PDA

View Full Version : Apple Considering Participating in FCC Wireless Auction?




MacRumors
Sep 10, 2007, 02:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc20070910_014733.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story) reports that Apple has studied the implications of joining the FCC Wireless auction to be held on January 16th.
The winners will get rights to use the spectrum that analog TV broadcasters are handing back to the government in 2009, given their mandated move to digital television.
....
Signals at the 700Mhz spectrum, for example, could provide far faster Internet access than today's cellular or even Wi-Fi networks, and the signals can easily pass through buildings and work glitch-free, even in lousy weather.

According to their sources, however, Apple is currently "leaning against participating" in the auction. With $14 billion in cash reserves, while Apple could easily afford participating in the auction, the logistics of running a "low-margin .... massive-scale network" could prove to be detrimental to Apple. This negative impact on Apple's margins and focus are seen as major reasons for Apple's reluctance to participate.

Winning its own piece of the spectrum, however, would provide Apple with the ability to offer its own wireless network service to devices such as the iPhone.
"Apple is the most anti-carrier company there is," says the former Apple executive. "They're probably already frustrated with AT&T. If they put a few billion behind this, they could build a kick-ass network."
The article goes on to the possible implications of such a purchase, but feels it is quite unlikely.

Google has been expected (http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/FP57wJNUi0fYHp/Google-Likely-to-Bring-Big-Bucks-to-FCC-Auction.xhtml) to make a bid on the wireless auction.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/10/apple-considering-participating-in-fcc-wireless-auction/)



Nickz
Sep 10, 2007, 02:55 AM
Woah!

What's next for Apple?

If Apple actually goes in and build up their own network, I guess we'll all have to break our contracts (again for the same of us) and move to their... ah.. let's see... iNetwork? iWireless?

- Nickz

thevofl
Sep 10, 2007, 02:58 AM
I am intrigued by this. It seems to be more of a bite than Apple could chew.

NewSc2
Sep 10, 2007, 02:59 AM
Although it would cost Apple a poopload to bid on the network and set it up... I'd really like to see another company (other than AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon/Sprint) set something up. Apple + AT&T reeks of Apple + Motorola, where a great idea is hindered by a less-than-ideal network (edge? iChat?). I really hope Apple or Google or another company can make a dent in the big 4.

Schroedinger
Sep 10, 2007, 03:02 AM
How about Google buys the spectrum, provides free access to all with equipment made and sold by Apple???

The gPhone is the iPhone!!!!

Bonte
Sep 10, 2007, 03:04 AM
Let Google buy it, they can make it free with advertising or something. Not a good market for Apple to be in, better work together on this.

Zadillo
Sep 10, 2007, 03:07 AM
Yeah, I'd really agree - let Google invest the billions in building this network up, and piggyback off of that.

Project
Sep 10, 2007, 03:08 AM
I dont think Google or Apple will end up seriously bidding for the spectrum. Its just too expensive. Google may meet the reserve price, but I cant see them spending the 2 or 3 times that amount that will eventually be needed.

Though maybe they go 50/50...... :cool:

Chaszmyr
Sep 10, 2007, 03:11 AM
I can only imagine Apple bidding if they'd be able to license it to partners of their choice for use with their own products. I think it would be a bad decision for Apple to attempt to build an entire network of their own.

GavinTing
Sep 10, 2007, 03:11 AM
Let Google buy it, they can make it free with advertising or something. Not a good market for Apple to be in, better work together on this.

That would just be amazing. But imagine the lawsuits from disgruntled internet companies..;)

iMikeT
Sep 10, 2007, 03:14 AM
Any guesses at what would happen if one of the big four cellular providers (or all of them collectively) acquires the band?

LoganT
Sep 10, 2007, 03:15 AM
How about Google buys the spectrum, provides free access to all with equipment made and sold by Apple???

The gPhone is the iPhone!!!!

That's exactly what I think.

I haven't investigated this but does the 700mhz wireless spectrum basically translate to free wifi everywhere?

Zadillo
Sep 10, 2007, 03:16 AM
I dont think Google or Apple will end up seriously bidding for the spectrum. Its just too expensive. Google may meet the reserve price, but I cant see them spending the 2 or 3 times that amount that will eventually be needed.

Though maybe they go 50/50...... :cool:

Honestly I can't see why Google wouldn't; they are flush with cash, and this spectrum is exactly the kind of thing Google would want to own so they can offer services for it (and their whole model seems to now be built around offering free services in order to sell advertising).

Project
Sep 10, 2007, 03:21 AM
Honestly I can't see why Google wouldn't; they are flush with cash, and this spectrum is exactly the kind of thing Google would want to own so they can offer services for it (and their whole model seems to now be built around offering free services in order to sell advertising).


No they arent. Apple have slightly more cash reserves than Google.

fastbite
Sep 10, 2007, 03:27 AM
I'm of the school of though, as others here, that together with google maybe. Otherwise I think it feels too risky.

Analog Kid
Sep 10, 2007, 03:29 AM
Not likely. I have no doubt they discussed it, but I doubt the conversation went far. This is too far outside Apple's competence. This would really drag the company down, even if they spun off a subsidiary. I could picture them making a sizable minority investment in a third party that was bidding-- maybe a Google spinoff or something.

In the end, I think this is going to Google or Sprint. Google really wants to step clear of the existing Internet backbone because of the whole network neutrality argument. Sprint wants a nice chunk of spectrum to host their WiMax rollout.

drater
Sep 10, 2007, 03:40 AM
I think that Apple should invest in this somehow. The only problem is it would be hard to compete with google if they decide to go after it, only because I think if google REALLY wants it, they will go as far as they have to to get it.

But it would be a nice thought, and iPhone + no ATT = grand life

Analog Kid
Sep 10, 2007, 03:43 AM
But it would be a nice thought, and iPhone + no ATT = grand life
Doesn't AT&T have a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone? The grand life might not happen before 2012...

iMacZealot
Sep 10, 2007, 03:49 AM
Doesn't AT&T have a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone? The grand life might not happen before 2012...

I thought that was GSM...

Analog Kid
Sep 10, 2007, 03:54 AM
I thought that was GSM...
Not sure what you mean... You mean Apple can only offer a GSM version of the iPhone through AT&T? Seemed to me the deal restricted them from partnering with Verizon et. al.

drater
Sep 10, 2007, 04:11 AM
Doesn't AT&T have a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone? The grand life might not happen before 2012...

HEY! :mad: why can't you just let me dream?! is that so much to ask?!

