It looks like Verizon isn't taking those
700MHz spectrum
open access rules very seriously, and a certain competing bidder isn't real happy. In a petition filed with the FCC by Google, the company alleges that Verizon is willfully ignoring the "plain meaning of the [open access] rule" by suggesting it will allow one type of access for users who use Verizon-approved devices, and another for those using third-party units. According to the document, "Verizon's position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule such that the open access condition would apply to none of Verizon's customers, and thereby render the condition a nullity." The search giant is calling for the FCC to block Verizon's $4.7 billion bid on the spectrum unless the company agrees to comply with the previously-decided open access rules. Since this isn't the first inkling we've had that Verizon
wasn't down with open access, we're not surprised, but it looks like Google has a little more fight left in them -- and that could make all the difference. [Warning: PDF read link]
[Via
IP Democracy; Thanks, Bram]
posted May 5th 2008 5:37PM
Putting the FCC requirements aisde, dare I say "you get what you pay for"? and google you didn't pay a damn thing so be quiet.
"you get what you pay for"....EXACTLY!! They paid the price for open access and must follow the rules of the game! I know Google forced them bid the amount they did but that's the name of the game, if they didn't like it they shoulda kept out of it.
Seconded. If they wanted it their way, then they certainly could've ponied up for the block. I'm sure they have enough in their treasure vaults to pay for it.
You get what you pay for... so Verizon paid enough to violate the rules? Call me old fashioned, but I still like to believe there's no price on fair play.
This page has the lowest IQ of commenters i"ve ever read
There are rules that came along with the auction. If u break those rules your bid becomes null in void
I like how you "[put] the FCC Requirements aside" as if that somehow makes your snarky comment valid at all. Not to mention that THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE POINT.
God damn, is this all open-source and open-access supporters know how to do? Bitch, moan and finger-point until someone steps in to hold their hand?
Is this all idiots know how to do? Defend a point that is entirely wrong in every possible way?
All I have to say is: F U C K Verizon!
GOOGLE F*CKING ROCKS WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! keep on truckin google the world needs big companies like you to keep an eye on the shiesters (verizon) i Just recently dumped verizon for ATT because I've had enough of their scumbag bs and they realize people are leaving for more open companies thats where all this any device any whatever verizon gargle came from, ill believe it when i see it. verizon just doesnt have it in them to not be scumbags this is case in point verizon trying to reinterpret the rules to their liking I could only imagine how useless a 3rd party 700mhz device running like verizon would like it
Lein: "God d**n, is this all open-source and open-access supporters know how to do?"
No. We "open-source" and "open-access" supporters are fighting against profiteering! Why pay for Adobe Photoshop when you have GIMP 2 around? Why mess with the PSP with all their firmware crap for emulators when you have the GP2X to run it? Would you pay for high speed internet when Google actually provides it for free? Would you pay for an expensive internet suite when AVG and Spybot are around? No, no, no and no.
This is TOTAL CRAP. I think Nilay should chime in with his 2 cents. (with the appropriate disclaimers, of course).
I don't understand? So the block was up for auction, but whoever paid the premium gets no advantage over anyone else?
Then why did anyone pay anything for it...if what same access to all?
Seriously, Google cries wolf now that they don't have full control???
I hate Verizon as much as the next person, but they actually paid something....what was the point of spending $5 billion for something they have no control over....seriously????
Verizon's advantage is that they now "own" that portion of the spectrum. According to the rules they have to provide "open access." Which as I understand it means they can not limit the devices allowed to use the spectrum. What they can do is charge for the use of that spectrum. If Verizon would just open their eyes to the possibilities this whole 700 MHz deal could be a HUGE cash cow for them.
With the purchase of this spectrum Verizon has become (in part) what many of us have been screaming for for years... a "dumb pipe" provider.
I dont really understand what they are saying. Are they saying that verizon would try to fuck over its own customers? Thats whatI gather from this sentence "Verizon's position would completely reverse the meaning of the rule such that the open access condition would apply to none of Verizon's customers, and thereby render the condition a nullity."
They're saying that Verizon is fucking over the government, which presumably got less money for the spectrum because there was a mandate for open access than they would have without the mandate.
Maybe i am reading this wrong. But i understand what Google is saying..
Verizon shouldn't be allowed to dictate two different "OPEN ACCESS" systems depending on the handset you choose...That kinda defeats the purpose of say it together kids......."OPEN ACCESS"
So basically from VZ standpoint: THEY choose the phone you get to use on their "OPEN ACCESS" system.. Sounds real consumer friendly doesn't it?
