I commend the effort and the commitment. However, does this not assume there is connectivity in the first place ?
One significant difficulty facing a large percentage of the United States (based on geographic measure) is the lack of high speed internet and low return on investment for providing it.
How do you suggest we address this fundamental issue ?
1) Verizon's often repeated question... "Why doesn't Google just bid until they win and then set whatever terms they want?"
2) Assuming Google wins the bid and is forced to wholesale the spectrum... What stops Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TWC and the other incumbants from buying all the spectrum at resell? In other words, don't you need to restrict who is allowed to buy at resell to ensure new entrants?
Wow. Way to refute the argument that spectrum with "open" strings attached isn't valuable; this pretty much depp-sixes the incumbents' arguments if I'm not mistaken. That's what I call putting your money where your mouth is.
Is Google becoming a mobile phone company? I have a vision of everyone walking around with handsets that only have wifi cards in them and using Google talk to speak for free. A Google TelCo could be rad!
What enrages me about most internet companies is the fact that they treat their customers like garbage!
I don't get it! We are (after all) their bread and butter!
What makes me really upset is the fact that whenever you do find a great internet company, they can not help you out (and you're stuck with a company with horrible customer service!).
If Google does enter the field, hopefully they can make it better for everyone. At least I'm hoping.
This Google decision is not surprising as this is simply aligned to the company's mission "to organize the world's information and make it more universally accessible and useful".
It seems no price is too high -- even at a whopping $4.6 billion -- for Google for them to never lose sight of their goal.
If you do win the spectrum @ auction, what sort of relationship do you plan on having with wireless device manufacturers? How about protocols? Are you planning on setting up a network?
Of course this doesn't really make the spectrum 'open'. Individuals still cannot effectively use, what really belongs to the commons, like air or light, to communicate with one another. And freedom of communication is a necessity for a free society.
Google's proposal would be better than what we have now, but that is just the lesser of two evils.
True 'libre' use of the spectrum by anyone is what is necessary for not only a real free market but also freedom itself.
This is a great message and might seem to be aligned with consumers' interests, but realize that it's very superficial. It's no secret that more people/devices on the web = more revenue for Google, regardless of who's controlling the pipes. That's not to say that Google should stay out of this. Quite the contrary - my interests as a consumer encourage Google's efforts, but let's not get carried away with how we applaud them.
Seems to me that unbundling and wholesale are two conditions that allowed broadband to explode in Europe (UK and France namely), whereas here, where there are no such obligations, we are stuck with a crummy duopoly. You absolutely need open services (wholesale) and it probably should be "at cost". Then you will truly have competition, based on the ability of a provider to differentiate itself appropriately (see Ash Rust's point: budget access with minimum service - high end service with tailored service)
If this happens it should ignite services and devices -- perhaps the US will come out of the mobile dark ages.
It would be interesting to calculate the value of a closed walled garden vs more open networks to consumers and businesses as a whole - rather than just the carriers.
Hi, I saw this and decided to email the FCC Chairman. Here's a copy and paste of the email I sent:
I just caught a news story about how you said that Google's bid and requested rules for open access may discourage AT&T and Verizon from building out a network. The comments I read can be found here.
My trouble is this, neither AT&T nor Verizon have done much to build out a data network at a reasonable cost that I would actually like to use, together they have managed to create a mess of a mobile network market with the 2 incompatible technologies known as CDMA/EVDO (Verizon) and GSM (AT&T).
Google has proposed 4 rules (Open applications, Open devices, Open services, and Open networks) designed to make consumer's lives easier by both promoting competition (even if that means Google has to enter the auction themselves) and they have set their price at the reserve price the (you) the FCC has proposed meaning the FCC will at minimum meet it's reserve price request, and likely a higher price once the auction itself is over and the bids are done and consumers will be happy because of it and our broadband market might actually be competitive for once instead of overpriced and obnoxious.
If you recall, it was AT&T who told Google to put their money where their mouth is, and since Google is a Fortune 500 company worth billions they actually did, if their proposed rules are adopted. Whether or not Verizon or AT&T wins this auction or not, they will both continue to build out their networks, AT&T working on a UMTS network and Verizon focusing on both EVDO and FiOS, the only difference is that they will have some real competition, and you're worried they will be discouraged? It's a multi-billion dollar business and winning the auction only makes it easier for them, but they will still continue to try and build their competitive networks whether or not they bid at all!