.:R2theT
Sep 10, 2007, 04:39 AM
Personally, I think we would see Apple start an iTunes recording company(actually signing artists) before we see them become a wireless provider. Heck, they may do it all. Apple seems to have no problem reinventing and refreshing itself into new markets as it pleases. They do seem to have an awful lot of irons in the fire, though.

iMacZealot
Sep 10, 2007, 04:46 AM
Not sure what you mean... You mean Apple can only offer a GSM version of the iPhone through AT&T? Seemed to me the deal restricted them from partnering with Verizon et. al.

No, I thought it was a 2-year exclusive on at&t Mobility, and a 5-year exclusive on GSM.

Though that may be horribly incorrect.

mrthieme
Sep 10, 2007, 04:51 AM
This whole topic has been very exciting, the idea of a good wireless connection everywhere we go along with a way for many to break away from the monopoly that providers have in many areas. A network like this, if it were fast and dependable could replace my cell carrier, cable provider for internet and television, and maybe even the phone landline to my house. A collaboration with Google and Apple would be interesting to say the least. I see a chance to stick it to many markets here, and I would gladly pay to help the cause.

hob
Sep 10, 2007, 04:51 AM
As mentioned by some already, I think Apple would be wise to invest in a Google project that was going ahead.

Presumably this would mean that Apple gets first dibs on anything Google was offering.

I wonder if this will happen in the UK in 2012 - when Analogue TV is shut off totally.

timmillwood
Sep 10, 2007, 04:58 AM
I am guessing this is US only?

What about the UK?

RedTomato
Sep 10, 2007, 05:04 AM
Rolling out this network would be staggeringly, staggeringly expensive. Apple's $14 billion could evaporate overnight on a project like this.

We had a similar next-generation frequency bandwidth auction here in the UK a few years ago, and a couple of mobile companies paid billions and billions for the right to use the frequencies. Now, several years later, takeup is still very low, and they're struggling to do much with it.

That's for the UK. The mobile companies already had the equipment, and the locations and the antennaes. The USA is several times the population, and also far larger. Apple may well have to set up its own antennae as the established companies may refuse to share.

How much would purchasing land, putting the paperwork through, and constructing 50,000 antennae across the USA cost upfront before you can start selling the service?

The USA telcos already have sunk costs, already have the equipment set up and paid off. Apple doesn't.

On the other hand, 300 million people paying $30 a month each is a hell of a revenue stream. Apple might find that hard to pass up. And if anybody can drag mobile telcoms into the 21st century, it's Apple and Google.

zap2
Sep 10, 2007, 05:11 AM
Bad idea Apple....there is no need for this AT&T is doing fine for you.

No need to build your own network...not with 1 phone on the market!

Joedy
Sep 10, 2007, 05:26 AM
How about Google buys the spectrum, provides free access to all with equipment made and sold by Apple???

The gPhone is the iPhone!!!!

When Steve joined the board at Disney, lots of interesting (and good) things began to happen with the marriage of convenience. Suddenly, it just "made sense" that Disney and Apple had a closed entwined relationship; suddenly, both Disney and Apple customers reaped the benefit.


Google will win a spectrum chunk; they just have enough money to do it.


Now that Eric (from Google) is on the board at Apple, I see a very similar meeting of two companies again.

Google will need something that would compel their customers to use their wireless brand by choice instead of necessity. Since Google intends to use advertising revenue for their free wireless business model, relying on Apple to produce and provide the hardware to access this stream is a perfect scenario for these two companies. Future iPhone and iPod Touch users can expect free-but-advertising-supported services with an option to pay for premium, non-advertising-based services from Google. All the while, Apple continues to do what Apple does best - continue to make the best hardware to compliment the overall user experience.

Folks who are not intimate with the telecom industry, just don't realize just how profound it will be for Google to enter the field. Suddenly, what used to take many years to acquire and build a wireline-based network, can realistically be done in just a matter of a few years with wireless (consider a case in point: Verizon's aggressive and impressive wireless network buildout that took just a few years to accomplish.)

Google not only has the financial clout to become a new telecom member, it will have a decisive edge in becoming a defacto leader in US wireless services with a closely entwined partnership with Apple. In a similar fashion in how Apple has eliminated the Music Labels' power and clout by offering cheap content while being able to make money at doing it, a close Google and Apple alliance will shatter the foundation of the established big telecom companies in a way that no existing competition has done to date.

Mark my words, this scenario will come to be.

-joedy

Texas04
Sep 10, 2007, 05:36 AM
If Apple or Google actually won this it would be horrible for ISP's around the US as well as different mobile carriers.

I would assume that the mobile carriers know this and will work extremely hard to beat them out, if they can.

Glenny2lappies
Sep 10, 2007, 05:42 AM
So this section of the US spectrum's up for sale, but it's not up for sale elsewhere (including Canada & Mexico let alone the rest of the world). Apple tends to look globally.

What are they going to do; invent a new phone or wireless networking standard? Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans:-)

I can't see Apple being so parochial.

Microsoft on the other hand...

ErikCLDR
Sep 10, 2007, 05:43 AM
This is stupid.

Honestly Apple has ONE phone right now.

We don't want apple to go the way of Gateway- yes remember Gateway? What ever happened to them? Other than now being sold at Best Buy and that's about it?

Gateway tried to diversify to much. Stores, TV's, MP3 Players, Digital Camera's, Computer Monitors, and things like that. They tried to grow too quickly and it lead to their demise. Luckily for them some guy and Best Buy saved their @$$es. Remember when they were once major competitors with Dell?

I think Apple will be a lot smarter and not make the same mistakes of Gateway.

zwida
Sep 10, 2007, 06:35 AM
Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans:-)

That would be baseball, but I take your point.

It's a funny point though given the reaction one typically sees on MacRumors Forums; Apple has frequently seemed too U.S. centric for many international posters in these forums.

twoodcc
Sep 10, 2007, 06:41 AM
this seems great, but I doubt apple will do that

mccldwll
Sep 10, 2007, 06:49 AM
If Apple or Google actually won this it would be horrible for ISP's around the US as well as different mobile carriers.

I would assume that the mobile carriers know this and will work extremely hard to beat them out, if they can.

I've heard that you can put a bunch of crawfish in an open bucket and don't have to worry about any escaping-- if one tries to crawl out, the others will pull it down. Should be the same with the mobile carriers and the spectrum bid. Further, cooperation between carriers would have antitrust implications if it worked to limit spectrum access. A bidder offering an open access model has the best chance for success. Last week there were rumors about the gphone which included a claim that some venture capitalists had seen a gphone model in a meeting. The real gphone part not likely, but might have been a kernel of truth to the meeting since big bucks would be necessary for a network buildout.

