Google slams Verizon over 700MHz auction rules

For something as incredibly boring as the FCC's 700MHz spectrum auction -- look, large corporations battling it out over arcane regulations! -- Google and Verizon have somehow managed to hold our interest. They keep spouting off catty little remarks like the one Google posted on its public policy blog yesterday in response to all the lobbying Verizon's been doing lately. Responding to the big V's claim that open-access rules are met simply because consumers can potentially buy unlocked handsets from non-carrier parties, Google's team shot back that Verizon was ignoring "the realities of the US wireless market," and making arguments that are "simply contrary to what the FCC's new rules actually say." Verizon hasn't said anything in return yet, but we expect them to TP the Googleplex any day now.

[Via GigaOm]

[imacmatt09 @ Oct 4th 2007 8:51AM]

"...but we expect them to TP the Googleplex any day now."

Lmao :)

[Josh Warner @ Oct 4th 2007 12:08PM]

As unlikely as it ever would be, if a large corporation ever actually DID pull off some prank like that they would have my undying respect. Unless it was Sony; they're too far in the hole to ever get out.

[imacmatt09 @ Oct 4th 2007 8:51AM]

"...but we expect them to TP the Googleplex any day now."

Lmao :)

[imacmatt09 @ Oct 4th 2007 8:52AM]

sorry double post

[Standingfast @ Oct 4th 2007 9:00AM]

I hope google wins the auction, that would be awesome...

[Derek @ Oct 4th 2007 9:02AM]

I would MUCH rather see this in Apple's or Google's hands instead of VERIZON! Talk about BORING!

[Rock @ Oct 4th 2007 1:42PM]

In no way am I defending Verizon, but there's no way I want to see the 77MHz in Google's hands. I know Google enjoys the same kind of fanboy love as Apple, but lets face it...Google doesn't know the first thing about building and operating a nationwide network. Huge capital investments aren't Google's business model and staying away from that is the whole reason they've done so well. I would much rather see Google focus on making awesome applications and tools for mobile broadband than trying to run a network themselves.

And Apple? Please...they couldn't even get HSDPA in the iPhone.

[Derek @ Oct 4th 2007 3:49PM]

@Rock
Oh yeah... VERIZON is FAR more technically advanced than Google and Apple! Genius!

It's about content. It's about the hardware you can use on that network. Why would you want to give it to a boring telecom company that hasn't done ANYTHING exciting since it was first created!?!

You are crazy, Rock.

[TimB @ Oct 4th 2007 2:58PM]

@Rock - Fanboy? I'm guessing if you searched for "screw Google" vs. "screw Verizon" mentality on the web, it would be overwhelmingly skewed. I like Google quite a bit, but I hate the telcos more. If a company like Verizon walks away with the spectrum, then nothing changes. At least with a non-incumbent -- there is a potential for game -changing. I agree with Derek - it's about open hardware and unfettered content. You won't get that from the status quo. Wi-Max is the game changer. A potential new player with rights to the 700Mhz spectrum is another.

[everrette powell @ Oct 5th 2007 9:48AM]

@Rock
Apparently you are unaware of Verizon push at
censorship, just a week ago they stopped text
messages from reaching their customers that signed up to receive that certain message, the company was against the type of message being sent so they stopped it from getting through and later they just apologized for it as if it was nonchalant. Maybe you like that kind of company to control the innovations that could come out of this but any company that does something like that is bad in my book. and if you just take a second and do a little research, you'll see that Verizon is lobbying to stop the open protocol that the deal requires.

[Neeko @ Oct 4th 2007 9:06AM]

we all know Verizons claim has NO MERIT. Verizons just worried about their bottom dollar being effecting by creating a OPEN MARKET for the comsumer to choose which provider to use.

HELLO EARTH TO VERIZON WE ALL KNOW UR TERRIFIED OF THIS ONLY BENEFITING THE CONSUMER..

I really hope the FCC doesnt screw us all over and allow VZ to just buy themselves out of this situation. If so we all need to storm the FCC CASTLE.

[Frankenstein Black @ Oct 4th 2007 9:29AM]

"the big V's claim that open-access rules are met simply because consumers can potentially buy unlocked handsets from non-carrier parties"

LOL Verizon, how funny are you! Show me where I can go buy an "unlocked" CDMA phone and use it on your network. If your gonna talk BULLSHITE publicly, at least try to base it on some form of reality.

THE FACT IS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOCKED VERIZON PHONE PERIOD!!!

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Oct 4th 2007 9:56AM]

I like Google. Finally a big company with a voice that is easily heard around multiple industries is sticking up for the little guy. Bravo Google, bravo.

