<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Google isn&#8217;t playing to win the wireless auction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/</link>
	<description>At the intersection of business and technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:59:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter, San Francisco, CA</title>
		<link>http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-266</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter, San Francisco, CA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-266</guid>
		<description>Just to correct a fact and an analysis. 

1.  The rules for the auction will not be reset unless the bidding for the C block does not reach $4.6 billion.  That will not be known until sometime in February, not as of December 3rd.  

On the analysis.  

1.  Verizon&#039;s announcement of its new &quot;open&quot; policy was made just before the filing date for the auction.  I think that the timing was meant to reduce Google&#039;s incentive to bid in the auction.  But the details of Verizon&#039;s &quot;openness&quot; are not clear, so it could just be &quot;cheap talk.&quot;  

2.  I also think that Google is likely to bid at least $4.6 billion in the auciton and to work with others to build a network if it wins the license at that low price. If not, it will have put some teeth into the openness promises of Verizon. but of course those teeth depend on the willingness of the next president&#039;s FCC to maintain the rules and of the courts to uphold them in the face of Verizon&#039;s challenge (thought its proxy, CTIA).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to correct a fact and an analysis. </p>
<p>1.  The rules for the auction will not be reset unless the bidding for the C block does not reach $4.6 billion.  That will not be known until sometime in February, not as of December 3rd.  </p>
<p>On the analysis.  </p>
<p>1.  Verizon&#8217;s announcement of its new &#8220;open&#8221; policy was made just before the filing date for the auction.  I think that the timing was meant to reduce Google&#8217;s incentive to bid in the auction.  But the details of Verizon&#8217;s &#8220;openness&#8221; are not clear, so it could just be &#8220;cheap talk.&#8221;  </p>
<p>2.  I also think that Google is likely to bid at least $4.6 billion in the auciton and to work with others to build a network if it wins the license at that low price. If not, it will have put some teeth into the openness promises of Verizon. but of course those teeth depend on the willingness of the next president&#8217;s FCC to maintain the rules and of the courts to uphold them in the face of Verizon&#8217;s challenge (thought its proxy, CTIA).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Atlas, Napa, Ca.</title>
		<link>http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-265</link>
		<dc:creator>Atlas, Napa, Ca.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-265</guid>
		<description>This and other articles are getting closer. Google will probably bid or bid with a partner or the FCC will never listen to them again but will not bid to win if there is no partner. Also, open standards is only half the issue. They want that to get Android going but they still need the cooperation of the 2 major carriers to do advertising which is way more important than simple Android. They can not seriously bid to become a carrier, they run way too much risk of failure, lower margins, and permanent tarnish to their halo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This and other articles are getting closer. Google will probably bid or bid with a partner or the FCC will never listen to them again but will not bid to win if there is no partner. Also, open standards is only half the issue. They want that to get Android going but they still need the cooperation of the 2 major carriers to do advertising which is way more important than simple Android. They can not seriously bid to become a carrier, they run way too much risk of failure, lower margins, and permanent tarnish to their halo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick, Dallas TX</title>
		<link>http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-264</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick, Dallas TX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/why-google-isnt-playing-to-win-the-wireless-auction/#comment-264</guid>
		<description>Very good analysis.  Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good analysis.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
