be and they spent $1.65 billion on that. Google is in a unique position to actually shake up the party the telcos have enjoyed for so long (much like the Internet wrestling the control away from the recording industry). I hope for everyone's sake they capitalize on this opportunity (no other company would have the capital to play hardball with the incumbents like this)
  • HaMMeReD, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0I don't know why people say open access for all. I'm pretty sure it's only allow competing devices on your network. I think that the winner still gets to chose exactly what the spectrum will be doing. E.g. services, transports, protocols, etc.

    It's not just magically open for everyone to use like the 2.4ghz spectrum, you as individuals can't legally hack on that frequency. There are limitations still in place, and the owner will control that.
  • Rehnborg, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1I would look for Mark Cuban to get into it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.