19 Comments

Summary:

The Federal Communications Commission is going to set rules for the upcoming 700 MHz auctions tomorrow, a decision that could potentially alter the wireless landscape. The auction has resulted in a war of the words, with the Google Camp trading barbs with Verizon and AT&T. Cisco […]

The Federal Communications Commission is going to set rules for the upcoming 700 MHz auctions tomorrow, a decision that could potentially alter the wireless landscape. The auction has resulted in a war of the words, with the Google Camp trading barbs with Verizon and AT&T. Cisco has weighed in with its two cents. Each side is making good arguments, though none of them impressive enough, at least from an average person’s perspective.

Google wanted the winner of auctions to build a network that not only allowed any device to connect to the network, but also it wanted the network to be open to other third parties including companies like Google. These requirements would make the new broadband wireless network more favorable to companies like Google.

Google even offered to bid at least $4.6 billion for the wireless spectrum if the FCC favored the rules put forward by the search engine giant. Not surprisingly, that drew a lot of criticism from the phone companies and their extended lobbying arms. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin came up with a plan that requires the winner to use frequencies to build networks that allow any device to connect to that network. Phone companies didn’t like that either. Anyway Martin’s proposal was like being “almost married.”

The Washington Post is now reporting that Google may end up bidding for the spectrum regardless of the rules. Google’s bid to get more clout in Washington D.C. is not going so well, and like many tech companies before, it is stepping on too many toes. Whether it ends up getting its way or not, there are many questions Google need to address before they can basically convince me that they are St. Peter.

For instance, does Google become the clearinghouse for the network and who is allowed to connect to the network, and where? Where are the rules that ensure that the network isn’t tilted in Google’s favor? If the company is going to spend shareholder money – $4.6 billion or more – and Wall Street as we know would want to know where is the return on investment? What makes me more skeptical: Google has teamed up with Clearwire, a company not a shining example of open access.

PS: I had sent Google a list of questions earlier, but never heard back from them. I guess, they were too busy coming up with strategy to win against the phone companies.

  1. Google bids $5 billion on wireless bandwidth, and how many more billion on tower leasing, switching hardware, phone subsidies, marketing, customer service reps and centers etc etc etc ?

    Maybe with partners.

    Share
  2. While I may have questions about Google’s motivations, I’d still like to see things shaken up for the traditional telcos.

    Share
  3. Om:

    You say Cisco has weighed in with it’s two cents. I haven’t seen any posting in your web site pointing to what their take is. May be you can provide pointers to them as well in this posting.

    Thanks
    Venkatesh

    Share
  4. Om, thank you for pressing Google. I view Google’s announcement of providing apps for Sprint/Clearwire as a potential aboutface from their previous support for net neutrality.

    Unlike wireline broadband, mobile was designed from the ground up for the walled garden. The HLR/HSS creates a captive billing relationship with the subscribe even as he roams to other networks. This is what Verizon wants to import to FiOSS through VASIP.

    It would be great to have Google state publically for the record that they don’t support captive billing for their applications! Otherwise, they are a Verizon clone.

    Share
  5. I suspected Google threw more conditions in the proposal than they expected to actually get. Or possibly, it was a masterplan, a bluff as far as third party use. Wouldn’t it help Google if they didn’t have to share/lease the spectrum?

    Share
  6. Google or no Google, there are a couple of points that are difficult to dispute: The wireless carriers (now basically controlled by the country’s telecom oligopoly) have far too much control over how the country’s wireless spectrum is used. They’ve basically locked it up, and have had a devastating effect on its innovation. They’ve learned from their parents what it means to lose control; thankfully the major telcos were too slow to see the Internet coming, or they would have tried to control that as well. Imagine where we would be today (or wouldn’t be) if that had happened.

    The auction rules should, at the very least, require:
    –True openness – in terms of devices/technology that can be used on the spectrum (basically what was argued for in the Skype petition)
    –That whoever wins the auction have to build-up the network (otherwise the incumbents will be able to buy it up and shelve it)

    Ideally, the spectrum will also have a wholesale requirement. Google or no Google, what we’re talking about is public spectrum, that is supposed to be used for the benefit of the American people. If there’s no wholesale requirement, it will be far too easy for the incumbents to keep complete control over the future of development and innovation in the wireless space (even if the new spectrum is required to be built-out and open).

    And let’s not forget that this is not a battle between the telcos and Google. There have been plenty of other voices pleading for a change from the status quo (and unlike the voices supporting the telco side, these are independent voices that are not simply paid to support a particular position).

    Share
  7. From all accounts, we are headed for an open-device network, but with no spectrum sharing. It’s been stated by many that this would be truly useless for openness.

    Can someone please explain.

    Share
  8. In other words, why can’t we have a wireless net neutrality, independent of who owns the spectrum.

    I suppose the devil is in the details.

    Mr. Martin is probably one rich man right now. :-)

    Share
  9. Google is not going to bid, and they are going to learn quickly that they need to devote a lot more money to their lobbying efforts to have an impact.

    This whole thing is an arrogant public relations scheme that is going to backfire on google without a bidding partner.

