Official: Google's quest for 700MHz is so on

Hear that America? That's the sound of the hammer dropping on our beloved cartel of carriers. Google's bid for the 700MHz "C Block" is on. Eric Schmidt, Google Chairman and CEO, says the following:

"We believe it's important to put our money where our principles are. Consumers deserve more competition and innovation than they have in today's wireless world. No matter which bidder ultimately prevails, the real winners of this auction are American consumers who likely will see more choices than ever before in how they access the Internet."

The bidding begins on January 24th with a minimum of $4.6 billion required for the open-access C Block. Wake the kids, phone the neighbors, it's going to get ugly fast.

[upsilamba @ Nov 30th 2007 10:11AM]

GOOG will get this one too.

[Homer J @ Nov 30th 2007 10:58AM]

Hope so.

Also, I love the way you slam "the carriers", with a big fat VZW "Holiday Gift Guide" ad at the top of the page.

Stick it to em Google.

[g00n @ Nov 30th 2007 11:20AM]

Google is Skynet.

[rtdunham @ Nov 30th 2007 1:31PM]

does "more choices" mean that in addition to existing non-compatible approaches to cellphone use, the 700 spectrum will represent yet another?

[Edd Mills @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:53PM]

Does it make you feel superior to use the stock market name?

[opus @ Nov 30th 2007 10:13AM]

Go big G!!!!! Screw Verizon to the walls and chop their heads off!!!!

[Kris @ Nov 30th 2007 10:21AM]

F--- Verizon and Cingular. I hope Google wins. They certainly have the $$ to do so. I believe Cash & Equiv was $12 billion last quarter. Given how important this is to both sides though, I wouldn't be surprised if it went even higher than that.

[Homer J @ Nov 30th 2007 10:58AM]

Could not agree more. To the carriers, this is about more than a chuck of spectrum, it about maintaining the way they do business.

I know Google has the funds, but VZW has to calculate the effect of profitability over an entire organization, not just a subsection of spectrum. As such they may be willing to bid much more than the spectrum is actually worth. Google's stakes don't appear to be quite as high, though it would make a nice platform for G-Phones, and they could lease out spectrum for tower access.

Too complicated, I'm crawling back under my rock.

[Kris @ Nov 30th 2007 11:16AM]

I think Google's stakes are higher than most people think. Unless net neutrality laws are passed, Google could be forced to pay a the telcos a bigger chunk in order to use their pipes. I don't think it's any surprise that they have been buying up dark fiber and looking into buying their own wireless band. I think of it as a power plant who does not own their transmission lines (which may be the case for some companies). A little vertical integration? Just another way to grow, control costs in the long run, etc.

[Cesar Cardoso @ Nov 30th 2007 10:26AM]

On the press-release:

"Google's application does not include any partners."

Interesting. Isn't Apple supposed to partner with Google?

[alex @ Nov 30th 2007 10:29AM]

Hallelujah! Praise be G-d! I'll pulling for the Goog.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Nov 30th 2007 11:16AM]

Sorry, but I can't help pointing out that you avoid using g-o-d because of it's supposed holiness, but you use Hallelujah, meainging "Praise Jah", a shortened form of God's proper name, certainly more holy than the word God.

Anyway, low rank me if you want.

GO GOOGLE!

[alex @ Nov 30th 2007 11:25AM]

@Ryan Trevisol

lol. Thanks Ryan for the correction. Shows you how much I know about religion.

[Zeek @ Nov 30th 2007 3:48PM]

Indeed. Go wittle multi-billion dollar gigalith corporation. You can do it. We know you can.

Save it for the special olympics.

[devonl1 @ Nov 30th 2007 4:00PM]

@Ryan Trevisol

Actually, hallelujah is Hebrew for "Praise Yahweh." It is considered blasphemy in the Jewish Faith/Culture to use, or even spell the name of G-d and so Yahweh was coined to avoid this offense. Jah would be a reference to Rastafarianism.

[Saint Dumb Ox @ Nov 30th 2007 10:30AM]

While I do see this as a good thing I have a hunch that when Google wins and I get my open handset running Android I will be having a conversation with my wife and right before I hang up "This conversation brought to you by Gillette, the best a man can get" will play whether I want it to or not.

[Floriano Thompson @ Nov 30th 2007 10:49AM]

and what if that was a free call in a plan without any monthly fees?

