News Blog

Google on Monday said it has a plan to have American consumers from Manhattan to rural North Dakota surfing the Web on handheld gadgets at gigabits-per-second speeds by the 2009 holiday season.

The company, joined by other heavyweights like Microsoft and Dell, has long been lobbying for the Federal Communications Commission to free up unused broadcast TV channels known as "white spaces" for unlicensed use by personal devices. That portion of the TV band is highly prized because it can propagate long distances and through obstacles.

It also possesses the bandwidth to support vastly faster data rates than today's standard Internet service offerings--"Wi-Fi on steroids" or "Wi-Fi 2.0," as Richard Whitt, Google's telecommunications counsel, put it in a Monday morning conference call.

In a renewed effort to get the FCC on board with the idea, Google filed a six-page letter late on Friday that attempts to erase lingering concerns from TV broadcasters and microphone manufacturers about harmful interference caused by the entry of new devices.

"We're doing this because we want everybody to be satisfied with this process," Whitt said. "We think it's the right time to put these ideas in the record and see where they go."

Google isn't interested in becoming a wireless service provider or building a network of its own, Whitt said. It does, however, envision the white spaces as a "unique opportunity to provide ubiquitous wireless access for all Americans" and a prime spot for use of mobile handsets running its open-source Android platform. Google hopes to start rolling out Android devices, which are being developed in conjunction with a 34-company consortium, as soon as summer or fall of this year, Whitt said.

Even if the FCC signs off, the offerings wouldn't be immediate. The spectrum won't be ready for use until at least February 2009, when over-the-air broadcasters are required to vacate that band as part of the congressionally mandated shift to all-digital television.

The FCC also isn't expected to issue any rules for use of the spectrum for another several months, Whitt said. Agency engineers are still testing early-stage devices submitted by Microsoft and Phillips for interference issues.

Avoiding interference
In hopes of nudging that process in its favor, Google's new filing describes a multipronged approach aimed at avoiding interference. Building upon suggestions made in a filing by Motorola last fall, it said any new unlicensed TV white-spaces devices would be blocked from transmitting signals unless they had received a sort of "permission to transmit" message. Wireless microphones could also be outfitted with "inexpensive" beacons that would send out a signal to white-spaces devices that says " don't come here," by Whitt's description.

In addition, Google proposes setting up a "safe harbor," between channels 36 and 38, where unlicensed white-space devices would not be allowed to operate, but wireless microphones and other licensed devices would. It also urges the FCC not to discount the promise of "spectrum-sensing" technologies, which, for example, are supported by 802.11a-based Wi-Fi to protect military radars from interference.

Google also offered to provide no-cost "technical support" to third parties hoping to use the white spaces, should they be opened up.

Even if the regulators ultimately approve use of the white spaces, "no product will come to market unless the FCC can verify that the device does not interfere with TV or wireless microphone signals," Whitt said.

Representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Google's renewed white-spaces push comes just days after the FCC ended an auction of the remaining portion of the 700MHz broadcast TV spectrum that's being vacated for the digital switch next year. The company had been active in the event, lobbying beforehand for "open-access" conditions allowing consumers to attach whatever devices or run whatever applications they please.

The search giant had committed to bidding $4.6 billion for the "open-access" spectrum block, but last week, the FCC announced that it was Verizon Wireless, not Google, that had won those licenses.

Whitt said he couldn't say the proposal had nothing to do with the auction results, but because of FCC rules, he isn't able to comment further on Google's involvement in the auction until the end of next week.

The FCC's 700MHz spectrum auction is over and Verizon won. But so did Google, which made a bid that wasn't chosen.

There's a good chance that Google didn't even want to win, as my colleague Maggie Reardon suspected last year. It didn't make any sense for Google to get into the telecom business.

Why would Google bid if it didn't intend to win? By bluffing its way through the bid, Google was able to drive the price high enough to get the FCC to adopt open-access rules it pushed for that require the network operator to allow any device or application to connect to it.

Now, Google gets a fast, open network for all of its apps and services (and Android-based devices) without having to spend money or resources building it. Meanwhile, carriers will be happier to partner with Google than compete against it.

Google's influence has already had a ripple effect as wireless carriers see the writing on the wall. In November, Verizon said it would open its existing mobile network to any cell phones and allow people to run third-party applications on the phones.

