|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 As predictable as daylight, AT&T isn't happy about Google's plan to bid on the 700MHz wireless spectrum. The telecommunications giant is poised to claw any competition out of the equation, and is hoping its traditional ally, the FCC, will have its back again. Editor's Note: The 700 MHz wireless spectrum auction is shaping up to be a corporate battle of epic proportions. There's a ton of money at stake as well as the future of the wireless market, and who controls it. AT&T says Google should "put up or shut up," but Google thinks the auction is rigged to favor incumbents. What do you think? Let us know in the comments section. But the nitty gritty of it is, the telecommunications industry is scared to death of Google. A quick review: AT&T, Verizon, and others are chomping at the bit to get a hold of the 700 MHz band, soon to be returned to the federal government by broadcast television once regulation takes effect requiring them to go digital. This swath of spectrum is ideal for wireless broadband and mobile phone networks. But to get the most of profit from it, incumbent telecom providers must pressure the FCC to not impose requirements on how the spectrum is used. Rather, incumbents would prefer a setup similar to what they have now, with little incentive to give consumers choice in wireless services. They do this by limiting devices that can be used on their networks, what third-party applications can be installed, exclusive contracting like with the iPhone, and punitive contract termination fees. And they want it to stay that way. Google, though, and consumers, and pretty much everybody that's not an incumbent, want a section of the spectrum reserved with requirements that are more consumer friendly. Though incumbents have argued that doing so would devalue the spectrum and limit competition, the intent is just the opposite, to foster new players in the arena, and by default, putting pressure on incumbents to think more about customers and less about the bottom line. Enter Google, the white knight (yes, I'm editorializing, it's what I do best), who last Friday sent a letter to the FCC promising to bid at least the minimum reserve the agency had in mind for that slice of spectrum, $4.6 billion, but only if the FCC enforce four principles of open access. This does three things: ensures new, consumer-friendly competition; takes away arguments against from incumbents; and really ticks AT&T off. Okay, that wasn't as quick as I thought it was going to be.
What AT&T has to say about it: Om Malik gets credit for chasing down this statement from AT&T Senior VP Jim Cicconi:
…Google has now delivered an all or nothing ultimatum to the U.S. Government, insisting that every single one of their conditions “must” be met or they will not participate in the spectrum auction. Google is demanding the Government stack the deck in its favor, limit competing bids, and effectively force wireless carriers to alter their business models to Google’s liking…
He also said something to the effect that Google should "put up or shut up," which comes across as belligerent, whiney, immature, and ultimately, threatened. He is right that Google is making demands. He is also right that Google couldn't win the auction in a fair fight with the telecoms (nor could anyone else, save Microsoft).
|
F-Secure Tweaks Google Over Hosting Ads
By
David A. Utter Editor | WebProNews
Advertising of bulk marketing products is not permitted if the stated or implied use of the following products is unsolicited spam: • Email lists that are not opt-in • Bulk email software • Bulk messaging -- from the Google AdWords terms of service Google presents what appear to be straightforward rules on what they don't want to see in their cash cow AdWords product. Security firm F-Secure found the reality a little different than what Google suggests. Mikko Hypponen of F-Secure found ads for bulletproof hosting appearing in the One Box, a prime ad placement location atop a Google search results page. Continue Reading |
Strange occurrence Our featured post today comes from Mike. He has a very interesting post today about another strange occurrence over at DMOZ. From what he's found out they are apparently dropping sites from their listings just for being up for sale by the owner. Subscribe to the WebProWorld Feed 
I was a little skeptical, but then I found another thread (this one) where a site had actually been dumped from ODP -- presumably because they posted their ODP listed site for sale. Am I the only one that thinks this is hilariously typical of ODP? -- Oh and pathetic, don't forget pathetic. What possible basis or grounds could exist for removing a site from the directory simply because it's been posted for sale? You know, Feedburner just got bought by some other company... yet I see their site is still listed in ODP. So... is it more a matter of where or how you sell your site that makes the difference between being kicked or kept in ODP?
|
|
 |
Advertising | Newsletters | Corporate Info | Site Map | Support |
© 2007 WebProNews. An  email newsletter. , Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509
All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy policy. Contact us. |
 The WebProNews network includes WebProWorld, Jayde and SearchBrains. |
 |
