Comcast, Time Warner not interested in 700MHz auction

In what is surely a sign that the mania around the upcoming 700MHz auction is reaching absurd levels, cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Communications both issued press releases today confirming that they would not be bidding in January's auction. You might recall that both Time Warner (which is owned by Engadget's parent company's parent company) and Comcast are part of SpectrumCo, which snapped up 137 licenses covering 20MHz of spectrum the last time the FCC put airwaves on the block, so there was some speculation that the venture might ante up again this go 'round -- especially since TWC CEO Glenn Britt was running around making vague proclamations about it. Still, it looks like Sprint's exit from the alliance was enough to shelve any such plans, so it looks like the big players are still Google and Verizon. Good thing too -- with this much hype over Good vs. Evil, the racket over Good vs. Evil vs. More Evil vs. Frustratingly Incompetent would be deafening.

[mushrooshi @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:10PM]

Well...

I am rooting for Google, but if Time Warner got it they *MIGHT* add in free or cheap wireless internet every there like Verizon has (except their's is expensive).

Then again, if Google got it they could offer like say 1mbps internet free and like 5mbps for a premium that is cheap and 10mbps at some obscure cost.

[kevinm @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:14PM]

Time Warner offering free internet? not a chance... I'm rooting for Google on this one. They offer a lot of free stuff and want to add free internet to that.

[EvilSupahFly @ Dec 3rd 2007 10:01PM]

Well, here in Canada, I get 10 mbits service for $45/month from my local cable operator.

[Maestro @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:38PM]

Well, the less big players bidding the lower price google will have to pay...

[miko34 @ Dec 3rd 2007 7:39PM]

Come on Google, put up $10 billion and get this thing over with.

[Andreas Krankl @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:11PM]

6.8b

[David Clark @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:11PM]

Why would they be?

[henry @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:44PM]

heh heh "frustratingly incompetent"... truer words could not be spoken...

[3rdsun @ Dec 3rd 2007 8:53PM]

Why do you guys have to mention "engadget's parent company" every time Time Warner pops up

[Jon Doe @ Dec 3rd 2007 9:04PM]

Because its standard practice to make such info public so the idea that there is a bias isn't thrown around too much.

[Iridium @ Dec 3rd 2007 9:08PM]

No cable company should even be able to bid for the spectrum, Verizon shouldn't be allowed to either. They already have communication distribution systems and would just buy this bandwidth to prevent cheap alternatives to thier services from coming out, eg Vonage.

Hey Verizon why should I pay $50 a month for 10mbps FIOS when I get cable internet for the same price. Oh yeah I forgot you want to rip me off just like your cell phone service. Verizon only wants the spectum to add more pay per use features like TV and radio for thier cell phones.

I want 10mbps up/down for $20 a month. I don't really think that is too much to ask. Hell even 5mbps would be worth $20 a month.

[Tiger @ Dec 4th 2007 12:27AM]

Will Google bid beyond the minimum? Are they really interested as they already helped make sure this spectrum was open? Will be interesting to see who actually does bid for the spectrum opened up by broadcast TV switching to digital.

[sitruc @ Dec 4th 2007 12:28AM]

Is Google the "good" and if so, why?

[zephead @ Dec 4th 2007 1:34AM]

Because they aren't the incumbent telcos who would, as Iridium nicely put it, "just buy this bandwidth to prevent cheap alternatives to their services from coming out". If all this with Google works out as we hope, then it'll probably put an end to the existing telcos' business models of ripping customers off just because they're the ones with the cell towers.

And if I'm not mistaken, hasn't the FCC banned the incumbents (i.e. the telcos) from bidding on this spectrum so that they won't be able to stifle the competition?

[lettcco @ Dec 4th 2007 2:28AM]

you mean goog vs eVil

[Jason @ Dec 4th 2007 4:32AM]

Um wow, I didnt honestly know that AOL had majority share of Time Warner. I totally thought it was the other way around.

Guess you learn something everyday heh?

[Bombaclaat @ Dec 4th 2007 11:36AM]

too busy screwing their customers with shity offerings.