i want it now
@comcast.net | three years
3 to 4 years and Xohm will never be a reality.... SIGH. |
|
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | $$$$
If I "only" had 4.73 Billion Dollars.
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time. |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| Twoway?
I dont know much of this sorta thing so this question is going to sound very very VERY stupid.
First, the 700MHz spectrum is what was originally used by TV broadcasters (well i guess, still are until feb 09). Isnt that an analog spectrum (n00b question 1)
Also, since it was used for TV broadcasts, does it allow for two way communication or broadcast only? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| "Spectrum" knows no protocol. All RF signals transmitted through the air are analog by definition. So are all cable RF signals in coax for that matter. Television was using it for television. Your cell phone probably uses some of what was originally channels 70-83, which was reassigned to AMPS back in the early 80's. 800 MHz trunking systems for two way radio work in that ex-TV band too. That is definitely 2-way.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Someone at Google needs to put down the pipe.
Good lord. Have they finally gone around the bend?
"Based on the way that the bidding played out, our participation in the auction helped ensure that the C Block met the reserve price."
I don't think the C block needed any help. All they did was drive up the price their "competition" paid, just like some sleazebag on eBay.
"In fact, in ten of the bidding rounds we actually raised our own bid -- even though no one was bidding against us -- to ensure aggressive bidding on the C Block."
Again, what the hell is that all about? Sounds more like a sham bidder to me.
"In turn, that helped increase the revenues raised for the U.S. Treasury,"
Now that may be a new record in PR spin.
" while making sure that the openness conditions would be applied to the ultimate licensee."
Sadly, they did nothing of the kind, as Karl has repeatedly pointed out.
That whole statement reeks of PR spin from a company who talked the talk but did not walk the walk.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Airwolf7
Premium
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | You can mark my words that someday Google will become a more hated company than Microsoft, just give them enough time.
I never drank the Google Kool-Aid, but so many people have and it's going to be fun watching all of these people getting their little hearts broke when Google does something EVIL. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc  :That whole statement reeks of PR spin from a company who talked the talk but did not walk the walk. In the poker game that was the FCC auction, Google played the part of a fourflusher and a tinhorn. That they are patting themselves on the back about this is really pathetic.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :"Based on the way that the bidding played out, our participation in the auction helped ensure that the C Block met the reserve price."I don't think the C block needed any help. All they did was drive up the price their "competition" paid, just like some sleazebag on eBay. "In fact, in ten of the bidding rounds we actually raised our own bid -- even though no one was bidding against us -- to ensure aggressive bidding on the C Block."Again, what the hell is that all about? Sounds more like a sham bidder to me. All they did was assure the C block met the reserve price. Someone had to bid at least that much to assure a winning bid. Both the A and B blocks are well above their reserves while the C block is just barely above. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Airwolf7
said by Airwolf7 :You can mark my words that someday Google will become a more hated company than Microsoft, just give them enough time. They already are in some circles.said by Airwolf7 :it's going to be fun watching all of these people getting their little hearts broke when Google does something EVIL. Not necessarily evil, but look around here at all of the Google zealots that were certain that Google was going to win the spectrum auction and deploy free/affordable Internet service from coast to coast. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Sammer
All they did was use this as an opportunity for a lot of free publicity. Their participation was unnecessary and they had no intention of winning anything, just like an eBay bidder who knows the competition will outbid them running up the price for fun or revenge.
If they wanted to assure open systems they should have bid to win. Their PR posturing is sickening.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | That's true it was really just a publicity stunt for Google but assuming Verizon Wireless and the other winners really wanted the C Block it didn't change their bidding. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Correct, which is why I call Google a sham bidder in it for the publicity. Releasing statements now which make them sound like they have some benevolent motive is even sleazier, since they appear to be aimed at silencing the criticism.
Especially that part about doing it to increase the money into the Treasury. What a pot of marketing diarrhea.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | If Google wants to put an extra 1.3 billion in the U. S. Treasury the Feds won't turn it down, D block is still available. Their shareholders probably wouldn't like such a publicity stunt. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| The publicity stunt was propping themselves up as some kind of wireless public guardian when in reality they are cheap publicity-seeking hucksters.
They are in the advertising business. Never forget that.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to snipper_cr
Re: Twoway?
Those issues are a function of the equipment that we design to utilize the spectrum and the political choices and rules we decide on. We design and use this equipment to transmit humanly comprehensible information by agreeing on encoding rules and making political choices about who can use certain frequencies and how and for what purpose they can use them.
These things are not intrinsic properties of the spectrum itself.
There is nothing about the underlying physical properties of wave propagation that requires that we use this spectrum to build receivers that decode transmitted waves as visual images put onto screens. Nothing about it requires that information only be transmitted one way by a small group of people who create and control the content transmitted. These are all human political choices. We can choose to create different receivers which interpret and decode transmitted waves not as visual images but as data of some other kind. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to i want it now
Re: three years
Sprint said it was delayed for a quarter, 4 months isn't too bad. Besides they have the EVDO Rev A for now which is faster than the competition ATM. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| ...
I'm disappointed that google is admitting, by their bidding behavior, that they never wanted this spectrum. I was hoping maybe there was an agenda to actually put serious money into getting an alternative network built out. I always felt this was just wishful thinking on my part but we all need to hope.
I don't think Karl, or most of the people here, would have preferred to have the incumbents pick up this sprectrum at lower cost with no rules imposed. I agree with Karl that the rules will inevitably be played around with but what was the alternative in the present political climate?
We aren't sure yet what the result of the rules will be. I think most of us would agree however that having the rules, however imperfect, is probably better than having no rules. If google did drive up the price of the spectrum it also probably reduced the inclination to buy and sit on the spectrum. The more costly it becomes the more incentive the buyer has to make sure that they actually intend to use it to generate revenue and not simply to keep someone else from using it.
I think it is likely that it turned out better than it would have if google hadn't participated. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to openbox9
Re: Someone at Google needs to put down the pipe.
I hate spoilers in auctions.
Google went out there JUST to be a sh!t disturber, and raise the price on spectrum. Not like everything isn't expensive enough.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
| reply to RadioDoc
Chill out.
Where was any other company in this fight?
Where was Microsoft? Where was Apple? Both of which are sitting on mountains of cash.
Look, just because Google saw an opportunity to do a PR spin on this (which I agree with you, is all talk) doesn't make them the villain. They moved on some good publicity, with no intention of buying spectrum. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Fucking apologists are everywhere.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