DylanJ
Sep 10, 2007, 06:50 AM
We don't want apple to go the way of Gateway- yes remember Gateway? What ever happened to them? Other than now being sold at Best Buy and that's about it?

Gateway tried to diversify to much. Stores, TV's, MP3 Players, Digital Camera's, Computer Monitors, and things like that. They tried to grow too quickly and it lead to their demise. Luckily for them some guy and Best Buy saved their @$$es. Remember when they were once major competitors with Dell?

I think Apple will be a lot smarter and not make the same mistakes of Gateway.

Ummmm.... sorry to break it to you but I think Apple is already Gateway...

Stores = Apples Stores (highly successful)
MP3 Players = iPod (most successful product in the last decade)
Digital Cameras = not really but iSight sort of
Computer Monitors = modestly successful (I'm sure they make money)

Dell also got into many of the same markets Gateway did except for the stores. There computer monitors are very popular but they're MP3 player bombed.

Anyway I don't you can take much from the Gateway lesson. Because Apple proves the exact opposite point, because if Apple hadn't diversified with the iPod or built their Stores they would probably be worth a lot less. I mean the iPod is at least half their business and the stores are responsible for like a quarter of the sales.

I'm not saying buying wireless would be a good idea, but I'm saying that diversification isn't always bad. Only if done with bad products. Gateway would be a prime example.

edesignuk
Sep 10, 2007, 06:52 AM
I wonder if this will happen in the UK in 2012 - when Analogue TV is shut off totally.I certainly hope so!

Chupa Chupa
Sep 10, 2007, 06:54 AM
Those you think this is a stoopid idea are dead on. Those who think this is great don't really understand what it takes to set up a financially viable nationwide cell network. The license is just the first step.

If you love Apple you don't want this to happen. It will be a HUGE distraction b/c it will become Apple's #1 investment. Remember how 10.4 was delayed, delayed again, and maybe will ship by the end of Oct all because Apple had to allegedly put programs on the iPhone project. That will be the norm for all Mac products going forward. Even iPods will take 2nd chair, and forget about any new novel Apple product. The R&D budget will be eviserated by the cost of building out a network.

I really think BW is just writting silly stories to get hits though. No way Apple is going to piss away its reserves in such a crapshoot.

dernhelm
Sep 10, 2007, 07:05 AM
HEY! :mad: why can't you just let me dream?! is that so much to ask?!

Not to worry. The iPhone is an AT&T exclusive. The iPod touch is not.
:cool:

andrewag
Sep 10, 2007, 07:08 AM
Sounds like this rumour could sit along side the Apple as a virtual mobile network operator one.

kwajo.com
Sep 10, 2007, 07:10 AM
This is stupid.

Honestly Apple has ONE phone right now.

We don't want apple to go the way of Gateway- yes remember Gateway? What ever happened to them? Other than now being sold at Best Buy and that's about it?

Gateway tried to diversify to much. Stores, TV's, MP3 Players, Digital Camera's, Computer Monitors, and things like that. They tried to grow too quickly and it lead to their demise. Luckily for them some guy and Best Buy saved their @$$es. Remember when they were once major competitors with Dell?

I think Apple will be a lot smarter and not make the same mistakes of Gateway.

You must have missed the period in history where Apple made digital cameras, TVs, CD players, printers, etc.

Does this look familiar?
http://www.tarosworld.com/apple/old_peripherals/powercd/DSCN4010.jpg

Or this maybe?
http://www.digicamhistory.com/Apple%20Quicktake%20150D.jpg

arkitect
Sep 10, 2007, 07:11 AM
You must have missed the period in history where Apple made digital cameras, TVs, CD players, printers, etc.

Does this look familiar?



True, but it was hardly a stellar period in Apple's financial life… :p

Kallikinos
Sep 10, 2007, 07:12 AM
It will be interesting to see what Apple does, personally I'm leaning towards Apple not bidding at the auction. It's extremely risky but if they could get something going then it MIGHT be worth while.

jonnylink
Sep 10, 2007, 07:16 AM
Will never happen, but I'd be one of their first customers. I don't think I'll be an AT&T customer ever (again:mad:).

dernhelm
Sep 10, 2007, 07:17 AM
Rolling out this network would be staggeringly, staggeringly expensive. Apple's $14 billion could evaporate overnight on a project like this.

We had a similar next-generation frequency bandwidth auction here in the UK a few years ago, and a couple of mobile companies paid billions and billions for the right to use the frequencies. Now, several years later, takeup is still very low, and they're struggling to do much with it.

That's for the UK. The mobile companies already had the equipment, and the locations and the antennaes. The USA is several times the population, and also far larger. Apple may well have to set up its own antennae as the established companies may refuse to share.

How much would purchasing land, putting the paperwork through, and constructing 50,000 antennae across the USA cost upfront before you can start selling the service?

The USA telcos already have sunk costs, already have the equipment set up and paid off. Apple doesn't.

On the other hand, 300 million people paying $30 a month each is a hell of a revenue stream. Apple might find that hard to pass up. And if anybody can drag mobile telcoms into the 21st century, it's Apple and Google.

You are right, of course. Even Apple can't roll out a US-wide wireless service overnight. But all this does point out something very important - everyone is fed up with the US Telcos, and their insane practices. And if enough big companies with very large war chests find that they can't work WITH them, they might start figuring out how to work against them.

TheBobcat
Sep 10, 2007, 07:32 AM
I thought the FCC was claiming that getting the TV off of analog broadcast had something to do with giving those signals to public safety or something.

I figured it was BS and they'd make a buck off of it somehow. Sucks for all the people who have TVs that don't run off of cable.

Bonte
Sep 10, 2007, 07:35 AM
Doesn't AT&T have a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone? The grand life might not happen before 2012...

So? It would be an extension to the wifi network, not some sort of GSM. The ipod touch would get nationwide wireless broadband internet, if i correctly understand this whole spectrum thing that is. :o

ngdesign
Sep 10, 2007, 07:35 AM
Seems Steve is trying to be the next technology communist...

