Google Wants To Auction Spectrum Now, Too
from the i'll-take-10k-impressions-and-2-GHz dept
Google's been talking about wireless spectrum for a while now, both as part of a coalition asking for the white space around TV channels to be opened up, but it's also been mentioned as a possible bidder in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auctions later this year. While Google's not commenting on whether or not it will bid on the spectrum, it has made a proposal to the FCC to allow for a "real-time airwaves auction model" for it. Google wants to set up a system for the spectrum that would work much like AdWords does, only instead of advertisers bidding for impressions, service providers would be bidding for spectrum. While we're supportive of ways to make spectrum more flexible and useful, and support the idea of allowing spectrum to be leased and sold in general, it's hard to see a lot of benefit in Google's plan. It says the auction would allow for spectrum to be fully utilized by letting companies easily auction off excess in real-time. That may be true, but it seems unlikely that there will be a lot of interest from potential bidders. Short-term leases that carry few guarantees aren't exactly attractive if you're trying to build a sustainable business -- for instance, it's not a great idea to start up a mobile broadband service one month, then tell your customers that you're sorry, but you got outbid this month, so you've gone dark, but they can be sure and check back next month to see if the service is up again. Perhaps the bottom line here is that spectrum owners should have the flexibility to do something like this, or lease their spectrum another way, should they see fit. But simply having that ability doesn't automatically make it a good idea to do so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You're thinking a step too slow
Now who could do such a thing? I bet Google would be willing...for a small fee from the content provider.
The idea is this: the internet sucks (comparatively) for broadcasting because of redundancy - it's not much easier to send packets to a million people than it is 1000. But broadcasting does scale nicely that way. So what if you had an appliance that was hooked up to the internet (say an 802.11 card) and also had over-the-air reception? The device would ask Google where to look for the content (minimizing internet bandwidth) while pulling the content over the air.
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this has to be what Google has in mind. It would give them a fantastic role as middleman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're thinking a step too slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're thinking a step too slow
I would say that if you have more bandwidth than you need and good forward error correction this can be made to work pretty well. And if you have a broadcast system as Bubba described where you can get low bandwidth feedback on reception quality back via the net in real time, you could lease more bandwidth in real time if your user base started suffering - or use the conventional net for the (occasional) error corrections. Just like the original intent of internet, it could re-route traffic dynamically, but rather than dynamically changing the path taken it could dynamically change the amount of spectrum used to cope with reception / traffic.
Remember the news stories surrounding Google's big datacenter in North Carolina ? If they can cache commonly downloaded data right out near the end users and update it via a (variable bandwidth) broadcast, it doesn't matter if they lose a bit from time to time as they just go and fetch the missing bits via the conventional net. This allows them to offer apparent high bandwidth access in quite remote areas where the cost of "conventional" net backbone is high. Yes a few people are using bittorrent but on the whole most folk download far more than they ever upload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite an accurate reading of the Blair Levin q
What Carlo might have been referencing is the Blair Levin quote that "a potential problem could arise if a bidder invests significantly in devices for the consumer market that would use spectrum but were then outbid in the auction." Levin is just acknowledging a reality for all potential licensees--you have to use your capital to lease a swatch of spectrum first before you invest heavily in your physical product. It's a big risk, but it's the same risk every cell phone company, satellite radio provider, and FM conglomerate faced and profited from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backhaul
look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spectrum cannot be sold
Big mistake. I have no problem with the FCC leasing spectrum. However, the spectrum is a public resource. If spectrum is actually sold we would end up with a private FCC that would have the look and feel of the RIAA and the MPAA. Do we really need another private entity that has no regards for consumer rights?
In theory the FCC manages the spectrum for the public good. If privatized we would have all sorts of slippery slope arguments over who owns what and what one can do. This would be a nightmare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spectrum cannot be sold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spectrum cannot be sold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]