Google is worried that their Android handsets wont have any value on a crippled Open Access system verizon will implement for Third-party developers only.
THE RICH GET RICHER.
Verizon Wireless EXISTS to fu*k over its customers and anyone else who is willing to take it.
Anyone with real knowledge on this issue, if this ends up in court, is there any way that verizon could win? Isn't there an established definition of open access that that forces allowing any device and any service?
Verizon did not break the rules (yet) my understanding is Google asked the FCC to block it if they do.
See, the problem is that Verizon is a charter member of the Corporate A-holes club, and is still run by the good old boys in corporate suits. These guys have a wonderful way getting around any regulation, deregulation, rules, accepted practices and all that other bs meant to keep them in check.
Google by comparison are boyscouts. I am not saying that they are any more benign or consumer-friendly than Verizon, but just that they are still too inexperienced at getting what they want. Google certainly is trying to be the next Borg, but it is not quite there yet.
While it is good that Google is going to the FCC, there are only two things which keep the corporate good old boys from getting what they want: 1)A good attorney at the DOJ 2)Rival corporate suits. So if Google wants Verizon to follow the rules, it is going to have to do more than just complain to the FCC, otherwise, Verizon could easily get away with it.
Google is mad that it cannot freeride? Verizon may combine its CDMA and C block spectrum into a super channel while C block licensees only get C block access.
Google is in a bad spot because they did not win the auction. they have no interest in the spectrum and no direct cause of action. Their complaint is premature - Verizon has not done anything yet....
There are plenty of ways for Google to lose - and they'll most likely get shunted in a way nobody is thinking about.
At least somebody cares about the consumers.
Don't be fooled. Google cares about Google.
Or advertisement clicks.
But if google caring about google benefits consumers, thats allright with me.
Google is just hating because they lost the bid
Are you serious?
Google never wanted it to begin with they just wanted open access.
It's not a money issue. This is about following FCC rules.
STFU troll
how are you gonna low rank me for an opinion im not a troll check my posts fuck u asshole
Ha ha, someone is defensive! Lighten up buddy, it's the internet. And if we're lucky we won't have to have an exclusive contract with Verizon to use the internet via the C block.
Uhm terms of the auction? HELLOOOOO
Google = Fighting for the consumer
Verizon = Giving it to the consumer (from behind)
They both have equally shitty logos.
No argument there.
Here, here my friend. Here, here.
Una mierda!!! :P
GO GOOGLE! GO!
OPEN ACCESS FTW!
CLOSED ACCESS FTL!
Ugh... I regret making my comment the moment I pressed "add."
you're still getting voted down
I don't care, matthew.
Whether it's worded poorly or not, I still agree with the sentiment:
Go Google! Kick Verizon IN THE NUTS! :-)
And people wonder why I'd never give Verizon any of my money. Best network and best phones aren't anywhere near as important to me as not being run by Sith Lords.
I don't think Google are a bunch of white knights here, but their agenda happens to benefit the consumer more than Verizon's does. So, GO GOOGLE!
Thanks, john. :)
*encoded message*
V guvax znggurj vf n irevmba rzcyblrr, yby.
What's basically going on, is Verizon is going to have one network (presumably a fast one) for their "Approved" devices, and another (presumably shitty) connection for unapproved devices. This way they can still screw non-verizon users, while still saying that they have an open network.
exactally!!!!!
Preach on brotha! thats exactly what VZ will do..
SNEAKY BASTARDS.
It's not just non-verizon customers they're screwing. It's also any verizon customer who chooses to not use one of the verizon approved devices.
Dead on, Zak.
With GoogleZon looming, I guess it's only a matter of time before EPIC 2015...
I thought Plessy v. Ferguson died in the 50's!
ha, this is going to be good....
Verizon paid top dollar for there block of the spectrum, so I can't see why the FCC would go along with Google's request. I mean you don't see AT&T fighting for open access.
You obviously don't know anything about the auction. Once the bid got above a certain amount, it had to be open access.
Don't be an uninformed douche if you insist on contributing.
Google would have probably gone for the winning bid if they knew that Verizon would screw the entire country over by not following the rules of the auction. I see why the FCC would go along with the request: It was the rules of winning the auction in the first place.
Goodness. People act like this is just something Google said offhand that the winner had to make the network open. NO. The rules of the auction are what Google is trying to enforce, not something they made up.
Honestly some of these comments make me cringe. I'm all for capitalism, but when the rules are set in place, then you have to follow them. That's like buying a house under that neighborhood policy (the name escapes me) then rebuilding your house into a giant turd just because you bought it. It doesn't work like that.