Only matter of time that it's his turn to get sued because taking over everything (just like Bill did...)

freediverdude
Sep 10, 2007, 07:51 AM
I just hope that ANYBODY besides Comcast/Brighthouse/AT&T/Sprint/Verizon gets the spectrum. If one of those gets it, we'll be in for even more of the same crap that they pull. Please, somebody buy it just so they don't get their hands on it.

mrgreen4242
Sep 10, 2007, 08:00 AM
I just hope that ANYBODY besides Comcast/Brighthouse/AT&T/Sprint/Verizon gets the spectrum. If one of those gets it, we'll be in for even more of the same crap that they pull. Please, somebody buy it just so they don't get their hands on it.

Agreed! I'm still bummed that the FCC is even letting them participate without regulation (like Google wanted to see).

It would be cool, though, if Apple and Google formed a new company (Gapple? :-p) to participate on the auction on their behalf. They each have tremendous sums of cash on hand, so could easily cough up the cash to not only buy into the new spectrum but also fund a company that would manage its use.

Apple could sell iPods/phones/laptops that worked in that range, while Google could either offer their own hardware, or partner on the software/services side... whatever they thought was the best arrangement. They both clearly have not only an interest, but an enormous potential benefit in controlling a widespread data delivery method. I can see how either of these companies trying to manage a project like this could be too much for them, though, so an entity that was dedicated to do nothing else might be the answer, and splitting the costs and liability between the two of them would lessen the potential costs (they could fund with $5-7bln each and have an IPO and raise another $5-7bln to raise the rest of the startup cash).

pilotError
Sep 10, 2007, 08:01 AM
Neither Google or Apple has the cash to beat down the Telco's. It might seem nice, but this is the Telco's primary cash cow. I don't think you'll see them be outbid by a third party.

I could see a multi-party backing put up a serious challenge to that, Google, Apple and a handful of others as a consortium for free open access, but not just Google and Apple on their own.

What it may do, is force the Telco's to spend so much cash on it, they'll have to do something profitable with it instead of sit on it and let their current networks continue to drain consumers pockets.

overcast
Sep 10, 2007, 08:05 AM
If Apple or Google actually won this it would be horrible for ISP's around the US as well as different mobile carriers.

I would assume that the mobile carriers know this and will work extremely hard to beat them out, if they can.
Yeh because Google and Apple know anything about running a nationwide wireless network infrastructure. I don't think you comprehend how many resources these Telcos have.

mrgreen4242
Sep 10, 2007, 08:15 AM
What it may do, is force the Telco's to spend so much cash on it, they'll have to do something profitable with it instead of sit on it and let their current networks continue to drain consumers pockets.

That unfortunately isn't really how it would work. By buying access to this spectrum, they're effectively cutting off competition from forming. They already have an equivalent service (it might not be as good, but it's a direct competitor). If they have to spend a ton of money on buying the spectrum, it's just as likely that they'll do anything with it as if they had it for free because there's little incentive to spend MORE money making a product that competes with something they already offer.

The best case scenario for the telcos is that they get the 700mhz rights cheap, and then lease access to it out to smaller companies. This way they are making money with minimal investment, while effectively setting the price for their competition, making it only minimally dangerous for them.

Glenny2lappies
Sep 10, 2007, 08:17 AM
Neither Google or Apple has the cash to beat down the Telco's. It might seem nice, but this is the Telco's primary cash cow. I don't think you'll see them be outbid by a third party.

So, they'll up the bidding for the band which results in loads of money for the government, then worse, more expensive, services for everyone else later on as the telcos recoup their expenses.

There has to be a better way than this to allocate radio spectrum.

Digitalclips
Sep 10, 2007, 08:17 AM
When Steve joined the board at Disney, lots of interesting (and good) things began to happen with the marriage of convenience. Suddenly, it just "made sense" that Disney and Apple had a closed entwined relationship; suddenly, both Disney and Apple customers reaped the benefit.


Google will win a spectrum chunk; they just have enough money to do it.


Now that Eric (from Google) is on the board at Apple, I see a very similar meeting of two companies again.

Google will need something that would compel their customers to use their wireless brand by choice instead of necessity. Since Google intends to use advertising revenue for their free wireless business model, relying on Apple to produce and provide the hardware to access this stream is a perfect scenario for these two companies. Future iPhone and iPod Touch users can expect free-but-advertising-supported services with an option to pay for premium, non-advertising-based services from Google. All the while, Apple continues to do what Apple does best - continue to make the best hardware to compliment the overall user experience.

Folks who are not intimate with the telecom industry, just don't realize just how profound it will be for Google to enter the field. Suddenly, what used to take many years to acquire and build a wireline-based network, can realistically be done in just a matter of a few years with wireless (consider a case in point: Verizon's aggressive and impressive wireless network buildout that took just a few years to accomplish.)

Google not only has the financial clout to become a new telecom member, it will have a decisive edge in becoming a defacto leader in US wireless services with a closely entwined partnership with Apple. In a similar fashion in how Apple has eliminated the Music Labels' power and clout by offering cheap content while being able to make money at doing it, a close Google and Apple alliance will shatter the foundation of the established big telecom companies in a way that no existing competition has done to date.

Mark my words, this scenario will come to be.

-joedy

I suspect you may be correct.

Digitalclips
Sep 10, 2007, 08:22 AM
Agreed! I'm still bummed that the FCC is even letting them participate without regulation (like Google wanted to see).

It would be cool, though, if Apple and Google formed a new company (Gapple? :-p) to participate on the auction on their behalf. They each have tremendous sums of cash on hand, so could easily cough up the cash to not only buy into the new spectrum but also fund a company that would manage its use.

Apple could sell iPods/phones/laptops that worked in that range, while Google could either offer their own hardware, or partner on the software/services side... whatever they thought was the best arrangement. They both clearly have not only an interest, but an enormous potential benefit in controlling a widespread data delivery method. I can see how either of these companies trying to manage a project like this could be too much for them, though, so an entity that was dedicated to do nothing else might be the answer, and splitting the costs and liability between the two of them would lessen the potential costs (they could fund with $5-7bln each and have an IPO and raise another $5-7bln to raise the rest of the startup cash).

Maybe that joke from Google's guy to Steve on stage earlier this year about joining to form 'AppleGoo' was more than just a joke? It is easy to forget here in 'consumer land' that these guys already know what's in the pipe line of development years out into the future.

It is certainly fun to speculate about 'The Good Guys' teaming up :)

clevin
Sep 10, 2007, 08:39 AM
this is the difference, google wants a spectrum free for everyone, apple wants one for their own.....

lord patton
Sep 10, 2007, 08:42 AM
Only matter of time that it's his turn to get sued because taking over everything (just like Bill did...)