If you adopt Google's proposed rules, not only will AT&T and Verizon probably bid anyways (the 700 Mhz spectrum from what I understand would be very very valuable) but they will be forced to adopt the rules set by the auction before hand and that can ONLY be better for the consumer, otherwise if you rig the auction so only AT&T and Verizon are interested then what's the point at all of even having the auction? I thought the auction rules were supposed to make it better for end users, not the service provider.
Sebastian
I encourage others to do the same and his email can be found here.
I agree for Google, action speaks louder than the words. It is remarkable what they have managed to create. I am sure if they deliberate on creating these open wireless platforms they will create huge value and again show the path to the world.
Hi, we have plenty of competition over here in the UK. But for Google to push into telecoms would do us all a favour.Good blog, well worth your hard work.Graham - www.logo-n-stitch.co.uk.
Networking, having a wire free computer in the house connected to a broadband connection. Broadband" href="http://www.broadband.co.uk/">Wireless Broadband, this is a special kind of broadband package
where you can use it at home, but also in certain places when you are away from home. All you need is your phone
number or pastcode to see if either of these broadband connections are available and you can check it at
We provide a wide range of high speed internet cable phone isp dsl satellite broadband service providers deals offers,specials,tripleplay and bundles , and their relative strengths and weaknesses with speed comparisons. Most importantly, various offers and Best Deals of Broadband are just a mouse click away.
I commend the effort and the commitment. However, does this not assume there is connectivity in the first place ?
ReplyDeleteOne significant difficulty facing a large percentage of the United States (based on geographic measure) is the lack of high speed internet and low return on investment for providing it.
How do you suggest we address this fundamental issue ?
I guess this raises two questions:
ReplyDelete1) Verizon's often repeated question... "Why doesn't Google just bid until they win and then set whatever terms they want?"
2) Assuming Google wins the bid and is forced to wholesale the spectrum... What stops Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TWC and the other incumbants from buying all the spectrum at resell? In other words, don't you need to restrict who is allowed to buy at resell to ensure new entrants?
Wow. Way to refute the argument that spectrum with "open" strings attached isn't valuable; this pretty much depp-sixes the incumbents' arguments if I'm not mistaken. That's what I call putting your money where your mouth is.
ReplyDeleteIs Google becoming a mobile phone company? I have a vision of everyone walking around with handsets that only have wifi cards in them and using Google talk to speak for free. A Google TelCo could be rad!
ReplyDeleteWe need more competition in the ISP industry!
ReplyDeleteWhat enrages me about most internet companies is the fact that they treat their customers like garbage!
I don't get it! We are (after all) their bread and butter!
What makes me really upset is the fact that whenever you do find a great internet company, they can not help you out (and you're stuck with a company with horrible customer service!).
If Google does enter the field, hopefully they can make it better for everyone. At least I'm hoping.
This Google decision is not surprising as this is simply aligned to the company's mission "to organize the world's information and make it more universally accessible and useful".
ReplyDeleteIt seems no price is too high -- even at a whopping $4.6 billion -- for Google for them to never lose sight of their goal.
I'm all leaving the future of the Web to Google.
If you do win the spectrum @ auction, what sort of relationship do you plan on having with wireless device manufacturers? How about protocols? Are you planning on setting up a network?
ReplyDeleteDave
Of course this doesn't really make the spectrum 'open'. Individuals still cannot effectively use, what really belongs to the commons, like air or light, to communicate with one another. And freedom of communication is a necessity for a free society.
ReplyDeleteGoogle's proposal would be better than what we have now, but that is just the lesser of two evils.
True 'libre' use of the spectrum by anyone is what is necessary for not only a real free market but also freedom itself.
