Today, if you have a few million bucks to spare, the Federal Communications Commission will be auctioning wireless licenses in the 700 MHz band — primo space in many respects because it is lower on the RF spectrum and offers longer range. But Auction 92, as it is called, is anything but primo, since it is for licenses that either received no bids in the previous Auction 73, held in 2008, or were sold in that auction to organizations that never paid in full. That earlier auction, which I covered at the time, is a sad story of opportunity lost, especially for Google.
Remember how that freed-up spectrum was up for auction and Google made loud noises about bidding. I even predicted that they would bid, because that’s what I was hearing from inside the Googleplex. Google wanted to set up a national wireless network to rival anything from Verizon or AT&T. Only Google didn’t follow-through on its threat to bid and the frequencies were cherry-picked, instead, primarily by the big wireless incumbent carriers who have for the most part done little with them.
They bought the spectrum primarily to keep it out of play, to keep a viable competitor from emerging.
That decision not to bid back in 2008 seemed very short-sighted of Google. But now I hear from people who were inside the FCC at the time that Google was privately told by the Bush Administration not to bid.
What if Google had defied this government nudge? I guess the threat was they’d have it taken from them anyway through some regulatory action or legal challenge. But had Google succeeded, we wouldn’t be seeing bandwidth caps being imposed today on wireless data plans. And wireless data would be cheaper everywhere.
Our tax dollars at work….
“not to bid.”
To what end? To keep them out of the way of established carriers? Maybe just as likely they didn’t want to piss off the carriers just before Android hit the market.
Also curious as to the source of this info.
As I explained, the source is a former FCC employee privy to the inside story of Auction 73 at that time. I am keeping the source anonymous so they don’t put at risk their current (non-government) employment.
As for the purpose of keeping Google from bidding, your guess is as good as mine. But given it was the Bush Administration I’d say it had to do with helping established corporate interests like those of Verizon and AT&T, but that’s just a guess.
You’re keeping the source anonymous even though your source no longer works for the FCC? Why would his current employer care if you divulge his name? If he retires, will you also keep him anonymous so to protect his privacy?
Would you agree that anonymous sourcing has generally been bad for journalism? It has a place when the source’s life may be in danger, but your rationale for keeping your source anonymous doesn’t make sense.
Unless you reveal your source so that others can interview him and verify his statements, I don’t see how his article can be labelled as anything but gossip.
Releasing his name might just get him a free vacation to Gitmo.
Would you agree that anonymous sourcing has generally been bad for journalism?
Tell that to Deep Throat. Anonymous sourcing needs to be collaborated, but to say bad for journalism? I disagree. Without anonymous, but collaborated, sources journalism would be much further behind and the public much less informed.
My opinion is that anonymous sourcing has been generally bad to journalism. What started out with Bob Woodward and Deep Throat led to Judith Miller and Scooter Libby. In the age of blogs, where there is little to no editorial oversight, there is even less confidence by readers for anonymous sources.
> Why would his current employer care if you divulge his name?
Are you kidding? Nobody likes an informant regardless of how noble the cause. In the back of the mind, every boss will be worried about what this proven whistle-blower might say about them in the future.
Not only that, I think that most people would be nervous even with friends who turned out to be informers. Seriously, wouldn’t you have at least a little bit of trouble trusting such a friend?
I’d like to know who the tipster was too, but Cringely’s explanation make sense. Besides, I bet Cringely would get far fewer tips if he never protected his sources.
“Besides, I bet Cringely would get far fewer tips if he never protected his sources.” That really goes to the heart of it doesn’t it? Is a journalist’s role to inform the readers or to cultivate future sources?
(actually replying to Phong Le)
If you have no future sources, you will have nothing to inform your readers of.
(replying to Warren)
You are assuming that news and information only come from human sources.
NON human sources?? For example? If by that you mean already published, then it is no longer news but history.
Anonymous sources are here to stay and will always be a part of journalism. Now that the toxic midden at News International has been exposed for what it is, I wonder if we can dare hope for a new era of more responsible journalism. With fewer editors like the ghastly Bebekah Brooks around, maybe investigative journalism will return to exposing matters in the public interest instead of setting out to destroy people for the hell of it. If Bob were running News International, Britain would be a much better place and I’d start buying The Times again.
The source is/should be kept anonymous until their death if they were promised of the record status when the interview took places. Any journalist who blows source anonymity without the source’s permission will never have another source again.