True, but that's just because anti-trust law is arbitrary. Give a product away for free, charge too much for it, or charge too little for it--it could all put you in the Justice Department's crosshairs.

As soon as Washington decides to soak Apple for more campaign contributions, the anti-trust suits will commence.

O and A
Sep 10, 2007, 08:47 AM
Too risky and not enough reward.

Apple is better off partnering with google after google wins the auction.

peharri
Sep 10, 2007, 08:56 AM
Supposedly Apple has given AT&T a US monopoly on iPhone sales for the first five years. So if Apple did participate, would it restrict access to Macbooks, etc, with WiMAX cards, or would it sell phones from Nokia, Motorola, cursing "Damn you AT&T!" between its teeth while rival AT&T sells Apple's phones for it's network...?

Macula
Sep 10, 2007, 08:56 AM
Oh, come on! I am becoming frustrated with the insularity of this product and Apple in general.

Just freaking unlock iPhone, as a first step, and then in the long-term let it take advantage of the proliferation of VoIP via WiFi.

And open the damn OS to developers!

Jesus!

carlgo
Sep 10, 2007, 09:06 AM
So maybe this has something to do with that big communications center thing in southern California that Apple bought a few years ago.

Personally, I think that it is in the national interest to get a nation-wide, real high-speed communications network going. The present system is holding the economy back now and really will be bad in the future.

It would be a disaster for the telecoms to control this as we would all be at their mercy forever.

How can Apple/Goggle not want to control the future of wireless and every related device? Of course they should get together on this. This is a once in a lifetime chance.

peharri
Sep 10, 2007, 09:08 AM
So? It would be an extension to the wifi network, not some sort of GSM. The ipod touch would get nationwide wireless broadband internet, if i correctly understand this whole spectrum thing that is. :o

Nope. Wifi has a very limited range and doesn't operate on the frequencies being auctioned.

It's more likely an operator will run WiMAX, which despite having the first two letters in common with Wifi and having "802." in the name of the underlying standard (it's 802.16, Wifi is 802.11), has absolutely nothing in common at all with Wifi. They're as similar as GSM is to DECT.

nickane
Sep 10, 2007, 09:10 AM
I would have thought there would be no way $10 billion (Google), $14 billion (Apple), would be enough unless they pooled their resources. And even then, they'd have nothing left with which to build the network.

The 3G licenses went in the UK for £4-6 billion. This was considered vast overspending for the simple reasons that many feared (pretty accurately it turns out) that people would not want to pay for data by the MB/GB and that UMTS (3G) would not prove to have the lifespan of GSM that the bidding companies assumed it would have, thanks to the swift announcement of wimax and the sort of network being discussed here. I would have thought $10 billion would be pretty cheap for the licenses on offer here given the relative scale of the market and the advantages offered by the frequency.

Also, I always thought the reason why 900MHz carriers get worse reception is because the towers have less range (just what I was told by a guy in carphone warehouse over a decade ago, but reminiscent of something i learnt in school, and evidenced by anyone i've ever known on orange/one2one), so they need more of them than the 1800Mhz carriers do, and can't afford as good a network. I'd have thought something similar was true of 700MHz towers vs. the 1900 (?) MHz GSM towers in use in the States, meaning yet more costs for Apple/Google.

What these greedy governments should really do (instead of letting the overzealous companies duke it out, overspend, then tax the consumer for years to come and delay subsequent technologies) is do what they do with the lottery over here in the UK, where companies put proposals to the government about what they will do with the revenue. Carriers should put forward how they will run/price their network as well as how much they will offer for the licenses, whether it be as a lump sum or revenue sharing additional to tax. Free wifi for all would save the govt money too surely, and be good for the economy as a whole. Things like that should count for something.

God^Cent
Sep 10, 2007, 09:22 AM
Would it be plausible if apple made a all in one cable/phone company that would be free but only available to apple products?

Nope. Wifi has a very limited range and doesn't operate on the frequencies being auctioned.

It's more likely an operator will run WiMAX, which despite having the first two letters in common with Wifi and having "802." in the name of the underlying standard (it's 802.16, Wifi is 802.11), has absolutely nothing in common at all with Wifi. They're as similar as GSM is to DECT.
check out this podcast it enplanes what WiMax is very well.
http://www.labrats.tv/episodes/ep75.html

zephead
Sep 10, 2007, 09:23 AM
Any guesses at what would happen if one of the big four cellular providers (or all of them collectively) acquires the band?

I think I heard that the FCC is blocking the incumbents (i.e. the big four) from getting more spectrum than they already have. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

CJD2112
Sep 10, 2007, 09:39 AM
Hmmm, as Apple's record usually has shown, Apple doesn't do any thing half arsed. For a network to work, they'd have to spend years building it up to make it marketable and available for service. The towers, systems, man power, money; it'd be a heck of a lot of resources. Apple's better off just using the services of another company, at least for a while. Just me $.02.

Mgkwho
Sep 10, 2007, 09:42 AM
While Apple has a lot of money in reserve, I think this would be too risky for them. I don't think they have enough money and other resources to devote an honest chance to their own wireless network.

But then again, what do I know?

-=|Mgkwho

CJD2112
Sep 10, 2007, 09:43 AM
Nope. Wifi has a very limited range and doesn't operate on the frequencies being auctioned.

It's more likely an operator will run WiMAX, which despite having the first two letters in common with Wifi and having "802." in the name of the underlying standard (it's 802.16, Wifi is 802.11), has absolutely nothing in common at all with Wifi. They're as similar as GSM is to DECT.

Wow. I never knew of WiMax. So is this the system T-Mobile has developed? I recall reading something about a system that uses WiFi or such and UTMS or something, I'm totally out of my league on this one. Any help? Thanks!

grappler
Sep 10, 2007, 09:44 AM
I'm curious just how much room there is available for auction, and how many companies could potentially win chunks of it. Is it possible, for example, for an apple/google partnership to carve out a chunk of spectrum just big enough to offer the kind of wireless services we're talking about here? Even if the other providers grab the majority?

fixyourthinking
Sep 10, 2007, 09:45 AM
Why would Apple participate in this and not just assist Google? - Google seems very interested in this idea of broadband over the air.

I think it's almost a given that it will be a bid between Microsoft/Verizon/Google ... I think Apple would be wise to stay out and just partner up with Google - the CEO of Google is on Apple's board and Apple and Google have several partnerships already - I think it seems natural.

peharri
Sep 10, 2007, 10:03 AM
Wow. I never knew of WiMax. So is this the system T-Mobile has developed? I recall reading something about a system that uses WiFi or such and UTMS or something, I'm totally out of my league on this one. Any help? Thanks!