Did Google pull one over on the telco industry? We may never know. But it doesn't seem they're exactly moping in the halls at the Googleplex:

"We congratulate the winners and look forward to a more open wireless world," Google telecom and corporate lawyers wrote on the Google Public Policy Blog. "As a result of the auction, consumers whose devices use the C-block of spectrum soon will be able to use any wireless device they wish, and download to their devices any applications and content they wish. Consumers soon should begin enjoying new, Internet-like freedom to get the most out of their mobile phones and other wireless devices."

Asked to elaborate, a Google spokesman said the company would have more to say once the FCC anti-collusion rules lift completely.

In the meantime, congratulations are in order to Verizon and Google.

PALO ALTO, Calif.--If you are like me your eyes probably glaze over a bit when people start talking about wireless spectrum.

Well, maybe consumers should start paying more attention because the debate over how spectrum is managed will determine how we'll be able to use all types of devices in the future, Tim Wu, Columbia Law School professor, said at a Legal Futures Conference at Stanford University on Saturday.

Specifically, there is a "battle for platform supremacy between two different types of devices"--mobile versus computer, he said. The mobile platform has a centralized, monopoly legacy whereas the computer platform was born in a distributed, open environment.

Internet companies like Google are battling with traditional telecom companies over requiring open access to spectrum, which would allow people to use whatever device they want on that spectrum.

"As (mobile) gains in popularity...the question becomes what the dominant platform will be," Wu said. "There will be one platform to rule them all...Control of spectrum is the bottleneck" that either maintains the telecom monopoly model or brings the openness of the Internet to the wireless world.

Someone in the audience asked panel member Kent Walker, Google general counsel, if Google had won its bid for the 700MHz spectrum and, if so, whether the spectrum will be opened. Walker said Google can't talk about the auction while it is ongoing.

"The direction is toward mobile, and local, and the power line," Walker said. "We do well with the Internet...If it will make the Internet more accessible that's an opportunity for the company and, ultimately, for consumers."

There is also an increasing call for spectrum to be owned by all the citizens, rather than licensed by the government to corporations to operate.

"I'm here to say 'free the spectrum,'" said Kevin Werbach, professor of legal studies and ethics at the Wharton School of Business and former counsel for new technology policy at the Federal Communications Commission.

Under the current system, companies have been allowed to perpetuate the falsehood that spectrum is scarce for economic gain, he said. "The tragedy is we're not using anywhere near the capacity of the wireless spectrum to communicate."

First, federal regulators rejected a start-up's bid to gain exclusive access to unused radio spectrum in order to offer a partially free wireless broadband network.

Now, as promised, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking formal public comment on whether it would make sense to permit the sort of scheme proposed by Silicon Valley-based M2Z Networks or others that previously expressed interest in operating a slice of the 2.1 GHz band.

The FCC also wants to know what sort of technological approaches should be allowed on that spectrum and whether it should auction the spectrum, offer it on an unlicensed basis, or undertake some other sort of arrangement. As is typical, the comment period will be open for 30 days after the official notice is published in the Federal Register, with 60 additional days for people to file replies to the already-filed comments.

The two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, issued statements saying they were pleased the FCC was launching the comment period but wished action had occurred sooner. "The one outcome that would plainly not serve the public interest is for this spectrum to remain unavailable for advanced wireless services," Copps said.

The proceeding could prove a new battleground over the concept of "open access," which has dominated much of the FCC's recent rulemaking related to an upcoming auction of the 700 MHz analog TV spectrum.

Proponents of "open access rules," including Google and a number of consumer advocacy groups, argue it's in the public's best interest for federal regulators to require at least some winning spectrum operators to allow consumers to use the devices and applications of their choosing and to offer competitors access to their networks at reasonable wholesale rates. Verizon Wireless and other mobile carriers beg to differ.

The Wi-Fi only iPhone?

(Credit: News.com)

Remember when I told you that I believed Google could kill the cell phone industry by participating in the wireless spectrum auction? Well, what if I told you that Apple may participate in that same auction and the possibility of it destroying the cell phone industry is just as great?