[Adrian Williams @ Oct 4th 2007 7:02PM]

Google is sticking up for its investor NOT the small guy

[peterskruger @ Oct 4th 2007 9:57AM]

I like the "storm the castle" idea posted earlier. Anyone in?
We can set it up as a flash mob....



but a flash mob with pitchforks!

[Brad @ Oct 4th 2007 2:07PM]

"...a flash mob with pitchforks"

That's just a "mob"

Don't throw out marketing buzzwords when they're not needed.

[Steve C @ Oct 4th 2007 7:10PM]

@Brad:
It's called humor douchetard.
And since when is "flash mob" a buzzword?

[nmason @ Oct 4th 2007 10:08AM]

A trend?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Ignore the numerous stories about how frustrated consumers in the US are tired of being locked to one carrier.
Ignore the fact that unlocked phones are not only popular in Europe - a locale about 1.5 to 2 generations ahead of the US in mobile tech - but almost a neccessity.
Ignore the fact that any mobile manufacturer would MUCH rather create a phone that would work anywhere and without being tied up by carrier-specific media & apps and be free to sell them directly to the consumer.

Ignore all aspects of common sense and keep showing your ignorance.

[snowglyder @ Oct 4th 2007 10:53AM]

I hope Google makes Verizon it's bitch, just like Verizon makes all it's customers.

[Jesse @ Oct 5th 2007 1:32PM]

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week.
You Rock

[TimB @ Oct 4th 2007 11:47AM]

The hypocrisy is amazing. 30+ years ago, the government broke up AT&T over concerns over competition. Over the last 10, the regional bells like Verizon & SBC have merged into a couple behemoths, and gotten a pass from the FCC. The current state of affairs with just a couple huge Telcos, a couple huge Cable cos., and the "contractual lock-in" that the 4 wireless carriers get (what other industry gets that kind of guaranteed revenue?) -- is hardly a consumer-friendly, competitive environment.

Sprint and Google have some real courage and innovation -- Sprints XOHM service will be open, and if successful will cannibalize their existing voice business. Google because they care enough to poke a stick in the eye of the oligarchy.

[Jeff @ Oct 4th 2007 12:37PM]

"Sprint and Google have some real courage and innovation"

I agree. The recent announcement from Sprint sounds like they might actually care about progressing the technology forward for the consumer rather than trying to figure out how they can turn it into another restrictive package add-on.

I remember in the early 90's with my first internet plan and having to pay by the minute for dial-up access. Who would have ever imagined that giving unlimited connection time for a single monthly fee would be profitable.

Not to mention without such plans the internet probably never would have become much more than just an email system.

[Alberto @ Oct 5th 2007 3:05PM]

so.. why you complaining. if google and sprint are so superior in their ideas they will crash verizon and att. the market works as long as government does not messes it up.

[Kris Burbidge @ Oct 4th 2007 12:05PM]

F*** Verizon and AT&T. I hope Google wins this auction. I want the first phone that I actually pay for to be on that network. :)

[ethana2 @ Oct 6th 2007 6:34AM]

Google's approach would probably be something like wireless 768k /everywhere/ that they just put VoIP across.

They think straight like that. I'd go on that network anyday. In a month, I may be the guy running around Anchorage with a clearwire modem and laptop on my back running Skype in Linux. I just need to figure out how to power them.. any ideas? [e-mail]

Verizon can go off in a corner and die.

[Joe @ Oct 4th 2007 12:17PM]

I wouldn't applaud Google so quickly--they have made their intentions of getting a monopoly of the spectrum quite clear. If they do get it, I seriously doubt they'll be able to resist the temptation to be "just a little" proprietary (in the name of being open of course.) We will rue the day we listened to the bastards.

[TimB @ Oct 4th 2007 2:29PM]

I have no illusions about Google being in this to make a buck. And the other posters may be right - eventually they may be the big, ugly corporation that everyone loves to hate. But in 2007 - they are the least monopolistic of the potential owners of that spectrum.

[Rich W @ Oct 4th 2007 12:45PM]

Reminds me of the days when the only wired phone you could have was made by Western Electric (AT&T). Those days are gone. These will pass too. Verizon seems to have forgotten the lessons learned. The company that best serves those customers who can buy any phone they want from any vendor will be the next big growth opportunity. Figure out who that is, invest now and retire early.

[Eric @ Oct 4th 2007 9:04PM]

It took nearly 100 years (and a lawsuit from a rich Texas rancher) to get permission from the Bell System to connect someone else's equipment to their network. Don't hold your breath.

[david @ Oct 4th 2007 12:56PM]

Meh. Google should just buy 'em and be done with it.

[ethana2 @ Oct 6th 2007 6:38AM]

Buying them out is a waste of money when you can simply crush them. I would prefer google did the latter, for the sake of competition.