No, you're thinking of UMA, which was developed by the industry, it's just T-Mobile is the first to offer it in the US.

WiMAX has nothing whatsoever to do with Wifi. Other than confusing similarities in name, pretty much the only thing they have in common are that you might use either to access the Internet wirelessly. But that's it. It's like you might use DECT or GSM to access the phone network wirelessly - but DECT is unlicensed, has a range of a few yards, requires you provide your own connection to the phone network, and uses its own set of protocols, whereas GSM is licensed, has a range of tens of miles, the connection to the phone network is provided by a third party which also owns the towers, etc.

GSM is to DECT what WiMAX is to Wifi.

Wait, this is an online forum. So we need a car (or rather transportation) analogy:

Trains are to golf carts what WiMAX is to Wifi.

Makes sense?

As far as UMA (the service you're talking about T-Mobile offering) goes: UMA allows GSM signals to go over the Internet, via a local Wifi connection, instead of over the licensed GSM airwaves. This frees up capacity and also means a user can fix coverage holes themselves.

And UMTS is GSM version 3, and has nothing to do with UMA. AT&T offers UMTS already (that's what is often called 3G - UMTS is one of many 3G standards - or HSDPA - a technology provided in some UMTS implementations improving performance.)

So:

Wifi - a short range data networking standard, mostly used by people to access the Internet via their own network (or provide internet access to people on the owner's property.)

GSM, UMTS - 2G and 3G voice and data cellular standards. GSM is usually augmented by GPRS or EDGE to provide Internet access. UMTS is built with Internet access from the ground up.

WiMAX - an Internet-oriented cellular networking standard.

UMA - a way to use GSM (and UMTS) over Wifi and the Internet instead of the normal licensed spectrum. (Actually, the original standard supports Bluetooth in addition to Wifi, but that never took off.)

Other standards include EVDO (competes with UMTS but rare outside of the US, less open and capable than GSM based standards), and "UMTS rev. 8", sometimes called Long Term Evolution, which is the 4G version of GSM and a direct competitor to WiMAX.

ankh
Sep 10, 2007, 10:05 AM
Seems a great chance for the two companies to collaborate on a wireless project, one the open source people could take and run with.

Google could amend their motto to "Don't be evil, Steve handles that."

Apple could amend their motto to "The rest of you can go hang up."

Unspeaked
Sep 10, 2007, 10:06 AM
True, but it was hardly a stellar period in Apple's financial life… :p

Most importantly, it was pre-Jobs.

It may as well have been another company...

germ war
Sep 10, 2007, 10:13 AM
Woah!

What's next for Apple?

If Apple actually goes in and build up their own network, I guess we'll all have to break our contracts (again for the same of us) and move to their... ah.. let's see... iNetwork? iWireless?

- Nickz

They're not going to get involved, I'm fairly sure, but if they did, I think they should go by the name "ireless". :)

Sweetfeld28
Sep 10, 2007, 10:16 AM
I think that Apple, Inc. and Google should team up and buy the spectrum. It would be great for both companies. For Google it would be great for their 'gPhone', and for Apple it could mean a faster and better iPod & 'iLife' [not the program suite] experiance.

KiraDouji
Sep 10, 2007, 10:45 AM
Google or Apple - either would be better than any of the companies currently in control. Especially considering the "two tier internet" argument going on right now.

- Kira

EagerDragon
Sep 10, 2007, 10:48 AM
Let Google buy it, they can make it free with advertising or something. Not a good market for Apple to be in, better work together on this.

I already have plenty of ad(s), don't need anymore. Clean wireless connection that does not get in the way and only shows me the data I would be ideal.

RRK
Sep 10, 2007, 10:59 AM
I agree with those who think Apple will try to help Google win the spectrum. More then likely Apple would secure some bandwidth so that they can throw some cash behind Google's bid.

Also, I was thinking about the problem some are bringing up concerning the hardware it would take to get the network going. Since most of the country is already covered with this frequency in the form of TV signals couldn't they maybe upgrade existing antenna to roll the network out more quickly?

Ibjr
Sep 10, 2007, 11:23 AM
Seems Steve is trying to be the next technology communist...

Only matter of time that it's his turn to get sued because taking over everything (just like Bill did...)

Say what? Communist? Reign in that diction.

For the Feds to go after Apple, the computer company will need a lot more market share and move to stop others from competing in the same. For the most part Apple has moved toward more openness and interoperability.

Anticompetitive behavior hasn't beens seen.

Ibjr
Sep 10, 2007, 11:27 AM
Supposedly Apple has given AT&T a US monopoly on iPhone sales for the first five years. So if Apple did participate, would it restrict access to Macbooks, etc, with WiMAX cards, or would it sell phones from Nokia, Motorola, cursing "Damn you AT&T!" between its teeth while rival AT&T sells Apple's phones for it's network...?

No. It wouldn't.

While the documents are not public, it appears that AT&T has an exclusive on iPhone sales but there is no indication about data carriers. I highly doubt Apple would grant a 5 year deal and ink the wireless options. Apple realizes technology changes. Newer iphones and Ipod touches would support the Google spectrum.

Orng
Sep 10, 2007, 11:34 AM
Bit like American football with the "World Series" - only invite Americans:-)


Baseball, not football, but Canadian teams can play in the World Series as well, so it's not just Americans. Toronto won it in 1992, but after a year or so of gloating about that, we all realized that we don't really like baseball that much. We have our baseball teams but we don't actually give a damn about them. ;)

BKKbill
Sep 10, 2007, 11:42 AM
For the Feds to go after Apple, the computer company will need a lot more market share and move to stop others from competing in the same. For the most part Apple has moved toward more openness and interoperability.

Anticompetitive behavior hasn't beens seen.

Just who is this apple computer you speak of or did you mean possibly Apple Inc.

Random Ping
Sep 10, 2007, 11:45 AM
Doesn't AT&T have a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone?

Nothing official has been made public. Also, there are probably break-up clauses in the contract. Finally, there may be some back channels that Apple could use such as Skype over WiMax on the iPod Touch, which could bypass the AT&T deal.

Random Ping
Sep 10, 2007, 11:49 AM
Personally, I think we would see Apple start an iTunes recording company(actually signing artists) before we see them become a wireless provider.

I agree (I've been surprised Apple hasn't done this already, or at least encouraged artists to go with smaller labels where they can get more revenue from their iTunes sales).

