Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI | Precisely
Nothing more needs to be said. |
|
Vertickle
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL | Backlash?
Maybe Google will feel a little backlash for playing with the consumers heartstings...  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Google won a VERY small victory - for now
Running a wireless company is outside their area of expertise. And the cost of the license is just a very small part of the total cost to build a wireless business. And Google surely didn't want the headaches of dealing with governmental agencies(local, state, federal) all over the country. And they also would have had to expand their customer service and sales organizations by an order of magnitude if they got in to running a wireless business. Believe me - they did not want any of those headaches. They wanted all the ad $ gravy an open network could give them, but none of the headaches.
By getting the FCC to put open access rules on the C block spectrum, they pulled a fast one on all the wireless companies - at least for now. The wireless companies get their crack at getting even when they start to use that spectrum and make life difficult for Google to actually cash in on what they got thru lobbying.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
|  Good article
This is one of the more realistic articles written about Google that I've seen. Too many saps seem to get caught up in Google-mania, believing that somehow Google is "good" and its intentions are pure. Folks, Google's in it for the money. They're not offering anything free, nor are they going to try and change the world if they don't see any money for themselves in it. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's what companies exist for, but please lets stop pretending that Google is somehow morally superior to others out there. They're not.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| rigged?
I can't see how you can call an auction rigged, unless you weren't allowed to bid at all. Whoever is willing to pay the most money wins, I don't think it can be more fair than that. Taxpayers get the money, and the people who paid for the license will build something there.
Google didn't have enough money to pull this off, that's too bad. I think they could have grown the market more than Verizon will, but it's up to their shareholders and board to decide that. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to Alphy
Re: Precisely
I bet there will be some way that VZ gets out of the open access requirements.
Is it any wonder when the rumors heated up they came out with thier own open access program? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to axus
Re: rigged?
said by axus  :I can't see how you can call an auction rigged, unless you weren't allowed to bid at all. Whoever is willing to pay the most money wins, I don't think it can be more fair than that. Taxpayers get the money, and the people who paid for the license will build something there. Google didn't have enough money to pull this off, that's too bad. I think they could have grown the market more than Verizon will, but it's up to their shareholders and board to decide that. Whomever has the most money wins is not fair. By the rules of this auction it is, but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole.
We will get a new technology in 10 years time from Verizon and AT&T, which will have usage caps, be locked to the original provider, have draconian contracts with ridiculous early termination fees, and be prohibitively expensive. In other words, nothing will change. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Thanks Karl.
It's about time Google started to be called what they are, which is an "advertising company concerned with selling ads". I would complete that thought by including "a publicly traded" in that sentence before "advertising". Their duty is to their shareholders and if that somehow benefits a customer here and there then great.
They do marketing by press release. Unfortunately a lot of the press swallows it whole without a single critical thought.
Thanks for shining the light.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Matt
Re: rigged?
said by Matt :but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. Please explain how this is "decidedly unfair". Every single one of these is for "public spectrum", and they are mandated by Congress. Did you read the auction documentation or are you just upset that Google played you?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
 ·VOIPo
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Thanks Karl.
Agreed.
Based on the posts in the forum attached to yesterday's article about the spectrum winners, it's apparent that it wasn't just the press that was swallowing Google's releases without much critical thought.
Google didn't fail anyone, as they never promised to win any of the spectrum... |
|
decadent
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Piscataway, NJ
| I think, the price of wireless spectrum has been inflated by Google participation, i.e. telco has overpaid for it. There is saying: "Generals always prepare to fight the last war". Wireless voice market is near saturation and telco won't be able to get the same revenue for data as voice. It is actually the same was with landlines. Voice was true cash cows, not DSL. Otherwise they would not go to video market. I think, in near future they start selling unused spectrum for 30%-50% of original price. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to RadioDoc
quote:
a lot of the press swallows it whole without a single critical thought.
All of the press.
Every single report I've read this morning suggests Google was "winning by losing":
»news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rl···rch+News
It's suddenly like we're in one of those highly progressive self-help education classes where nobody loses. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: rigged?
said by RadioDoc :said by Matt :but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. Please explain how this is "decidedly unfair". Every single one of these is for "public spectrum", and they are mandated by Congress. Did you read the auction documentation or are you just upset that Google played you? I could care less that about the whole Google fiasco. I'm upset that the system caters to the incumbents who have the most money. It doesn't allow for an upstart to win any valuable spectrum ... so the system is unfairly biased toward whomever has the deepest pockets. IN this case, Verizon and AT&T. Yet again. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by axus :I can't see how you can call an auction rigged, unless you weren't allowed to bid at all. Whoever is willing to pay the most money wins, I don't think it can be more fair than that. Taxpayers get the money, and the people who paid for the license will build something there. Google didn't have enough money to pull this off, that's too bad. I think they could have grown the market more than Verizon will, but it's up to their shareholders and board to decide that. Whomever has the most money wins is not fair. By the rules of this auction it is, but in the case of the public spectrum, this was a most decidedly unfair auction and will not result in any new or innovative technology for the public as a whole. We will get a new technology in 10 years time from Verizon and AT&T, which will have usage caps, be locked to the original provider, have draconian contracts with ridiculous early termination fees, and be prohibitively expensive. In other words, nothing will change. I think "most money wins" is more fair than subjective feelings about how "good" or "bad" a company is. If you have subjective measurements like that, the potential for corruption goes up. You do know that Martin has a soft spot for telcos, right?
If the FCC had put a value on certain promises, say "promises not to restrict the devices are worth 2 billion", we'd be in the same situation we are now, with 2 billion less. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Matt
You probably don't understand bidding credits and bid multipliers.
Any startup wanting to get in on this could have.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| I think it's most interesting
that google stock is at almost $600 a share and they couldn't bid on a spectrum? As far as the game rigged, that's hogwash. They had the cash, they didn't want to spend it.
This is no more AT&T and verizon's fault than just bidding. Google could have bid too, but they didn't. I call google the little engine that could, but don't repeatedly.
They would have only been a serious threat, had they bid and won something.
Basically google made their bed now they can sleep in it.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
|
stonecolddsl
Linux Junkie
join:2004-01-07
Sarasota, FL
·Rapid Systems, Inc.
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Matt
Re: rigged?
I think that a lot of people missed the fact that there was 3 large bidders, VZ,ATT, and Dish who walked away with the most in terms of total area coverage of the 700mhz auction.
What Dish/Echostar have planned for it no one knows but they did walk away with the most markets licences. But they do lack a few major markets that ATT and Verizon simply out bid on which were Boston, NYC, LA.. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | The spectrum Echostar/Dish won is for one-way transmission.... |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to Matt
There's a big issue for any startup- they can't use this spectrum at all until next year, but they'd have to pay for it right now- a down payment within ten days, and the full balance within twenty... Honestly, that part of the auction seems the most biased against startup wireless companies to me. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | AT&T dropped a cool billion in down payment today... |
|