The only exception if a source uses anonymity to spread premeditated lies. Thus, had Judith Miller been a real journalist she would have outed those (Ahmed Chalibi, various Bush hacks, etc.) feeding her the phony weapons of mass destruction story.
Journalism would be dead without anonymous sources. However, any good journalist will confirm from two separate sources before publishing. Not sue if Bob has done so in this case. OTOH, calling something “gossiP’ because it come from an anonymous source is absurd. Gossip is either triviality (which celeb slept with which) or hearsay (the source has no direct knowledge of the info). In this case it is clearly not gossip — the info is not trivial, and an FCC operative was in a position to have first hand knowledge.
You should take the information as is. From your comments you don’t believe it so that fine that your accesment of the information.
I see nothing to contradict that this did not take place because if you look at Google since then they pretty much have had no problems going rouge so to speak. But at that time I could see it telling another company not to make waves.
Is it that far a stretch to think that vested interested could care less about technology and moving forward and would rather gouge as much as they can from their own customers. As a stock owner a company CEO is about the share holders not the customers, if they can do anything to have or keep a monopoly then that is what they have a fiduciary responsibility to do and the customer can always take a hike.
In this new world we live in been found out is a death sentence to a career. Sources even after they leave the Government can have their whole career destroyed still.
The world is full of secrets that only come to light buy people who feel they are save from prosecution by those who would rather keep things quite.
And now Google is best buddies with the Obama administration. Coincidence?
I don’t understand. The Obama Administration is compiling a couple of anti-trust cases against Google if I remember correctly. That hardly makes them buddies. I think it is in the interest of every company to make and keep friends in high places, though.
At the time, google stated that they got what they wanted: a requirement that the spectrum, regardless of who won the auction, was to be open to any device and any app. Given that google achieved their goal, they stated that they felt no need to bid on anything.
And your point is…? That’s what they SAID at the time. Companies say things all the time to cover their tracks. Did Google really get what they asked for? The results of Auction 73 suggest not. My new information adds nuance to this story.
One thing to keep in mind is that there were members and employees of the FCC who had an adversarial relationship with the White House. I would take anything coming from there with more than a grain of salt.
Ah, but that’s why I get the big bucks! This is what I believe to be a trusted source. It didn’t come from under a cabbage leaf and neither did I.
++Like, Go Bob Go!
And as much as you trust that source, you’ve still verified the information through other sources, right?
Remember – Al Gore was an initial investor in Google and remains on the board – and would have beat Shrub in the elections except for the hanging chad thing in Florida.
It was pure politics at the time……
had election 2000 played out like the constitution would have had a statistical tie play out guess what?
…..would have went to the House for tie break. And remember who was in majority at the time?
Yeah I know its too complicated for Bush haters but he would have won anyway. And it was very wrong of the supreme court to involve itself in the manner it did.
So you agree it was pure politics.
Bush *may* have won anyway if it had gone to the House, but it would have been at great political cost to the Republican Party. Instead, they circumvented that by having the Supreme Court do their dirty work for them.
“…having the Supreme court do their dirty work for them.”
And that was preceded by the Supreme Court of Florida doing the dirty work for Gore. And then the Republican party – once in charge of both chambers of congress – did a good job of giving themselves all the bad publicity they could handle, anyway.
Can everyone just stop bitching about the 2000 election already? One set of corrupt politicians for another…
I think most people still bitch about the 2000 election because they don’t believe Gore would have made two of Bush’s horrific mistakes: gotten us into the Iraq quagmire and squandered the Clinton/Gore budget surplus into a horrific deficit via irresponsible tax cuts.
I know it’s not in your politics to remember history, but after 9/11 it didn’t matter which party was in the White House. Iraq and Afganistan were targets because of support for Al Qaeda. The Senate vote was 99 to 0 with one abstention.
Anything else is just more HuffPost unreality.
Sorry, but Afganistan and Iraq would have happened anyway. Bush even set the timetable for pulling out. Which Obama is so far following, with the caveat that he has delayed some things because of on the ground reality. So, it doesn’t matter which party. Presidents don’t create messes, as much as they respond to them. Bush, Obama, it makes very little difference.
And as for budget, please remember basic Civics. Presidents propose, but Congress disposes. The huge deficits in the Bush presidency came after the Democrats took control back. They had control of both houses for both the last two Bush years, and the first two Obama years. No, the huge deficits we have now are the responsibility of the Congress we had and have. And neither large American Political Party controls both houses of Congress.