Now, before you raise your hands and say I'm full of it, understand that this is all a guess on my part and there is currently no indication that Apple will (1) definitely participate and (2) do what I am about to say. That said, the company still might participate in the auction and my predictions could, could come true. So, without further ado, here is how I think Apple could kill the cell phone industry.

Apple is considering bidding on the government's upcoming wireless spectrum auction in January, according to a Business Week story.

The story, which cites two unnamed sources, said that "Steve Jobs & Co. have studied the implications of joining the auction, which will be held Jan. 16." But at this point at least one of Business Week's sources says that Apple is leaning away from participating in the auction, the story said.

The spectrum auction scheduled to take place in January 2008 will allocate wireless licenses for spectrum in the 700MHz band that is being vacated as a result of the switch to digital TV. The spectrum, which is considered the last band of "beach front" airwaves available, is highly valuable because it can transmit signals over long distances and through objects. Internet giant Google has already said it will likely be bidding on the spectrum.

Apple has already begun dabbling in wireless, so it's not too surprising the company would at least consider bidding in the 700MHz spectrum auction. Earlier this summer, it introduced the iPhone, which works over AT&T's cellular network and also uses Wi-Fi. Last week, it upped the ante with the new Wi-Fi-enabled iPod Touch, an iPhone without the cellular connectivity. Apple also launched a new version of iTunes that will allow iPhone and iPod Touch users to download songs over a Wi-Fi connection.

But as the Business Week story points out, the wireless communications business is risky. And at this point "Apple is leaning against participating in the auction." While Apple can certainly afford the minimum $4.6 billion necessary to bid in the auction, strategically it makes little sense for Apple to get into the low-margin wireless phone business.

"My first reaction to this is why would Apple do that to their margins," said Mike McGuire, a vice president of research at Gartner.

McGuire also said that even getting into the auction would require Apple to dedicate a lot of resources and time to an effort that is not part of the company's core business.

"There is a lot more to this than buying spectrum licenses," he said. "They'll need people to manage the bidding. Then once they get the spectrum, they'll have to acquire the expertise to do something with it. And there are regulatory issues that will have to be dealt with. So the question becomes, how much of its resources does Apple really want to devote to this?"

But the Business Week story makes the argument that Apple may be moving toward a service model. The story suggests that if Apple had its own network that it could allow users to access content from a "cloud of computing" instead of first downloading it onto a PC. So music, movies, email and all kinds of other content would be stored on the network and streamed instead of being stored on devices like the iPod.

In this scenario Apple would eventually make money on its applications, instead of selling devices. The article goes on to say that Apple may even consider offering the basic wireless access service for free, subsidizing the cost through advertising. And then it could charge for the content that it sells over this network.

This could be great for consumers, who would likely get cheaper wireless access and possibly simpler access to applications, but the Business Week article seems to assume that building a wireless network is cheap. Yes, it's true that building a wireless network is less expensive than laying new fiber in the ground, a strategy Verizon Communications has taken in building its next generation broadband network. But whether you're laying fiber or installing wireless bay stations, there are real capital and operational costs associated with building and operating a network.

Just ask EarthLink, which has been forced to scale back its municipal Wi-Fi deployments because it can't find a business model to sustain the strategy. The networks have turned out to be more expensive to build than EarthLink first anticipated.

I have little doubt that Steve Jobs has thought about the 700MHz auction. How could he not, with companies like Google making so much noise about the auction? But to actually commit money and resources into such a project seems like a long shot to me at this point.

Perhaps there will be some way for Apple to partner with a potential bidder. For instance, it's conceivable for Apple to work with Google, especially considering that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is on Apple's board of directors.

Google wants to put its money where its mouth is...to the tune of at least $4.6 billion.

The search giant said Friday that it's willing to participate in the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming wireless spectrum 700MHz band auction and pay the minimum reserve of $4.6 billion.

But for Google to participate, there's a catch. It's requiring the FCC to adopt all four of its licensing recommendations, no matter who ultimately wins the bidding process.

Google has also been pressing the FCC to reserve a portion of that spectrum to be used primarily, or exclusively, for broadband communications. The Internet giant wants "open access" rules, fearing that without them, only a few powerful companies, such as telecommunications and cable providers, will become the permanent guardians of the airwaves.