Reader, you mean like this house?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/04/bioscleave-house-aims-to-maintain-equilibrium-requires-waiver-t/
Let Google bitch all they want if it gets me a better phone on VZW. Their phones BLOW.
It's called a Blackberry.
@o29
Correct. All Verizon phones suck. (Believe it or not, some people want a smartphone that can do other things *well* besides e-mail.)
(And no, I'm not referring to the iPhone. Prefferably a WM device without 2-year old hardware *cough*xv6800*cough*or a high-end Symbian device)
what was the ponit of selling or buying if they can't do what they want with it. so back to the point why buy something if you cant give your customers that something special.
But they bought it knowing the rules. If they felt that way, they shouldn't have made a bid.
So, if let's say I bought a gun. What was the point of buying it if I can't shoot someone with it? You're logic fails me.
Whoops, made an (embarrassing) typo. You're should be your. :)
this for Derek. you, my friend, are an EPIC FAIL. there are rules when it comes to shooting people with your gun, you can't just go around town shooting people with your gun just because you own it and you can do whatever you want with it... just like everyone is saying, there were rules applied to have the winning bid. it's like saying i just a bought a new car and now i can ram your ass with it because it's my own car and rules doesn't matter because i bought the car.
One of the rules that Google wanted that didn't get added to the requirements was requiring leased access, much like the way DSL works. You have your choice of DSL ISPs but they all go over your local telco's wires, which they pay wholesale access for to get service to you. If Google won they likely would have built the network but left it up to other companies to lease access to it and handle the actual customer end of things.
@TeddyLikesComputahs!
Wow, have you ever heard of SARCASM? I was comparing the fact that Verizon bought the access with rules to buying a gun with rules.
To be devils advocate if Google wanted the open rules so damn much why didnt they just bid and bid again until they won they had no intention of winning so why should they get what they want?
I just want to know what would have happen if google would have won, would they have actually set up a network or what since they basically played the government.
I bet if this does go to court or something I bet verizon will bring up something about how google bid just to get the open rules and not to win.
"To be devils advocate if Google wanted the open rules so damn much why didnt they just bid and bid again until they won they had no intention of winning so why should they get what they want?"
Umm, what?? What about the companies that want to win, but can't afford it. This is like one of the main qualities of an auction- you bid as much as you are willing to pay. Not everyone has the funds to win an auction. What are you talking about???
@ rv
if they don't have the funds to bid, tough luck as i recall who ever pays the most wins the auction or that is just what happens at every auction i've been to.
Yes, thats my whole point. You cant simply say " YOU HAVE TO BID IF YOU WANT IT". Maybe they do have to funds for the auction (like google did) but they didn't want to spend them. Also, googles intentions are irrelevant. If they did win, they would still have to pay up. What they were trying to do doesn't matter.
in an auction, it does not matter what the person's motives are, so no one would be stupid enough to bring it up in court.
I honestly can't think of a good analogy that would put it in such basic terms that you could understand it, but someone's motives in an auction have absolutely nothing to do with the legality of their (or anyone else's) bid.
The reason why Google took part in the auction in the first place was (hypothetically of course) because if the bidding got over a certain amount, then according to the rules of the auction and according to the regulations imposed on the spectrum by the FCC, the winner would have to have an "Open Network" (which they specifically defined).
Google is pissed because
1) verizon is not following the rules they agreed to by taking part in the auction, they are trying to make-up a BS loophole
2)google didn't bother out-bidding verizon for the spectrum because they figured verizon would actually, you know, follow the regulations
3)google has invested a lot of money in Android, and an "open network" would be ideal for them
The FCC should already be all over this. It shouldn't take multi-billion dollar corporations complaining about things in order for the FCC to get stuff done. The FCC should have already told Verizon that they suck and that they will lose their bid if they keep this up.
@rv: but isn't that how bidding works? you bid the highest amount to win it til no one else can bid on the item at the price you can afford and your competition can't?
I don't like how verizon might cripple the whole open access idea but in a way, they did bid the most for this thing. we'll just see how it works since FCC did make a rule. Wonder what will happen, will they have to reauction it out?
Let's hope to see more news about this as I would like to know how this would end.
Google put in a bid and would have had to pay. If Verizon didn't want to play by the open access clause they should have let Google eat the spectrum cost.