Obama, like Bush before him, can propose, but his real job is to spend the money Congress gives him, and do what the law demands. Fortunately, President Obama didn’t spend all the money he got from Pelosi and Reid. If he had, the US would be in an even worse mess right now.
No, the end result of all of this will be what was predicted three years ago. “A single term president, who reduces the value of the US Dollar by 50% during a four year term.” That description was originally of Jimmy Carter, but it fits Harry Trueman, Lyndon Johnson and Barak Obama so far as well. near three years in, the Obama Presidency is right on track.
But, remember that Obama is mostly getting blamed for the actions of a congress that is totally ignorant of mathematics. But then we American’s always blame our Presidents for anything that happens during their tenure.
Bush was blamed for a couple of Hurricanes, Obama might as well be blamed for a recession. Clinton wasn’t shy about claiming credit for the end results of Regan’s and Gingrich’s economic policies. and Nixon got blamed for Johnson’s Vietnam War.
It goes back for a long way too. John Quincy Adams or Martin Van Buren could have told you all about it over 150 years ago and it hasn’t changed much. in 200 years.
It’s just American Custom in action.
Just since it isn’t often said, hanging chads were a diversion. The real crime was in incorrectly throwing African Americans off of the voter rolls in Florida. They adopted the loosest possible criteria for identifying African American felons and removed their right to vote. It was kind of along the lines of having the same name or slight resemblance, and appears to have been made that loose deliberately. After all, African American voters were statistically more likely to vote for Gore, and Florida had a Republican administration and civil services. The sources I read indicated that somewhere up to 50,000 Florida voters were erroneously denied the right to vote in the 2000 Presidential election. Compared to this, chads were just noise.
By the way, they DID go back and do a complete recount, very carefully, after the fact. Ironically, had the recount been done Gore’s way, Bush would have won, and had it been done Bush’s way, Gore would have won.
I believe this same problem is now happening in a bunch of Republican control States so it should be interesting to see who bad this gets in the coming years.
Power is its own reward so staying in power is what its all about even if you are playing dirty the outcome is to stay in power at any cost.
And what would have Google achieved by bidding?
Google got what they really wanted: A guarantee that all of their services (search, mail, etc.) would be available from the incumbent carriers. I doubt that the Bush administration prevented Google from bidding. Google didn’t really have the funds it needed to win. Remember that if Google won, they’d have to then build their own phone company from scratch.
Apple was also interested in the auction, but didn’t end up participating. For Apple, a win would have given them the ability to offer their own services without having to depend upon ISPs and the phone companies. However, Apple, even more than Google, just didn’t have the resources.
There was a rule that prevented companies from offering joint bids. The official reason was to prevent the phone companies from joint bidding, winning, and then divvying up the bandwidth at a really cheap price.
However, what it really did was prevent say Apple and Google from combining their resources and winning the auction. Apple and Google together could have pulled it off, and at that time, Apple and Google had a very close relationship.
In fact, at that time, the FTC was investigating Apple’s and Google’s relationship to make sure it wasn’t too close.
I’m only reporting what I was told by what I believe to be a credible source. Mix it into what you’ve said, however, and I don’t think it is inconsistent.
“Remember that if Google won, they’d have to then build their own phone company from scratch.”
You mention Apple as well; I wouldn’t have put it past either company to try just that. I have to imagine imagine both have serious thought to it, even if Bob’s source its wrong. It just makes sense to me that those companies would equally weigh entering a new industry with joining with other companies.
think different, as an ad agency once told a rich man, and made him much richer.
Google has a mondo backbone, but I wager they are leasing dark fiber for it. why should they become a common carrier and have to take traffic for hire from anybody with a tin desk and a telephone for an office? for if they modulated the 700 MHz, that’s what they’d be… licensed… have to post their business plans for each new product in time for anybody else to sell it wholesale under their own name.
boo-RING. limiting.
I humbly posit they had plans to have a bunch of community buddies to farm the freqs out to, little outfits that would set up local wireless networks upon which Google could push its wares under exclusive license of some sort.
only trouble is, that’s not a paying proposition for the local partners. if the big telcos can’t make wifi a business, that’s pretty good evidence that it’s at best hit and miss.
thus the pull out of bidding, probably at the last minute.
wifi makes sense if it’s part of a wireles phone network, and high-buck data moves on the system to subsidize the cheaper plain-data movement.
