F.C.C. Hands Google a Partial Victory - New York Times

F.C.C. Hands Google a Partial Victory - New York Times
Hey, look: It worked! Well, it kinda worked. Read about it. I'll have more later.

Ss.

Just cuz it's tomorrow

There's another story on NPR, the day before the FCC makes its announcement. This topic has my attention for two reasons:

1. The mobile carriers are claiming that opening their networks will endanger all users, because of the fragile nature of the networks. While this may be true, it is one hell of a bad excuse. The mobile carriers are essentially saying "We created a crappy network, so please don't open it up." Opening that network is in fact the solution, or at least the driver for forcing the innovation necessary to secure and fortify the network. The fact is that the closed nature of the networks is what's keeping it fragile, and keeping us all in danger of a rogue app bringing the network down. The mobile carriers have a responsibility to their customers to insulate us from danger, and opening the networks is the only solution that will drive them toward fulfilling that responsibility.
2. Google is pointing out the strangle-hold on innovation that the closed networks are keeping. While I don't think Google necessarily needs my sympathy on this point -- they've got $4.6 billion dollars in hand with which to fend for themselves -- I agree whole-heartedly with their claim. No small company can write software for mobile devices in the US and expect to get it onto the majority of devices in the current environment. There are, of course, carriers and devices that have a more open stance, and developers can target those platforms. But to get onto the rest of the platforms (for example, to get software onto any Verizon device), a company must have enough clout and market share to get the attention of the major carriers, and then they must talk those carriers into adopting the software in question. That's no small feat. It's a barrier to entry into the mobile device development market, and it's controlled by a small number of large carriers.

Look for more on this tomorrow.

Ss.

Put up or shut up

OK, so the Google story gets better: In case you haven't read the story, the FCC will announce on Tuesday the rules for its latest (and for some time, its last) auction of mobile spectrum. Google has thrown its hat into the ring, but is asking that the spectrum be opened to all comers, rather than a limited number of big-budget players.

Google has spend at least $4.6 billion on auctioned-off mobile spectrum if the FCC will agree to follow some of Google's suggestions about opening up access to that spectrum.

But here's the part I like: AT&T, in an apparent challenge to Google's affront to their position, essentially told Google to put up or shut up. Google's response?

[Google] has offered to spend at least $4.6 billion for the airwaves it would use to build the network it envisions if the FCC's rules work in its favor.

I think that qualifies as "put up."

I first heard about this in an interview on NPR. Robert Siegel talks with Chris Sacca, head of Special Initiatives at Google. He throws down in a way only Google can:

Any time that Americans have the choice to go where they want on the internet, they've shown that more times than not they choose to go to Google.

That's... umm... well, a nice position to be in, I suppose. And a powerful statement of the power of Google.

What I like most about their play is that it will eventually push the mobile carriers toward a more open attitude toward letting users use the internet, choose their apps, and in general choose what they do with their phones.

Ss.

Another world to conquer

Google has found another target, and this one is exciting: they're planning on moving in on the mobile world. They're prying open the jaws of the mobile networks, and if we're lucky they'll prop those jaws open long enough to free us all from the bowels of closed-access, overly restrictive mobile networks.

Here's where they're starting. I hope the FCC sits up and listens. I hope the mobile carriers sit up and beg.

Ss.

So I got this message from the devil...

The devil sent me an email yesterday. Here's what he had to say:

Dear Scott Sackville,

This is an inquiry regarding the status of our deal's payment. To re-stipulate: In return for marital bliss, being surrounded by friends and family, vague professional success and some small taste in regards to music, I was to receive your firstborn child. While I have obviously come across on my side of the bargain, this note is a simple inquiry in regards to the progress being made on the aforementioned payment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at anytime with an update.

Always at your service,

The Devil

I wasn't quite sure how to respond. My wife is in fact pregnant with our first child. So it's not like I couldn't make the payment. But still, I have to say I didn't see it coming. I don't even remember making a deal like this. But this is the Devil we're talking about, and you don't just scoff in the face of a demand for payment like this.

I didn't. I responded.

Dear Mr. Devil:

I appreciate your inquiry regarding our arrangement. Unfortunately, I have to report that the "marital bliss" portion of the contract was in fact not fulfilled. After repeated attempts to contact your organization, accompanied by frequent invocations of the names of certain of your competitors, we were forced to select an alternate provider. We went with Pfizer, and have been happy with their Zoloft product ever since.

In accordance with the default clause in the contract, we will be remitting to you, in lieu of our first-born child, a 1979 Volkswagen Scirrocco (in near-mint condition), a wooden paddle-ball game (ball missing), and $300 in Monopoly money.

Ss.