[jmattick @ Oct 4th 2007 1:06PM]

I know everyone has great ambitions for Google to help open the market, but odds of it happening are slim to none.

Google is a corporation first and foremost. With a board of directors, that while realize that making the customer happy is part of what they aspire to do, their main goal is money.

I can see Google pulling an Apple in the sense that they were awesome when they were smaller, but they are getting too big, too fast. They need to stop branching off into smaller divisions. Just a few weeks ago, we saw news of creating a data connection that connects continents...

With too many hands in the cookie jar, no one ends up getting a damn cookie.

[axionjaxon @ Oct 4th 2007 1:43PM]

Google is the new AT&T, IMB and Microsoft. They will let you all down in the end by doing exactly what those other companies did, i.e., scew you over for money and squash competition. It's happening already so you shouldn't be too surprised.

[IndiaTech @ Oct 4th 2007 2:05PM]

Hey, the pic... Is that your your logo from the Tokyo Meet... Google + Engadget?

[SDL @ Oct 4th 2007 2:24PM]

I think the fact now that Google runs mostly off of advertisement revenue bodes well for them to resist the terrible temptations of becoming the Empire. This just broadens their audience and their potential ad space. They didn't become the biggest, baddest search engine by doing it the same way everyone had before, and I think that's a formula they're happy with. I mean, they give people a day off to think up ideas for projects. How cool is that?

[jmattick @ Oct 4th 2007 4:02PM]

Using Google's existing formula, they will listen in on my phone calls and give me ad-sponsored text messages (offering services that I described in the phone call), in order to "save" me money... keeping the service cheaper than any of the existing cellular companies...

But how cheap is worth the ad based messages? $5, $10, $15? At what point do you decide that you don't want to put up with ads to a save a buck...

Google needs to roll out a whole new business model, because their existing model isn't going to fly with cellular services. People don't like spam text messages as it is. :p

[SDL @ Oct 4th 2007 4:28PM]

If Google changes their business model, it doesn't mean there won't be any more spam out there. And how obtrusive are the ads now, anyway? I have never been sent a spam message by Google unless I told them I wanted to be a part of a newsletter or whatever. Seeing sponsored links is completely different from spam, IMO.

[jmattick @ Oct 4th 2007 4:42PM]

My whole problem is the fact that I fail to see how sponsored links would be unobtrusive on a cellular phone. Google would have a limited amount of screen space, and utilizing it in an effective manner that would allow the customer to view it yet not be overbearing would be impossible. We are talking about a phone with a resolution 1/3rd of the typical desktop computer (and that's based off the iPhone, which is one of the largest by almost double.)

And this is provided Google does ANY of this. I just fail to see how sponsored links would work. Google will have to resort to something new, and I don't want to see sponsored text's either, but something is going to have to give in order to make an open environment for the cellular industry.

[mike @ Oct 4th 2007 6:22PM]

Historically, the reason AT&T became a monopoly was that federal regulators felt that the presence of competing phone switching technologies was hurting the market. Different municipalities had incompatibility with other cities.

GSM in Europe is the dominant system for similar reasons, no doubt, which is why unlocking is even possible. Here, where you have CDMA and GSM competing for users over incompatible networks with incompatable handsets, the same degree of interoperability is impossible.

It's a miracle that an AT&T user can even *call* a Verizon user; if these companies weren't tethered to the legacy POTS network, there would be 5 different incompatible carriers.

[Eric @ Oct 4th 2007 9:10PM]

Well, sort of. Prior to the Bell System, it was quite common to not be able to complete a call due to not having an interconnection agreement. In fact, that was one of the big reasons they got monopoly status. Eventually they would have standardized anyway, much like the railroads, but the Bell/AT&T people figured it was easier to lobby the government than get interconnection agreements.

On a somewhat related note... Funny how the Internet has peering agreements and a standard that everyone agrees on, and there's not too much blocking of traffic, even though there's no law saying ISPs have to be common carriers.

[Rich W @ Oct 4th 2007 9:34PM]

Well you may be right, but for most of those hundred years, there really was no viable, commercially available choice. The barriers to entry were high, the market too small... Neither of those conditions are true today. Plus we're a much more litigious society then we were. It may not happen overnight, and it might still require a lawsuit from a rich Texas rancher, but I believe it's only a matter of time (and it won't take 100 years.)

[alesiio @ Oct 5th 2007 9:02AM]

competition is a great thing for the consumer i hope google and apple take big chucks of this auction

[Kenny @ Oct 14th 2007 11:46PM]

I hope Google wins this auction so I can leave Verizon for good.
They are some greedy bastards.