This is a great message and might seem to be aligned with consumers' interests, but realize that it's very superficial. It's no secret that more people/devices on the web = more revenue for Google, regardless of who's controlling the pipes. That's not to say that Google should stay out of this. Quite the contrary - my interests as a consumer encourage Google's efforts, but let's not get carried away with how we applaud them.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that unbundling and wholesale are two conditions that allowed broadband to explode in Europe (UK and France namely), whereas here, where there are no such obligations, we are stuck with a crummy duopoly.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely need open services (wholesale) and it probably should be "at cost". Then you will truly have competition, based on the ability of a provider to differentiate itself appropriately (see Ash Rust's point: budget access with minimum service - high end service with tailored service)
Good luck. You're gonna need it... considering the anti-consumerist trend in Washington.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering -- to compliment Google's fight for open broadband platforms -- if Google is also committed to fighting obesity.
ReplyDeleteIt seems one of your employees thinks fat people shouldn't be trusted....
:)
If this happens it should ignite services and devices -- perhaps the US will come out of the mobile dark ages.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to calculate the value of a closed walled garden vs more open networks to consumers and businesses as a whole - rather than just the carriers.
Hi, I saw this and decided to email the FCC Chairman. Here's a copy and paste of the email I sent:
ReplyDeleteI just caught a news story about how you said that Google's bid and requested rules for open access may discourage AT&T and Verizon from building out a network. The comments I read can be found here.
My trouble is this, neither AT&T nor Verizon have done much to build out a data network at a reasonable cost that I would actually like to use, together they have managed to create a mess of a mobile network market with the 2 incompatible technologies known as CDMA/EVDO (Verizon) and GSM (AT&T).
Google has proposed 4 rules (Open applications, Open devices, Open services, and Open networks) designed to make consumer's lives easier by both promoting competition (even if that means Google has to enter the auction themselves) and they have set their price at the reserve price the (you) the FCC has proposed meaning the FCC will at minimum meet it's reserve price request, and likely a higher price once the auction itself is over and the bids are done and consumers will be happy because of it and our broadband market might actually be competitive for once instead of overpriced and obnoxious.
If you recall, it was AT&T who told Google to put their money where their mouth is, and since Google is a Fortune 500 company worth billions they actually did, if their proposed rules are adopted. Whether or not Verizon or AT&T wins this auction or not, they will both continue to build out their networks, AT&T working on a UMTS network and Verizon focusing on both EVDO and FiOS, the only difference is that they will have some real competition, and you're worried they will be discouraged? It's a multi-billion dollar business and winning the auction only makes it easier for them, but they will still continue to try and build their competitive networks whether or not they bid at all!
If you adopt Google's proposed rules, not only will AT&T and Verizon probably bid anyways (the 700 Mhz spectrum from what I understand would be very very valuable) but they will be forced to adopt the rules set by the auction before hand and that can ONLY be better for the consumer, otherwise if you rig the auction so only AT&T and Verizon are interested then what's the point at all of even having the auction? I thought the auction rules were supposed to make it better for end users, not the service provider.
Sebastian
I encourage others to do the same and his email can be found here.
Sebastian
I agree for Google, action speaks louder than the words. It is remarkable what they have managed to create. I am sure if they deliberate on creating these open wireless platforms they will create huge value and again show the path to the world.
ReplyDeleteHi, we have plenty of competition over here in the UK. But for Google to push into telecoms would do us all a favour.Good blog, well worth your hard work.Graham - www.logo-n-stitch.co.uk.
ReplyDeleteWhen you hear broadband providers or your colleagues and friends talking about "wireless" they could actually
ReplyDeletebe talking about two separate things:Wireless
Networking, having a wire free computer in the house connected to a broadband connection.
Broadband" href="http://www.broadband.co.uk/">Wireless Broadband, this is a special kind of broadband package
where you can use it at home, but also in certain places when you are away from home. All you need is your phone
number or pastcode to see if either of these broadband connections are available and you can check it at
title="broadband.co.uk" href="http://www.broadband.co.uk/">broadband.co.uk.
DealsBroadband.com
ReplyDeleteWe provide a wide range of high speed internet cable phone isp dsl satellite broadband service providers deals offers,specials,tripleplay and bundles , and their relative strengths and weaknesses with speed comparisons. Most importantly, various offers and Best Deals of Broadband are just a mouse click away.
http://www.DealsBroadband.com
Good article and comments. satellite internet access because it is the future of broadband internet technology.
ReplyDeleteRIP
ReplyDelete