[Alan Partridge @ Nov 30th 2007 11:13AM]

Well it wouldn't be 'free' as such, Google would be paying me in mins to listen to adverts. And if I went and bought that new Mach7 UltraGlide Hyper Express razor the cost of Gillette advertising on Google Mobile would be included in the sales price.

Also would you want Google (or anyone else) listening to your conversations in order to target ads? Personally I'd rather pay a monthly fee

[Ryan @ Nov 30th 2007 11:33AM]

In all fairness, google prides itself on unobtrusive ads...I would expect you would see "Gillette" Written across your screen when you went to hang up, or your phone beep and send you a MMS coupon whenever you passed Starbucks. Stuff that's easy to ignore but still effective.

[ScOObyDoo @ Nov 30th 2007 10:32AM]

Hear that? It's the sound of the big 4 operators crapping themselves.

[Horsehead @ Nov 30th 2007 11:56AM]

Don't bet on this. The giant Evil Telecoms will never let this happen. They will bid until it hurts, and then bid some more. They will never let anybody crack their stranglehold on phones and services.

How did we get here anyway? It would be like only being able to buy cars from the oil companies, and each car only working with one oil company's gasoline. STUPID!

[Homeboy @ Nov 30th 2007 10:34AM]

Google won't let this one go. The will win the bidding. Period! They want this more than anything else.

[Johnny Appleseed @ Nov 30th 2007 10:36AM]

Wow. Starting bid is 4+ billion dollars. If's the FCC's way of telling us who's in charge. We are but pawns in the large scheme of things.

[JeffM @ Nov 30th 2007 10:41AM]

Yea, they could at least start it at an affordable bid to make us feel like it is our government. I'd probably need a few hundred lifetimes to be able to swing $4B. :(

[Nick @ Nov 30th 2007 10:47AM]

from what i understood previously.. the opening bid isnt 4.6 billion... its less... the 4.6 billion is the minimum bid price for the FCC to allow the open block of bandwith. Which means that most likely for all of us to be rewarded Google doesnt have to win they just have to foce the auction bidding upto or past that 4.6 Billion line.

[Zeek @ Nov 30th 2007 4:01PM]

Either way, it's a lot money that will end up funding the bloody war. That first F in FCC stand for Federal, ladies and gents.

[Nick @ Nov 30th 2007 5:14PM]

funny that the money from the "do no evil" company will go to buy more bombs and bullets.

[Palmtree3000 @ Dec 1st 2007 4:06PM]

The money will go twords reducing the deficit casused by the war, more like. Do you think the gov't will say "Well, we just got all this moeny from Google, so let's buy an extra tank!"?

[Nick @ Dec 3rd 2007 11:12AM]

"Do you think the gov't will say 'Well, we just got all this moeny from Google, so let's buy an extra tank!'?"

Why wouldn't they?!?! They already took the money that was set aside to help bail out the Social Security system to spend upon war.

All i was saying was that it would be quite ironic if that were to happen.

[Jason @ Nov 30th 2007 10:40AM]

As much as I would prefer Google to win this, its not a sure bet, Google has a crapton of funds to bid this up, but the telcos have alot more money then Google, and could easily outbid.

As for the advertising point, I suspect this will be a pay service from google, advertising free, aka just another wireless telco. The question will be whether or not they end up like the rest of the wireless providers, screwing you every which way they can.

[Bill Reals @ Nov 30th 2007 12:09PM]

Most of the carriers are 10s of BILLIONS of $ in debt already. So they may be reluctant to get further into debt at this time, especially since it's still an unknown on what Google will do with this spectrum.

Who says that Google isn't already a service provider, they have data centers and fiber networks that rival a small telco already. Let's not forget the Mountain View Wifi network they operate.

Focus: What does the 700mhz spectrum mean? Would it be compatible with GSM? Or is this yet another wireless standard that would need to be created?

[sitruc @ Nov 30th 2007 10:45AM]

While competition can be good, why am I to believe that Google owning a portion of the spectrum would be any better than Verizon or At&T? Please don't call me a troll or anti-Google. I'm a bit of a realist and see Google as just as much of a "big, bad corporation" as any of the other companies bidding.

[jmattick @ Nov 30th 2007 10:46AM]

I don't know. I hate how Google has press releases saying that they are going to do something unconventional and it never goes anywhere.

The free Wifi program they launched is still only in San Francisco. The transcontinental data connection hasn't even started construction.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Google is great on the software end of things. But outside of that, they seem to create a lot of projects that never go anywhere.