Google wants the FCC to agree to its four "open" platform recommendations, which include: open applications for users; open devices that will work with whichever network provider customers choose; open services that would allow for third-party resellers to acquire wireless services on a wholesale basis; and open networks, which would allow third parties, such as Internet service providers, to interconnect at any feasible point within the 700MHz licensee's wireless network.

Google better bring a big bidder's paddle to the auction.

As the government prepares to auction off a prized slice of wireless spectrum early next year, Google and a number of consumer advocacy groups have been pressuring federal regulators to impose some form of "open access" rules that would prevent only a few companies from controlling the coveted space.

It appears the Federal Communications Commission may be poised to grant their request, according to various reports.

According to draft auction ground rules seen by a Dow Jones reporter, the regulators are entertaining the idea of attaching open-access conditions to more than one-third of the portion of the 700 MHz broadcast TV band that they plan to auction off.

Freeing up that spectrum for public safety and commercial uses is the major purpose of a long-discussed shift from analog to digital television scheduled for 2009. The band is such a hot commodity because its signals can travel farther and easily penetrate walls, which could foster cheaper, and more widespread, wireless broadband networks.

An unnamed FCC official cited in the Dow Jones story said that two 11 MHz blocks would be bound by open access principles, which would mean that spectrum operators would have to allow consumers to use the wireless devices they wish and to load the applications they desire onto their gadgets, so long as they don't harm the network.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin seemed to confirm the agency was headed in that direction in an interview with USA Today published Monday. He was quoted as saying, "Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide...a truly open broadband network--one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers."

Martin also reportedly said he was troubled that some wireless handset makers, at the request of U.S. mobile carriers, have stripped out features like Wi-Fi, whereas in Europe, consumers have had wider access to "unlocked" phones for years.

Major wireless carriers have resisted calls for "open access" requirements for the upcoming auction because they say such decisions should be decided by the market. If companies like Google want to make use of the spectrum, they should bid accordingly and hope they win, not seek help through new regulations, the industry has said.

Google's Washington telecommunications and media counsel, Richard Whitt, said in a blog post Tuesday morning that his company was still weighing whether it would make its own bids. After consulting with various experts, however, he added that the search giant had determined existing wireless carriers are likely to prevail against new mobile market entrants like Google--that is, unless the FCC requires various forms of openness.

Whitt said he was also hearing "through the proverbial grapevine" that the FCC rules may be aligned with Google's wishes. "Obviously we'll need to see the fine print, but such a proposal would represent a step forward for new, innovative entrants to the broadband market," he wrote.

A final version of the rules is expected to be made public by late July or early August, according to Dow Jones, and would then go to a vote before the five-member commission. Meanwhile, a House of Representatives committee on Wednesday morning plans to examine a similar set of issues at a hearing entitled "Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection." (Click here for a PDF with more information.)

Stay tuned to CNET News.com for coverage of Wednesday's congressional hearing and further analysis of the upcoming auction rules.

Update at 11:15 a.m. PDT: At least one public-interest group that has been lobbying for open access rules--and their parallel on the Internet side, Net neutrality--is skeptical about just how "open" the FCC plans to make portions of the auctioned spectrum.

In a blog post later on Tuesday morning, Public Knowledge spokesman Art Brodsky said it's great that Martin wants to allow consumers to have access to the mobile devices of their choosing. But if the FCC truly wants competition in the wireless broadband space, technology companies and public-interest groups want to see a requirement that spectrum auction winners "offer a slice of the space on a wholesale basis with no rules on what types of services or equipment could be offered," he wrote.

Based on the news reports, it's hardly clear that's what Martin has in mind. Brodsky said he hoped other commissioners would be able to persuade him otherwise.

Another update at 12:45 p.m. PDT: On the free-market-leaning side of the debate, Scott Cleland, who runs a group called Net Competition that represents the telecommunications and cable industries, has blasted the FCC's potential actions as "a multi-billion corporate welfare subsidy grant to Google." (Net Competition also despises the idea of Net neutrality laws.)

In a blog entry, he said open access rules are completely unnecessary and could lead to a repeat of an early-1990s "fiasco" in which "hyper-regulatory conditions" on a spectrum auction left a chunk of it "fallow and in legal limbo." And besides, there's nothing stopping Google from bidding on the spectrum--after all, it's "no poverty case," Cleland wrote--and imposing its own open access requirements if it wins.