Google was serious enough to place the bid to trigger the rules... but they were in an interesting position. If the open access triggered there was no longer any REASON for them to bid higher provided whoever did win had to then play by the Open access clause. They had what they needed. Verizon bid to keep it away from Google... and perhaps intended to try and screw over the rule. Something I highly doubt Google didn't anticipate.... So now all they have to do is foot the Legal Bill to the tune of something less than the minimum open access bid (nice war chest) and they get what they want at a lower price.
So going in Google had three outcomes.
1)Win the bid themselves at the minimum open access rules clause. Probably the worst case from their standpoint.
2)Someone else wins the bid and abides by open access rule. Best case.
3)Someone else wins the bid and tries to ignore the open access rule. Realistic outcome that they are presumably ready to fight for, and will likely cost them a fraction of the actual bid to have it enforced than owning the spectrum outright. Sneaky
Go Verizon Wireless! You guys have the best network! You have the best phones! Please everybody with un-approved phones remain on the shitty network where you belong! Everybody with approved phones move on to the super speedy network! Can you hear me now? (btw: Go Yahoo!)
Hmm, my sarcasm detector seems to not be working today... Please tell me you're being sarcastic? He's being sarcastic, right? :O
Would everyone please take off your myopic glasses, stop defending Verizon and see what open access is all about?
The reason the U.S. is lagging far behind the rest of the developed world in mobile services is because our government has allowed the telecommunications companies to dominate the users and stifle technological advances while lining their pockets very well.
For God's sake, look at what passes as data service here in this country. Why do you think it is that we get the crappiest phones that have been deliberately dumbed down by the telco companies? So they can sell us their crappy services that we would otherwise not buy.
Open access is supposed to change that; allowing the consumers the freedom to choose for themselves.
For once the government is doing something correctly to help you out and you people seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome!
You honestly think you have it bad? Been to Canada lately? Its worse here then most third world countries.
And to think, some asshat in a previous thread was saying how it wasn't even for certain that Google lobbied for the open access requirement. Doesn't it seem obvious now that they did?
Google's fight for the open-access rules was to keep the C block consumer-friendly. Basically this block of spectrum would be a country-wide network for data transmission, surpassing (in breadth at least, I'm unsure of what speeds we'd be looking at) any other existing data network.
Kudos to Google, and hopefully they are triumphant and the FCC will see clear to warn/punish Verizon for their flagrant violation of the rules they had previously agreed to.
well, there is nothing requiring Verizon to follow the open access command, except the slight, ever slight chance of revocation. The FCC has limited legislative power. I guess the only way they could enforce the open access requirement, that is if Verizon chooses to proceed with their plan, and the FCC rules in favor of Google, is to fine them or issue a cease and desist, but that doesn't necessarily stop Verizon, and it is still possible that this requirement extends beyond the FCC's designated powers. I'm not sure exactly how Verizon is approaching this one, because I would think that the open access standard qualifies as public interest in favor of Google, and uh, well...the public.
So the rules were if the bid price got above a certain level then there would have to be open access in the 700MHz spectrum?
So Google did not bid to win, they bid the price up to get open access, then let someone else win, and thus have to pay the final bid price. Google then still has access to that spectrum, and the potential for money that can be made from that access?
If this is the case how on Earth does this make sense, and why would anyone bid on the spectrum if they have to let the losers have access to it.
what did the billions by Verizion?
First, the $4.6 billion where the rules kicked in was the reserve price, which if not met the FCC would revise the rules to be more appealing and then re-auction it. Nobody would get anything if the reserve price weren't met. Winning the spectrum means you get to build the towers/equipment that devices would connect to on those frequencies. The open access rules specify that they would have to allow any device that works with whatever wireless network technology to connect to it, which means that Google's Android phones (or any other device you could dream up) could be sold and connected to Verizon's new network just by plugging in the appropriate login credentials/SIM card like thing/adding the device's ESN to your account. Google gets "access" to this network only as far as having any old random network connection between your device and them or whoever else you please.
What Google's complaining about here is that Verizon is proposing two separate services, one for the aforementioned open access, the other for their traditional locked down, Verizon approved equipment only model. If there's any appreciable difference in QoS, bandwidth or pricing, they'd be in violation of the open access rules.
As a current Verizon customer...I hate Verizon.
Seconded.
Again the FCC has set back internet in this country probably 20 years or more. Instead of having a nation wide network that everyone could use its now in the hands of one of the most fucked up carriers out there other then ATT.
I'm only partially joking but someone should be charged with treason for fucking this up so badly. That spectrum really was that important to the very future of this country. Instead we are going to continue to be bogged down with only one option for a carrier in places for net access, and paying $60+ a month in other places. As if $60 a month is a realistic option for the majority of America. Fuck you FCC. May all of you burn in hell for thinking of your wallet first over what is best for this country.