Oh, and it's going to take a while for this to be profitable for Google. The average joe is going to stick with the major carriers until Google has proven itself. Which is exactly the reason why Helio and Ampd Mobile went nowhere in a hurry. Google has the money to make things great, but they also need the customers to believe in their product. And while 100,000 technologically literate people may sign up at launch, it'll be a hard sell to the typical consumer.

Why fix something that isn't broken (for them anyway)?

[Mark @ Nov 30th 2007 10:57AM]

I disagree with your last point. How many people had heard of a company called Helio or Amp'd before they launched their products? On the other hand, my 80 year old grandma asked me if she could google the answer a question she had. Google has such a huge user base for their online applications that any product they put out will catch on much faster than a less known company.

Also, people equate Google to high quality products, which will just add to the demand (unless proven otherwise.)

I'm not saying that they will come out with a great service, just what the perception is and that I think it could be a very good investment.

[Nick @ Nov 30th 2007 11:12AM]

Ampd was crap. It had bad coverage and had a bad marketing plan... Helio has great specs, but the minimum plan is $65/mo. for 500 minutes, which i think is a little steep for the demographic they are going after. I get 600 min for $39.99 from Tmobile. Id much rather get the extra minutes for less money w/o all the extra unnecessary unlimited data packaging. Even if I were to add Tmobiles unlimited data plan for $19.99, it would still be less than Helio and I'd get 100 more anytime minutes.

That is why Amp'd and Helio arent major players. IF Helio dropped their "membership" cost by 15-25 bucks I would switch tomarrow.

[Brodie @ Nov 30th 2007 10:53AM]

Does anyone else think Verizon and AT&T will try to C-Block Google's bid for the C Block?

But seriously, Saint Dumb makes a great point. Google is essentially in the advertising business. And theyre going to want to recoup that 4b+ somehow. I wouldnt be surprised to get advertising text/picture/video messages or the like from advertisers...

I'm interested to see how this all plays out because there is some serious potential to shake up an industry that really has us consumers by the balls.

[Horsehead @ Nov 30th 2007 12:00PM]

And because they have us by the balls, there is no way in hell they are going to let some upstart screw with their lock on the market. They will screw with Goog any way they can, and will bid this as high as needed to keep in "in the family".

[Jason @ Nov 30th 2007 12:47PM]

Just remember, there are still the FCC requirements that the major telcos will have to play by.. at least till they get the judges and FCC heads they bought out to repeal those requirements

[Jkelley @ Nov 30th 2007 11:03AM]

"Hear that? It's the sound of the big 4 operators crapping themselves."

Smell that? "it's the network"

[Bombaclaat @ Nov 30th 2007 11:06AM]

C block is for pussies. D block forever bee-arches! :)

[cashmonee @ Nov 30th 2007 11:22AM]

Does anyone really think Google actually wants to own that spectrum? I think they are only in this to make sure the auction gets past the reserve and the spectrum gets sold. If it does not reach the reserve, they will reauction it without the rules.

The last thing Google wants is to be a provider. Google just wants to get their ads on cell phones, and the rules they were able to get in place allow that.

[andy @ Nov 30th 2007 11:31AM]

4.6?????

I was going to get this for my wife for our May anniversary, but I only saved up 4.3 billion. Damn.

[Anthony @ Nov 30th 2007 11:40AM]

4.6 is the starting price.

Your wife will be very disappointed if you don't get her the 700mhz. It's what all the ladies are asking for this holiday season.

[Paul Muller @ Nov 30th 2007 11:51AM]

Paying for cell phone and internet connectivity from advertising is a whole new revenue model. No more $80/month subscription fees from telecos and no more of them limiting internet acess and STILL putting ads and billable content on their networks. No more confusing phone bills the size of a phone book with obscure charges and fees. Why should anyone pay $10 for a cell phone ring tone?

Google is going back to the old network TV formula from 50 years ago - sell advertising by attracting eyeballs. Its all about mobile computing now. The 12-key handset model is dead and the phone companies are in over their head trying to figure out what to do next.

I think the Google model ought to be given a chance to work.

[Anthony @ Nov 30th 2007 11:56AM]

I can't understand why there's so much dislike for the major carriers. Is it just a general hatred for "the man" or "the establishment"?

At least they're increasing services (yes, at their own pace, perhaps). Think of oil companies- they've been doing the same thing for 100 years & haven't really developed anything new except their pricing structure.