Apple is suddenly running into entrenched companies (from music to movies to wireless providers) that are hindering Apple's ability to move in certain ways or at certain speeds. At some point I expect something to change dramatically.

Random Ping
Sep 10, 2007, 11:52 AM
And open the damn OS to developers!

Now that Apple has released iPod Touch with WiFi, I am expecting Apple to get a lot more pressure between now and WWDC 08. In fact, with Leopard release in about 6 weeks, and no major new OS on the horizon for several years, I expect Apple to use the iPod Touch SDK as its major draw for developers at the next WWDC 08.

Random Ping
Sep 10, 2007, 12:00 PM
With both Apple and Google sitting on a ton of cash, both generating a lot of cash each quarter, and (at least Apple) having no debt, I expect one or both to start spending that cash soon to open new markets.

With the current credit crunch, Apple and Google's cash positions may give them an advantage over other companies. And as many have speculated, Apple and Google seem to make a good team -- similar personalities, located nearby each other, virtually no overlapping product line (right now), common adversaries and road blocks.

The question is, What new market would make sense?

ngdesign
Sep 10, 2007, 12:31 PM
Say what? Communist? Reign in that diction.

For the Feds to go after Apple, the computer company will need a lot more market share and move to stop others from competing in the same. For the most part Apple has moved toward more openness and interoperability.

Anticompetitive behavior hasn't beens seen.

Because thats just the beginning. The way how apple is fighting its way back into the market the last couple of years, just matter of time they'll have enough market share to be in the trouble.
1 more reason for them to get google as backup

Unspeaked
Sep 10, 2007, 12:51 PM
Because thats just the beginning. The way how apple is fighting its way back into the market the last couple of years, just matter of time they'll have enough market share to be in the trouble.
1 more reason for them to get google as backup

Yeah, because Google doesn't have any monopoly accusations pointed at them...

Ibjr
Sep 10, 2007, 12:52 PM
Because thats just the beginning. The way how apple is fighting its way back into the market the last couple of years, just matter of time they'll have enough market share to be in the trouble.
1 more reason for them to get google as backup

Sure, if you use a metric as restrictive as consumer laptop sales.

morespce54
Sep 10, 2007, 01:15 PM
You must have missed the period in history where Apple made digital cameras, TVs, CD players, printers, etc.

Does this look familiar?
http://www.tarosworld.com/apple/old_peripherals/powercd/DSCN4010.jpg

Or this maybe?
http://www.digicamhistory.com/Apple%20Quicktake%20150D.jpg



OMG!!! (Bad) memories flashback... ;)
Wasn't there printers too?

Yes... :)
http://www.worldclassink.com/fullaccess/PrinterImages/Apple-StyleWriter-II.jpg

Papajohn56
Sep 10, 2007, 02:18 PM
I already have plenty of ad(s), don't need anymore. Clean wireless connection that does not get in the way and only shows me the data I would be ideal.

And how do you propose they profit off of this? Google is not backed by taxes, they are still in fact a corporation that's purpose is to make money.

Papajohn56
Sep 10, 2007, 02:20 PM
OMG!!! (Bad) memories flashback... ;)
Wasn't there printers too?

Yes... :)
http://www.worldclassink.com/fullaccess/PrinterImages/Apple-StyleWriter-II.jpg

Hey you shut up, Apple LaserWriters were great, and we still use one from back in the day. It still has better print quality than several new ones.

psychofreak
Sep 10, 2007, 02:21 PM
And how do you propose they profit off of this? Google is not backed by taxes, they are still in fact a corporation that's purpose is to make money.

If Google.com was forcebly people's Home Page while on Googleweb (nice name, huh?) it would be fine...

Analog Kid
Sep 10, 2007, 02:26 PM
Also, I always thought the reason why 900MHz carriers get worse reception is because the towers have less range (just what I was told by a guy in carphone warehouse over a decade ago, but reminiscent of something i learnt in school, and evidenced by anyone i've ever known on orange/one2one), so they need more of them than the 1800Mhz carriers do, and can't afford as good a network. I'd have thought something similar was true of 700MHz towers vs. the 1900 (?) MHz GSM towers in use in the States, meaning yet more costs for Apple/Google.

The main limitation isn't so much range as bandwidth... You're only getting a few MHz of spectrum (assume Hz and bits per second are about 1:1, though that's not fixed in stone). You need to share that bandwidth with everyone in the coverage area of a single antenna. You can put more than one antenna on a tower and focus it on a region, but there's a limit to that. The next best solution is to limit the transmission power and put up more towers, particularly in urban areas. In rural areas, you have less population density and you can boost the power and cover the area with fewer towers. The suburbs are the worst case scenario because of how the population clusters.

A 20MHz allotment in the middle of the 700MHz band would be quite nice for a data rollout, because it gets good penetration of buildings (roughly assume penetration goes down as frequency goes up), but it's going to require a lot of towers and short range to get reasonable data rates.
Wow. I never knew of WiMax. So is this the system T-Mobile has developed? I recall reading something about a system that uses WiFi or such and UTMS or something, I'm totally out of my league on this one. Any help? Thanks!
WiMax is a long haul data network. It's seen as a way to get data to mobile users and as a way around needing to lay cable for rural users (which is expensive due to the distances between termination points). Sprint has been rolling it out in the US.
I'm curious just how much room there is available for auction, and how many companies could potentially win chunks of it. Is it possible, for example, for an apple/google partnership to carve out a chunk of spectrum just big enough to offer the kind of wireless services we're talking about here? Even if the other providers grab the majority?
This is a pretty good overview.
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=13301
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/bandplans/700MHzBandPlan.pdf
The long and short of it is there's a good chunk of spectrum on the block, in a prime band, and it's broken into different allotments each with different rules and coverage areas. Some are national, some are very local. Because of the breakdown, it's possible for several companies to get pieces.

Also of interest: the auction winner has 4 years to get a working service covering a third of their coverage area.

Kenn Marks
Sep 10, 2007, 05:57 PM
Buying this spectrum doesn't mean you have to develop the infrastructure immediately Apple bought the Worldcom Data center a couple years ago and they have the innovative expertise to redefine how we communicate we cannot rely on the "Baby Bells" to change their stripes they are still operating on the traditions of their heritage. So what we would have is incompetency at a new frequency. Since that frequecy range has such penetration power fewer towers would be necessary to cover a broader geographical area. Hopefully they will learn from their startup of what is now AOL, after turning it over to Mr Steve Case to operate as a separate entity AOL then became Mac unfriendly. So for Steve to keep control of how things operate you must own the Farm if you want the control of its produce. The Price of the bandwidth will not go down in price and can probably be sold off at a later date. Unless a use plan is necessary to even bid. As for upsetting local ISP's they are well aware of the competition with local Phone and Cable companies daily wooing away customers. Just like the iPhone is making people rethink Cellular phone purchases and contract maybe Apple can do the same to Wireless Comunication. As mrgreen4242 said maybe Apple could purchase it and then lease it out and then control how it is used using other peoples money.