Nice fencing, Robt. Seems you have a number of commenters bent on missing what, even at the time of Auction 73, was obvious: old, big business has a stranglehold on govt. action.
Parry, bind, thrust!
My first thought was quid pro quo with the incumbents re: eavesdropping. We (AT&T, Verizon) roll over for NSA, you (Bush admin) help us squash competition.
Like Apple I think Google is being very selective about what they decide to do and how they do it. Both companies have passed up what could be big opportunities and markets. In a sense they are carefully picking their fights.
It has been the trend of government for the last decade or so to let big companies become even bigger. Mergers that would hurt the competitive marketplace have been allowed, almost without any resistance.
If Google had won a bid on the wireless space and become a major new player, it would have become a game changer.
Lets not forget the major telephone companies are still operating under a “utility” business model. The more you spend to run the business, the more you can charge for the service. Even though cell phones are probably not considered as regulated utilities, they are being run as if they were. Google would have challenged this business model, prevailed, and put a world of hurt on the incumbent firms. They knew this and probably went screaming to the Bush administration.
Can you remember the last time the US Government did something for the common good? I can’t.
2008, protect the economic system from collapsing world wide. 2008-2009, insure the viability of US manufacturing by rescuing the auto industry, which by itself insures the survival of so much of the tooling, materials, and fabrication industries that its loss would have crashed the industrial base.
just for examples you may remember… .
Yah, but I still wanta see some bastards go to jail. Since Govt. owns something like 85% of AIG, they could easily bring civil suits against Goldman Sucks and the rest of Wall St. But they won’t…
They can’t bring suits that they won’t win because the questionable behavior was permitted by our overly complex regulatory and tax rules, not to mention screams of “affordable housing” that meant they would be sued for not making unsafe loans. The bundling of bad loans with good was an attempt to work around the “affordable housing laws” by distributing the risk. Ultimately, the blame lies with the government’s well meaning policies that politicians use to get elected.
“the frequencies were cherry-picked, instead, primarily by the big wireless incumbent carriers who have for the most part done little with them.”
Verizon has rolled out LTE in over 100 cities and AT&T is just about to begin their LTE launch. Both will use 700 MHz.
Bob, you story seems to imply that Google did not bid in auction 73. They did bid. They bid several times on the C-block national license, right up until the $4B+ reserve price had been met, then stopped bidding, and Verizon subsequently won that block of the auction.
Your story is making the rounds in the DC policy circles, but isn’t getting a lot of traction, because people think if you got the detail that Google actually bid wrong, then the conjecture about the Bush administration must be wrong too.
Can you clarify if you meant to say purchase instead of bid? (or bid to win instead of bid)?
Did they leave the “public service” requirements in? The fact that they didn’t get any minimum bids for this block speaks volumes about what the cell companies think of serving the public interest.
I really hope we can get past this railroad model of communications infrastructure and move to something more like automobiles: you (the end user) are responsible for getting a license and good operating practice, and you are responsible for getting connected to your ISP. The FCC polices the bands to make sure you’re not being a hog or causing interference to your neighbors. I’m sure there’d be traffic jams in some places, but in much of the country (including rural areas) it could be a real “last mile” solution.
The telco’s seem to be as bad as Rupert Murdock when it comes to subterfuge. Too bad Google didn’t buy the spectrum, combine it with a purchased T-Mobile and go head to head with the 2 most miserable companies in communication.
.
Now, ATT is about to gobble up TMo to get their spectrum and towers (and in the bargain do away with the only other GSM provider in the US), put most of TMo’s staff on the street and jack up prices for the TMo customers that stay (not that they care one way or the other).
.
Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. https://www.tmonews.com/2011/07/five-myths-about-the-t-mobileatt-takeover-courtesy-consumer-advocate-free-press/
.
(Sorry to get tangendental – but it’s just one more screwing of the US citizenry).
Competition in wireless is emerging, but not in the form anyone expected. LightSquared is emerging to wholesale wireless bandwidth to the big carriers as well as having a truly innovative satellite angle.
BTW, Bob – your audio version gives the date as Sept 19, 2011. Is this a senior moment?
Let’s try to figure out why google got that “nudge”. Follow the money. It wasn’t in google’s interest, nor Bush’s interest. It was in was in AT&T’s interest. But why would Bush do something for AT&T’s interest? Well perhaps someone out there knows, but it could have been something as simple as a pid pro quo for some technical cooperation with the NSA, extra legal shall we say to be worth that kind of pid pro quo, to eavesdrop on private communications – either as part of the WOT or on political opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo
Something similar could be happening in the UK – how did Murdoch tap those phones? 🙂 And why did the reporter who broke the story end up dead – it was suicide of course. 🙂
Bob better mail out the location and combination of that safety deposit locker with the usb key revealing all – just in case you are deemed to be suicide worthy as well . . .