[Horsehead @ Nov 30th 2007 12:15PM]

We hate them because they stifle innovation, limit choice, force lopsided contracts on us, and keep prices artificially high.

Why don't most "smartphones" have Wi-Fi? Why doesn't the iPhoney have a VoIP client? Because the carries HATE VoIP and see it as a huge threat to their lock on recurring revenue.

How many phone choices do you have? Why can't you use your phone on somebody elses network? Because they would all threaten their artificial scarcity that allows them to keep prices high.

Look at the report that just came out about 3 billion cell phone accounts. In the developed countries, monthly per-user revenue is north of $60 a month. In less-developed countries, using *MORE* minutes, it's closer to $3 (THREE) a month! Why? ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

The analogy that should open your eyes: What if you could only buy a car from an oil company, and it only ran on gas from that oil company? Even if you could break the locks on it and use another company's gas, you would have a two year contract with the old company to only buy their gas. Your choice of cars is limited too. If they don't have what you need, tough luck. Nobody else can make a car that fits your needs because the oil companies won't sell you gas. WOULD WE PUT UP WITH THAT?

[Zarniwoop @ Nov 30th 2007 12:24PM]

Walk? Ride a bike? Carpool? Public Transportation? Telecommute?

[Anthony @ Nov 30th 2007 12:33PM]

Horsehead- interesting, but inaccurate.

I currently use a K850. Before that I had an N95, N73, S620, E61 & about 10 other phones.

I bought them outright & used them on T-Mo & Cingular just fine.

You want a subsidy to buy & phone & to bitch about them forcing things on you? Can't have it both ways.

As for wifi- T-Mo has wifi & almost all Nokias these days do too. However, wifi isn't ubiquitous in other countries for the same reason it's not in ours: Not everyone needs/wants it.

Plus your argument about $3 per month in XYZ-poor country v $60 for us has nothing to do w/ Cingular or Verizon. Do you think a gallon of milk costs $5.50 in XYZ-poor country? 'Cause it does here & I don't see people crashing down on the milk industry for artificially keeping prices high- though they & every other company does. "What will the market bear?" That's how it's done.

[Kurtis @ Nov 30th 2007 12:36PM]

Huh? First off, you can't negate a lesser evil by citing a greater evil. Second, what are the oil companies supposed to innovate? They drill for oil. They can improve their drilling and refining methods (which I am sure they have) but you would never see that. All you see is the end product, which frankly, I don't see how you can improve all that much. Cell phone carriers, on the other hand, are right in the middle of technology. Everything they do can be greatly improved by better technology, and they are very slow about it (by the rest of the world's standards). There is no question in anyone's mind that cell phone carriers are evil. And you try to defend them by saying that oil companies are more evil and they innovate less? Seriously? That tells you something when have to compare the innovation of technology companies to the innovation of an oil company.

[Brent @ Nov 30th 2007 12:39PM]

You don't understand the hatred? You are one lucky guy then because as someone who has sold the damned things I sure have seen a lot of well justified hatred.

Prices have gone up on minutes, data, text messaging. Text messages went up from $.10 to $.15 to help drive text package sales.

Sufficient packages are eliminated forcing people into exorbitant packages. Little old women using 75 minutes a month used to get bills for $15-$20 and the phone worked everywhere. Now the min is $45 after taxes and fees and they don't work in half the places they used to. These companies don't judge a customer on whether there is a profit, but whether it's a profit of their minimum standard.

They have meetings to discuss how to target the 10-14 crowd as they can often convince the parents and were a largely untapped crowd. Every decent human in that meeting looked at each other and once the non decent ones left said wow, isn't this how the tobacco companies got in so much trouble?

Prices for internet access are different between the real internet and the carriers own worthless fakey style net when data bits are just data bits. Ports are blocked that have nothing to do with cost. In fact it would be cheaper for them never to have gone to the trouble to block ports, but they do because they know they can then charge more for access to those ports.

People that don't want anything but a phone are forced onto packages when they sign up, told they must keep them for 3 months or face $200 fees. Customers then forget and end up paying the extra for a month or two, often an extra $50 or more.

I never got to customer service, but I think this is long enough. Frankly I've never had any of these problems with google search, Gmail, google desktop, google earth, or gmaps. All of which I've used, all of which make google a profitable company and all of which I've never been charged a cent for. That's why I'd like to see them get in on wireless....