"Google to Bid for Wireless Spectrum
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE – 6 hours ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google Inc. confirmed its plans to bid for a prized piece of the airwaves in an upcoming government auction, further underscoring the Internet search leader's determination to shake up the wireless market and plumb more profits from mobile phones.
Friday's announcement wasn't a bombshell because the Mountain View-based company previously signaled it might participate in the Federal Communications Commission auction scheduled to begin Jan. 24.
In a mild surprise, Google will enter the competition without a partner more experienced in the wireless industry.
Going it alone will be expensive and potentially risky, even for a company as rich and technologically adept as Google, which ended September with about $13 billion in cash.
The bidding for the swath of 700 megahertz spectrum that Google wants will start at $4.6 billion, with analysts predicting the final price will be substantially higher. Building out the network for national coverage might cost an additional $5 billion to $7.5 billion, based on estimates from Citigroup Global markets analyst Michael Rollins.
Lingering questions about how the possible wireless expansion might affect Google's finances and focus on its core Internet business threaten to weigh on its stock in the months ahead.
The uncertainty could last awhile since the winner of the airwaves auction might not be identified until March.
Google shares fell $4 to close at $693 in Friday trading.
The airwaves up for grabs are widely coveted because the frequencies travel long distances and easily penetrate walls — advantages that will require fewer radio towers while still promising better connections than other wireless networks. The spectrum is being freed up as part of the switch to digital television in February 2009.
Whoever wins the rights to the spectrum being eyed by Google must accommodate all types of phones and mobile software. Google lobbied the FCC to adopt the "open access" condition, arguing consumers shouldn't be restrained by current market restrictions that limit the kinds of handsets that work on wireless networks.
"We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are," Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said. "Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world."
Google jolted the status quo earlier this month by unveiling plans for a new mobile software system called Android, which is designed to work on "smart" phones. The first devices with the software are expected to hit the market during the second half of next year.
Verizon Wireless, the second largest U.S. wireless carrier, countered Google's move by announcing plans earlier this week to open up its own network to other devices.
Google's decision to throw its hat into the ring for the wireless auction may be part of a strategy to turn the heat up even higher on Verizon and other major carriers such as AT&T Inc., said Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Derek Brown.
"Google is taking an aggressive stance that shows it's a legitimate threat to the entrenched players," Brown said. "They are clearly trying to stir the pot and are doing a pretty good job of it so far."
more here:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glb-rGZ7YiaB1QeLt8bUOy6Tbo2gD8T88N604
Posts
2 years ago
It’s raining outside and I have the day off of work, so I felt like perusing this forum, otherwise I would probably not do so. I read Janisse Ray’s article awhile ago, so I only remember the gist of the piece. After reading this entire comment section it was clear to me that these comment sections always seem to start so sweetly, with people’s general reactions to the articles, and then degenerate into extremely long missives from those with way too much time on their hands. It is disheartening.
I like writing, though, and reading as well, but obviously the proof is in the pudding. You can say any stupid outrageous intelligent brilliant thing you want, and it just doesn’t matter until an action is taken on behalf of the words you write or the thoughts you think. I think most people inherently know this. So why so much baloney in these forums, comment sections, and listservs? What a waste of energy. And the only way to save the world is to save energy, right?
So my particular response to this article and others like it is one of irritation at the actual smallness of the subject, that we are discussing such ridiculously small problems that can be solved quite easily if anybody actually cared. I’m not saying that people don’t, I’m saying it seems like people don’t. Industrialized people, anyway.
In all actuality, you do not have to drive anywhere or use the internet or buy disposable razor blades from Target or shower every day (I do because I’m a landscaper..:)but we all choose to do one or more stupid things every day because we have been programmed since we were infants to feel like these consumerist actions are what makes us happy, they are what makes us human almost! Good gracious, how could we relax after work without a movie and some popcorn? How could we have a good Christmas without a ham and the newest video game system? Our consumption of junk and apathy towards the earth is what fuels our rampant wasting of many different types of energy. Too me, looking around at our culture, is shocking and amazing. But of course, I can only change myself, so I try to do that in small steps. I don’t succeed all the time, but so what?
Permaculture is one system that will allow human beings to live fully and deliciously on this planet. There are other systems, but there are no technological fixes left when the nonrenewable resources that fuel the machine become too expensive to mine, or runs out. In any case, the small fragment of humanity that makes up the industrialized nations will probably have live like the other three fourths of the world. That’s the real picture of the future, not this desperate clinging of the bourgeoisie to the last vestiges of the middle class suburban lifestyle of comfort and waste.
I’m a country boy living in the big city and I really appreciate both worlds, but the city isn’t sustainable in the long run in my view, at least in the urban centers. But I do not think that a retreat to the country to live a back-to-the-land lifestyle is sustainable either. Basically the city and the country mirror each other, and a million possible permutations exist across the world. I think that as an individual, it is up to me to find and build a community that is sustainable. That is all I can do and any more thought on the subject seems counterproductive and intellectually smug.
There was a particular idea that popped up in this forum, about how the BIG QUESTION was CAN IT SCALE, or something like that. I have gotten that question from any number of intelligent people as a response to my ideas about permaculture and sustainability. I want to say, YES! Of course it can scale. But nobody has tried it, so how the hell do we know for sure? What a ridiculous question, in some ways. Is a small garden less important because it can’t be recreated on giant scale? I honestly don’t even know where people’s heads are at when they ask this question...How has our present system of intensive monocropping been anything but bad? For us and for the earth? We’re fatter and the earth is sicker.
Saying you’re an environmentalist or selling a green or eco product means nothing anymore. The word “organic” has been co-opted and now costs farmers thousands of dollar just to be able to use it. All that counts is every little thing you do. One commentator said that a movement that asks you to consider every action you take wouldn’t attract many people, or something to that effect, but look at Buddhism. It’s pretty popular. And in an case, that is all we can do as humans, otherwise we’re just blindly passing though life into death, ruled by our passions, fears, and ignorance.
Namaste