- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
Google is smart, but we knew that. $4.6 billion would likely be a good investment for them, since spectrum will only get more expensive in the future, but they knew they would never have to pay it.
What's surprising is that the FCC was smart enough to call the big wireless providers' bluff. Verizon and AT&T were never going to say "we're just going to stop growing our business because we don't like your rules". They need spectrum. Google just needs access. Google would get what they wanted either way, but Verizon and AT&T had only one positive outcome.
Verizon and AT&T sort of win, because they got what they wanted but they had to pay more than they would have in the absence of Google, and AT&T didn't get (couldn't afford?) any of the best blocks.
We sort of win, depending on what's important to you. Yes, we'll have more freedom in what devices and applications we will get to use. But we'll probably also see fewer or lower subsidies on the purchase of new phones as a result of Google driving up the price, and possibly higher rates.
The only clear winner here is Google. I'm not sure why you are thanking them for acting in their own best interests.
Seriously, this wouldn't have happened without the leadership of Chris Sacca... who has since left Google to be an angel investor and work on other projects. In all honestly, I'd give him Tech Person of the Year 2007.
Wait until Verizon and AT&T's lobbyists get done with doing their thing.
Who wants to bet that these open access rules remain when the spectrum is actually put to use?