    Share
  10. You wrote: Each side is making good arguments, though none of them impressive enough, at least from an average person’s perspective.

    I respectfully disagree. Are you implying that a truly open wireless network is not impressive enough from the average person’s perspective? Why ever not??

    Share
  11. http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2007/07/kevin_martin_is_right_about_dt.html

    This link shows that Cisco disagrees with Google (they sell a lot more gear to carriers), but that’s about it. I saw a reference suggesting that this blog was written by an attorney representing Cisco.

    Share
  12. You wrote: Where are the rules that ensure that the network isn’t tilted in Google’s favor?

    Aren’t those the very rules that Google is lobbying for? Isn’t Google advocating the rules of openness which would ensure that the network wouldn’t be tilted in favor of anybody, not even Google itself? Wouldn’t that kind of openness make the network neutral and available to all eligible businesses?

    Share
  13. When the alternatives are AT&T and Verizon, Google could kick puppies on their way to the auction, bidding only earnings derived from Nigerian email scams, and they would still be St. Peter. Anything that helps dislodge the incumbent telco oligopoly is by definition a Good Thing.

    Share
  14. I am fascinated by the commentaries of people on the Internet on this topic.

    There seem to be more words and decibels reserved to question Google and its motives, than to criticize the stance of the incumbent telcos, and raise public awareness of the telcos’ efforts to choke this new wireless channel.

    A lot of people on the Internet are questioning and redoubting Google’s efforts vis-a-vis this wireless spectrum. That is a good thing in itself. But many people seem to be questioning and even attacking Google, simply because Google is Google, without actually comparing the merits of Google’s position against that of the incumbent telcos.

    People are showing almost Stockholm-syndrome like behavior in questioning/attacking Google. It is as if the people are the hostages held captive by existing telco kidnappers, and Google is the law enforcement making efforts to free the hostages, and the people are falling all over themselves questioning and scrutinizing the actions of the law enforcement personnel, while ignoring the kidnappers and their crime!

    Share
  15. The Game Plan Always Starts with Free E-Mail id.
    I hope Google will Give me a free roaming wireless id, device independent, Linking all my Life’s Numbers and provide free Entertainment !!!
    The Grand Central is a step towards that direction ?
    You pay as you go.

    Share
  16. Google’s global mobile strategy, at least its mobile service/apps part, is built around three blocks: 1) Personalized search; 2) Cell phone-optimized mobile services; and 3) Partnerships with various industry players.

    I just blogged about their moves in Japan, if anyone is interested:
    http://analytica1st.com/analytica1st/2007/07/google-befriends-with-kddi-plans-global.html

    Share
  17. I had a slightly different take on this.

    Its true telecom oligopoly of US controls most of wireless spectrum. They are barrier to any innovation in wireless world. Think about it, how many internet application do we have access to vs how many wireless applications. Telecoms want complete control over their networks. To be fair to them, they spend billions building the network and they don’t want some hip kid on the block(Google) reap all the benefits in terms of Ad dollars. They have become just the bit carriers in the wireline world and they don’t want the same things to happen in wireless world. Only solution to this vicious circle is we need enough competition in wireless. I’m not talking about you watch my back, I’ll watch your back ‘competition’ we have going on between Verizon and AT&T. Reminds me of the way Big oil operated in early 20th century.

    Instead of auctioning off 700Mhz spectrum to one company, we should let everyone provide wireless service in the same spectrum. If there is anything Wifi has taught us, its that there could be million access points in the same neighborhood they can all co-exist in harmony. Lets say we let anybody provide a Wifi like service on 700Mhz band, provided they pay some access fee to FCC. This could be something like Mobile Wimax service. Lets limit wireless signal strength to certain small distance(say less than a Kilometer). This limits the size of each cell. There could be multiple base stations from different providers overlapping with each other. Here is the other lesson from Wifi, as long as there is enough bandwidth, there is no such thing as one user stepping on other’s toe. Common, how often do you see your neighbor’s download interfering with yours? Secret is to make the cell sizes small enough so that there is enough bandwidth to go around for everyone. I know, I know, all you Telco folks are going to say what about QOS. Bullshit, where is the QOS in Wifi world? Don’t we all work fine. Bob metcafe invented the Ethernet decades ago. It has served us well. It has definitely taught us random access/exponential back off works just fine as long as there is enough bandwidth. No need for any fancy QOS.

    Just a thought!

    Share
  18. Mohammed Mehdi Tuesday, July 31, 2007

    I must laud Google for at least “putting
    their money where their mouth is” in their desire for a “net neutral” wireless network by biddding $4.6B for the 700MHz spectrum. Still, however, I’m skeptical of Google choosing to be net neutral if they had won the bid.

    It stands to reason that most companies (and yes, I’m referring to the “evil telco cabal”) would be ticked off if someone used their existing infrastructure which they have developed and spent a boatload of money developing to be used by others. Simply put, while “wireless net neutrality” makes for excellent rhetoric, it’s unfair to those that had developed such a network.

    Share
  19. I think they will just partner up with Sprint again, which I think would be good. Sprint is most dedicated to wireless broadband out of all the telcos, and they seem to understand the value of Google search, Gmail, etc.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post