After Bob gave a keynote to a conference I attended I saw him shortly after on the street. I thanked him for his speech which I enjoyed and asked him if he ever fears for his life for shining a light on billion dollar deals – where the participants do not want insight/examination beyond the surface deal itself. He probably thought me an oddball for the question; yet I thought of such again just the other day when the we heard of the sudden death of the reporter involved with the News of the World.
I had high hopes back then of some coming $9.99 per month broadband pricing or even cheaper with Duke adapting their lines – and yet nothing.
I guess another one to thank the Cheney/W administration for.
I suppose the previous administration in the US is also responsible for the UK’s broadband problems: https://www.oqotalk.com/index.php?topic=5180.msg41338#msg41338
Wait . GOOG DID bid! It bid $4.6 Bln , about 25% of its cash at the time.
Just google it.
Shh! Perk, don’t you understand, this is something new which we can say is Bush’s Fault(tm). Complete with an anonymous and, so far as we’ve been told, un-collaborated source. Clearly that’s not the environment where facts are appreciated.
As a rebuttal, anyone who wants to continue this line of reasoning would say that Google chose to under-bid. Not that it’s necessarily true, but like I said, someone who *wants* to take this mental path …
It does make you wonder why you still keep a comments section going doesn’t it, Bob?
How many FBers are now inactive? I got roped into Facebook as an adjunct to my HS XXth reunion. Fun to reconnect with old, old friends. Now, my only FBing is if my niece posts something about her new baby. Otherwise, PAH!
RE Nigel: “This social networking craze reminds me a little of the…” …CB craze of the 70’s or USENET in the 80’s (there, I’ve dated myself). Sound and fury signifying shallowness. I’d rather call somebody I really care about or at least email them in a missive longer than 140 characters – oh, that’s Twitter – another questionable use of time…
Bob X., 2014 sounds optimistic: 25-15-10-7(overlap w/ Google)- I think maybe 5 years — just in time for the Mayans.
Sure you’ve already seen this, Bob, but the IEEE is standardizing “whitespace”: https://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/ieee-sets-standard-white-spaces-168281
nikeheels-shop.com
Vacuum Breaker…
I, Cringely » Blog Archive » 700 MHz opportunity down the toilet (no, make that stolen) – Cringely on technology…
Sound and fury signifying shallowness. I’d rather call somebody I really care about or at least email them in a missive longer than 140 characters – oh, that’s Twitter – another questionable use of time…
curious george costume…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » 700 MHz opportunity down the toilet (no, make that stolen) – Cringely on technology[…]…
History of DJ Equipment…
…the history of disco equipment is a short article which gives a great insight into when DJ equipment first came about……
take a look at what this company is doing with handmade titanium rings over on his website, the artistis really creating some good rings…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » 700 MHz opportunity down the toilet (no, make that stolen) – Cringely on technology[…]…
You say Verizon and AT&T bought 700 MHz spectrum to keep a viable competitor from emerging. So, where and how would they be deploying LTE technology without this spectrum? And why would AT&T be deploying LTE on their 700 MHz spectrum when they’ve just been deploying HSPA+?
There is no objective evidence that Verizon and AT&T have used a foreclosure strategy during auctions. If they subjectively were attempting a foreclosure strategy, the objective evidence says they did a very poor job of it.
Regarding the data caps, Google may be capable of a great many things, but they can’t change the laws of physics. Twenty-two MHz of spectrum wouldn’t mean they could forgo data caps and provide a reasonable level of service.
need to consider. there’s nothing that comes…
even close to it.why is wordpress the best blog software? here’s a few reasons: it’s easy to install and use it’s 100% scalable add images, videos, tables, optin forms, and anything you want unlimited functionality social networking compatible easil…
email theme. if directed to a page,…
the page should include a share and like buttons for your social media pages. if directed to a social media page, the page should include links to a web site page. both pages should include additional calls-to-action and a secondary step…
gain muscle, gain quick muscle, truely huge muscles…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive 700 MHz opportunity down the toilet (no, make that stolen) – I, Cringely – Cringely on technology[…]…