ErikCLDR
Sep 10, 2007, 06:04 PM
The point I am making is that a major company such as gateway (well, they once were) tried to expand too quickly with there TV's, cameras, etc.

Apple would be creating an entire network, which is a much bigger financial endeavor than just slapping your name on a TV.

That is like Ford deciding they want to make Jewelry.

Analog Kid
Sep 10, 2007, 06:55 PM
Buying this spectrum doesn't mean you have to develop the infrastructure immediately Apple bought the Worldcom Data center a couple years ago and they have the innovative expertise to redefine how we communicate we cannot rely on the "Baby Bells" to change their stripes they are still operating on the traditions of their heritage. So what we would have is incompetency at a new frequency. Since that frequecy range has such penetration power fewer towers would be necessary to cover a broader geographical area. Hopefully they will learn from their startup of what is now AOL, after turning it over to Mr Steve Case to operate as a separate entity AOL then became Mac unfriendly. So for Steve to keep control of how things operate you must own the Farm if you want the control of its produce. The Price of the bandwidth will not go down in price and can probably be sold off at a later date. Unless a use plan is necessary to even bid. As for upsetting local ISP's they are well aware of the competition with local Phone and Cable companies daily wooing away customers. Just like the iPhone is making people rethink Cellular phone purchases and contract maybe Apple can do the same to Wireless Comunication. As mrgreen4242 said maybe Apple could purchase it and then lease it out and then control how it is used using other peoples money.
Actually, they do need to build the infrastructure immediately. They've got 4 years (see my links above). I'm not sure what the rules are on subletting the band, but I do know there are very strict usage regulations. One thing you can't do is win the spectrum and then sit on it.

Hadn't realized Apple bought the WorldCom data center. Was that to drive their iTunes/.Mac stuff?

mergatroidal
Sep 10, 2007, 09:04 PM
What's next?! A flotilla of :apple:iSatellites:apple: in orbit around earth? And then what? The Moon? The Saturnian satellite Titan??
:rolleyes:
Can't anyone put a stop to this madman, Steven Paul Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs)?

RedTomato
Sep 11, 2007, 02:52 AM
Hopefully they will learn from their startup of what is now AOL, after turning it over to Mr Steve Case to operate as a separate entity AOL then became Mac unfriendly.

Steve Jobs set up AOL? I can't find much reference to that - only a mention in wikipedia that there was a joint project between Quantum Link (AOL's precursor) and Apple in about 1989.

Papajohn56
Sep 11, 2007, 02:56 AM
Steve Jobs set up AOL? I can't find much reference to that - only a mention in wikipedia that there was a joint project between Quantum Link (AOL's precursor) and Apple in about 1989.

is he thinking of eWorld?

cliffjumper68
Sep 11, 2007, 01:09 PM
Slim chance with Google competing for the spectrum, but it would be cool. I was hoping sprint would get the iphone so it could take advantage of the up comming wi-Max network.

savar
Sep 11, 2007, 05:16 PM
Let Google buy it, they can make it free with advertising or something. Not a good market for Apple to be in, better work together on this.


Wasn't the iphone supposed to revolutionize the wireless industry? No vendor lockin, no contracts, no subsidies, etc...just consumer freedom?

I would love to see that happen. Apple is one of a few companies who have the guts to do it. You're right though, it's way outside of their line of business. I think Wall Street would see it as a big mistake.

roocka
Sep 11, 2007, 06:13 PM
Apple is a technology company that sells products. If they were forced to bid $9 billion dollars for this frequency range, that is $9 billion less that they have for research and development. They would also have to integrate this into their current business model and if something happened to their network, everybody would point the finger at Apple. At least using a separate carrier such as At&t, if something happens to the network, Apple is an innocent bystander.

Fact is that Apple is increasing their marketshare of both the desktop and laptop markets. This is being helped by the i-Pods intuitive interface and now the i-Phone. People like to feel "cool" and Apple creates cool products that are also fashionable.

As long as Apple continues growing the computer division and gain market share and industry respect, I think they will hunker down and focus on these parts of the business model.

Roocka

MikeTheC
Sep 12, 2007, 11:11 PM
Does this mean I'll be able to see all of your desktops on my television screen?

[evil maniacal laugh]

All your base are now belong to... me!!!

MikeTheC
Sep 12, 2007, 11:14 PM
Another thing, yeah, it's off-topic (somewhat) but...

When they stop analog broadcasting (now in '09?) and my TV becomes useless, is the FCC also selling off that same spectrum over cable networks? Or is that going somewhere else?

pamon
Sep 13, 2007, 12:59 AM
hmmm... apple + google in wireless auction = unlocked iphone by apple ??

pcylam
Sep 13, 2007, 02:52 PM
I don't know exactly the capabilities of this new network, but can it become a wifi network that is a phone and internet network?

Through this network you can make phone calls and get onto the internet via iphone and ipod touch, but what if all Apple computers can get onto it as well? laptops and desktops? Apple would be your wireless internet provider wherever you go. This can be tied in with their .mac subscription program, which steve has promised to improve.

If this network benefits more than just the ipods, I think it becomes a better business plan for Apple to own, operate and control. I hear the 700Mhz is faster connection than cellular and wifi networks but is it faster than cable and DSL connections?

I wonder how this network is applicable for the rest of the world. Can Apple setup on similar 700Mhz frequencies in other countries too? If they can, then all apple ipods (including iphones) and macs can equately operate with the clouds through this frequency. Or else, Apple will have to have different chips for different machines in different countries, like they do for iphones for the US and Europe.

zwida
Sep 18, 2007, 12:38 PM
...I wonder how this network is applicable for the rest of the world. Can Apple setup on similar 700Mhz frequencies in other countries too? If they can, then all apple ipods (including iphones) and macs can equately operate with the clouds through this frequency. Or else, Apple will have to have different chips for different machines in different countries, like they do for iphones for the US and Europe.

It may be little more than a dream, but I like your speculation. As for the 700 Mhz band, Apple would need to negotiate with each locality as countries regulate frequencies individually.