Wow... I thought Engadget readers knew what they were talking about and might have followed this whole spectrum auction and the would have known about the open access requriements.
... as did Verizon.. they knew what they were bidding on... I can't beleive the FCC woudln't lock up the language to make it clear what Open Access means.
I hope they fix this right, and silly politicians dont' have to get involved and talk more about google "gaming" the auction... seems like Verizon is doing the gaming now. argh
I back Cagrino 100%. I mean, look at the rest of the Developed World. Can anyone compare phones that they get and those that the US gets? No F***king way. Can VERIZON just GO AWAY? They have progress, exploit consumers, and they really dont FOLLOW THE RULES. How can anyone back Verizon up? They will kill development. They BID for the Spectrum so they can have more control and screw the consumers some more. Common , look at the Rate plan for Verizon. It is the highest in the country. I don't know how people still go to them. Anyway, if Americans ever want to catch up with the rest of the world when it comes to mobile tech, Things like what Verizon is trying to do now, has to be stopped.
Goddamn it, I fucking hate Verizon.
First they use CDMA from Qualcomm with their shady business practices.
They they're dicks about their equipment and install shitty firmware on every nice phone that they release (disabling Bluetooth on RAZRs, anyone?).
And now this.
The comments on this article have destroyed any faith I had left in the human race.
This is pretty simple. Let's say there is an auction for a car but there is a stipulation that if I pay more than 4,600 for the car I have to allow anyone with a compatible key drive the car. I end up winning the car for 5,000 and then I don't let everyone with a correct key drive the car, only people with a key that I made/specified.
It's clear that I didn't follow the rules of the auction and therefore my bid should not count.
To add to your analogy, it would be like allowing open access users only to turn on the radio, but 'locked' subscribers to actually turn on the engine. :P
Verizon is once more acting like the bully they are. This auction was explicitly tied to open access rules. The fact that Google is raising concern should make us all proud that for once a big Corp is standing up for the little guy, even if it serves their own interests. Open access releases us from the tyranny of the usual cell phone company shenanigans and each and every one of us should voice our concern about how once more a big Cell corp whos known for bad overall performance is trying to change the rules of the game on our expense. SHAME on VERIZON. We can see what you're doing, and this only strengthens the call not to join any service you offer. This is the best way to show a company that you disagree with the way they do business. GO GOOGLE!
One more thing if i may. However misguided some of the comments are, everyone is entitled to their opinions regardless of agreement. The only way to convince someone that their opinion is wrong is to present a stronger argument, ultimately highlighting the advantages of one way over the other. I would suggest that instead of responding to obviously misguided or ridiculous comments, one should give several supporting his or her opinion. Free speech is like open access, you may not like what you hear, but you have to play by the rules. Engadget is godsent!
Profanity (bad words for all you small brains) does nothing but display the complete lack of intelligence on ones part. If you had paid even moderate attention in English class you would figure out that there are other more descriptive words to use to make your point.
No I am not a open source addict, I run XP & Vista on all but one of my machines (Ubuntu on that one), and I administrate a Windows environment at my 8-5... This isn't a fanboy talkin, just a guy with a full view of what is happening in my industry. Google is a hero in the technology world, a true Samaritan who offers basic fully featured software for consumers FOR FREE (both in money and source) and charges for premium and corp services. This is the way all tech should have gone from the beginning. But thats capitalism for ya... human greed and just behind Microsoft stands Apple & then Verizon. Go Google!
One more reason I'm switching to AT&T when my contract expires :)
Fuck liberals and their FCC government agency.
fuck ideologues that use empty irrelevant partisan rhetoric.
It was worth every dime to get out of my Verizon contract.
Note to Verizon: your eunuch mascot has overstayed his welcome
The FCC does this every time. They already said that they weren't going to enforce the conditions of the AT+T/Bell South merger, and they're not enforcing the conditions of the wireless spectrum auction, either.
The FCC was founded to enforce communications guidelines... if they're not going to do what they were designed to do, then why bother having an FCC at all?
Some of the comments here really make me cringe. Why can't some people here understand the whole point of the open access rules? I would have thought that a geek blog would at least have intelligent readers. Please, people, don't give a bad name for geekdom.
All i gotta say is WAY TO GO BIG G!!!
Finally a company which fights for the consumers. I know they have there own interests in mind, but overall it's helping consumers not harming them.
Oh how i hate telecom companies!! They are the worst breed of business!