So when the whole FCC ignore two out of four google demands, so that it will bid on the 700mhz auction debacle happened, a lot of people wondered if they’d stick to it. It seems they just may go ahead and bid after all on 700mhz.

It still begs to question, will google still push for open access? It’s their right to do with it how they wish. I’ve pondered however if google can allow people to put up their own licensed transmitters if they are FCC approved?

I’d be ok with the wholesale of the data, but the problem is that like the article states, the spectrum cost is nothing compared to the rollout cost. I’m sure the gurus at google will figure it out.

I read this article about the 700mhz auction, and was just taken aback.

I quote:
It’s absurd to say that the conditions urged by Google and others would have ushered the creation of a third broadband alternative on par with high-speed DSL and cable modem connections.

I enter ‘absurd’ land:
It’s absurd to say that without considering some new 900mhz gear that reaches up to 54mbps theoretical speed, that 700mhz couldn’t achieve 3/4 of that speed. Couple that speed, with the ability to lower your transmit power, provide smaller cells, and back haul using a higher licensed frequency and it’s not absurd.

Last mile problems are getting through the home, trees, boats, cars, and that pesky next door neighbor’s roof, one that even a close 2.4ghz repeater won’t save. 700mhz is a dream solution due to the lessoning of errors on that last 1-3 miles of service.

Seeing 900mhz in action, is foreplay to what 700mhz would provide. Providing service to hundreds of users in a small area (less than 5-8 miles), with 900mhz and 2.4ghz you see that it’s not absurd. If you live in a dense downtown area, you have fiber and dense access point, and it’s still not absurd.

That 700mhz spectrum was key, and the focal point in allowing the mom and pop geniuses to go the full 9 yards. Now, you get limited services, for a huge amount of money, unless that is… Google goes ahead opens the spectrum when they win the auction.

Now, to really beat it into the ground, consider speed tests that are pushing 1 GBPS at 5ghz
Glen, it’s just the start, but you say it’s absurd.

Absurd:
That said, because the signal from a single Wi-Fi transmitter can only travel hundreds of feet, it’s harder to use the technology to provide the sort of blanket wireless reception you get with a cellular network.

Reality:
4 miles in our town (20,000), with over 300 competing wireless networks, and we have 98% uptime. It’s time for the equipment that’s installed to get cheaper, but it’s a reality that 2.4ghz works.

Reality:
900mhz works in over 95% of the entire area mobile, and if the output power was increased to a paltry 1 watt, it would work in 100% of the indoor market.

I’m glad that you realize some good things would happen with a more open network, but you refuse to think that Google being the first innovator to push the open networks would really be the key here. You won’t speculate for just a moment about why Google really wants that spectrum open, and realize it’s just business as usual, and either way: Google wins.

1. Google puts up the towers with all the cash they have.
2. We sell 700mhz service
3. We use the same google home pages that bring us income already
4. Everybody wins except AT&T

Glenn, I’m glad you are so knowledgeable on things you can kick back and twiddle knobs with. Get out in the field, climb a tower, install 900mhz gear and make a blanket statement like you did.

No, you didn’t hear me. YOU get up on a TOWER and hand install and tune the gear. Don’t talk to a guy about it, and don’t write a free article about it, and you’ll see it in a different light. I might be seeing you wrong as a freelance journalist, you write about things as a black box, but I didn’t find one thing with you talking about actually running a business doing it.

So Glenn, you’re the one that’s absurd. I’m glad you get to write for the New York Times, but out of 100+ entries I’ve read/articles, I didn’t learn a single thing.

I’ve had billionaire’s tell me to get a clue, and I’m happy to be told so in this case because they were irked about what I said. You’re wrong in your assumptions.

As a person with a vested interest in a large Wifi/900/5ghz system that has many pleased users, I welcome Google and their stance. We’d love to lease bandwidth and open devices, as the 700mhz would allow us to penetrate in places unthinkable until now, with power that would make you shiver.

I’d imagine Ubiquiti’s frequency freedom would scale nice, with the addition of some wattage. I’m not happy to see AT&T taking over yet another town, charging $70 a month for GSM coverage, using technology only they will sanction. I’m all for Google setting base rules to how the radios will share the airtime, and if someone wants to use a different modulation supported in a software radio they’ve installed, it’s kosher with them.

In any case, 700mhz should afford at least 2megabit imho, even more in the future, and with the mhz available, possibly 20-30megabit. I don’t want to see this in the hands of someone who just wants to sell data plans, it’s much better in the hands of someone who wants to show ads, and let other people sell the service. I’m all for the open system, just like local competition in DSL is allowed, so Google is important, but dispensable, as the most desirable element is the reselling of the service.

I for one know, my customers will choose us over Google, Cingular, Sprint, Nextel, or Verizon.

I for one know that there isn’t going to be any 100% broadband penetration anytime soon. Living in even states like Florida, or Pennsylvania have taught me that West Virginia isn’t so far off of the map. You could live less than 2 miles outside of a large city like Fort Lauderdale, and not have any broadband coverage, and with WV the same thing.

Now finally the government is starting to see the writing on the wall, that when skewed statistics are the cause of failure in the adoption of broadband, something must be done.