Apple Considering Participating in FCC Wireless Auction?

[pilotError]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? ) 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]

this is the difference, google wants a spectrum free for everyone, apple wants one for their own.....

 

[lord patton]

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]

Too risky and not enough reward.

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

 

[peharri]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[3282872]

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]

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

 

[3282872]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Google and Apple, wireless together?

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]

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

Most importantly, it was pre-Jobs.

It may as well have been another company...

 

[germ war]

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".