So Maybe Verizon is Bidding Against Itself

After round 40 of the Federal Communications Commission's auction of 700 MHz airwaves, Verizon might be bidding against itself, in a sense. Observers say it is possible for Verizon to bid directly on each of the eight regional allocations that make up the national C block. And if any contestant has the highest bid in a region, it wins the spectrum even if some other entity has the highest overall bid for the entire C block.

In this scenario Verizon would simply have to ensure that its regional bids were high enough to top the amount any other player submitted for the entire national spectrum. Clever.

FCC Auction: Who's Bidding on C Block?

At the end of round 39 of the Federal Communications Commission's auction of the national C block of 700 MHz spectrum, it appears at least two entities continue to bid.

The top bid now is a bit over $4.83 billion, up from the prior high of $4.7 billion at the end of round 38. Some of us think Google has halted its bidding, and most of us think Verizon Communications intends to win the C block. So if all that is true, at least one other company continues to bid against Verizon. Curious.

It's hard to picture at&t bidding for C block spectrum, as observers have predicted it would focus on filling in holes in its 700 MHz spectrum by bidding on local chunks of the B block.

C Block Hits Threshold for Open Access

The C Block of 700-MHz frequencies today hit the minimum amount required to trigger the "open access" provisions Google had been so anxious to foster. So now we have to wait and see who ultimately wins the spectrum. At this point, Google's minimum business objectives have been met.

Sloooow 700 MHz Auction Pace

The high bid on the national 700 MHz spectrum block stood at about $3.4 billion on Tuesday. Bidding is proceeding slowly and about all we know is that it will go higher until the minimum to compell an open network framework is reached. Google has pledged to bid at least that much and we have no reason to think it will not. Another billion and some odd to go until that point is reached, though.

Auction Starts Jan. 24

Bidding begins Jan. 24 for the 700-MHz spectrum that will, among other things, allow creation of a new broadband network with significant open access requirements for devices and applications. The auction also will allow some regional players to acquire new spectrum on a local basis, either to fill in a national footprint or to serve some new local need. The biggest unknown is whether Google will place an initial minimum bid only, and then watch other bidders increase their bids to win the auction, or make some move to try to win the spectrum.

Under FCC rules, the identities of daily bidders will be kept secret although bid amounts will be posted on the agency's Web site on a daily basis. So we'll know soon enough.

Most observers saay the requirement to support any technically compliant device on the C block national network, as well as any lawful applications, has contributed to a recent "embrace" by Verizon and at&t Wireless of open-network policies even on the existing mobile networks.

At least so far, many observers say Verizon Wireless is the most motivated bidder as it needs additional spectrum more than at&t, for example. Some think at&t will look to the regional allotments in other blocks as a way of filling in its footprint.

700 MHz Auction: Not the Best, Not the Worst

For many observers anticipating the soon-to-begin auction of valuable 700-MHz wireless spectrum in the U.S. market, there is some combination of great hope and fear that it will all be business as usual and that nothing much will change.

The great hope scenario calls for some new entrant to win the C block and create a national, open, Internet style broadband wireless network. The great fear is that at&t or Verizon will be the big winner, stifling innovation once again.

For mobile industry service providers, you can reverse the hope and fear positions. Incumbents hope at&t or Verizon will win, precisely to prevent the emergence of an open national broadband mobile network. They fear an outsider could snatch the spectrum away and actually do that.

In the end, he outcome will not be so wildly good for innovation, but not stultifying either, even if an at&t or Verizon wins the spectrum. Change is coming simply because the mobile Web is coming, and no contestant can stop that. Innovation will continue to flourish on the Web side of the business, no matter what is done on the walled garden sides of the business.

Consider the mobile music business. We are far from knowing how the use cases and business models play out. But we already can point to some facts. Walled garden services featuring downloads or rental have been seen as the logical evolution, and that certainly is where early efforts have focused.

Over time, users might do other things. They might sideload their music, then share with their friends using Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G or 4G. You might say this is a laborious process, and you would be right, if all we have is today's tools. That will change. Somebody will author an elegant program for syncing sideloaded music with other handsets. It might not be iTunes that drives this, since iTunes is quite sharing-unfriendly by design.

But somebody will do so. And then the business might shift as it grows. Online downloads and sideloading will increase. But then sharing will kick in. Then it might turn out that walled garden download services aren't as big a deal as we once thought, but open download services are. Maybe the sharing software is simple enough that users can see each others' playlists and trade songs, one for one.

Maybe there's even some monetization scheme possible where songs are traded or shared. Most people don't seem to mind paying a fair price to get a song they like. Maybe they won't mind paying some amount to share songs with friends or even bystanders.

The point is that walled gardens might be the logical way a service provider approaches building a new business. That doesn't mean other ways are precluded, especially when the mobile Web really gets to be popular.

In a sense, the very existence of the mobile Web ensures that innovation will happen. Some might argue a better way to approach things is structural separation, where transport and access are separated from the retail side of the business. Others will argue that it is more feasible simply to "functionally" or "operationally" separate wholesale transport and access from retail operations.

Even in the absence of those mechanisms, the mobile Web is going to allow innovators to do things "without asking permission" of the retail wireless operators. The Federal Communications Commission's rules on open network attachment for the C block will help ensure that regime, as the operator of the C block network will not be able to block the use of "open" or "third party" devices.

The likely outcome of the C block auction is that either at&t or Verizon wins it. Whichever contestant does not win the C block will pick up A and B block spectrum where it is needed to reinforce existing operations or extend the current service footprint.

Verizon and at&t simply have the business motivation to win the auction. Sprint won't be bidding and T-Mobile arguably can't afford to bid. Still, it won't halt innovation, though we won't see as much change as if an outsider with no vested interest in today's revenue models were to win the auction.

But the mobile networks are going open in some significant ways, even if the basic business model doesn't change as fast. But T-Mobile already offers a "data-only" service plan, with no need to buy voice to get the data. In principle, it should be possible for this to happen on a much-wider scale, and then users can draw their services entirely from the mobile Web, rather than using walled garden services.

The auctions probably won't be as good as some hope, but certainly not as bad as feared. And that might be case no matter which viewpoint one has. Those who want change will see measurable "goodness." Those who have reason to fear the coming changes will have time and resources to adjust and embrace the change.

When all is said and done, the auctions will neither be a disaster nor a revolution. Neither will they honestly be anything other than another important step towards more openness and choice, however. It's coming.

Google 700 MHz Auction: "Bid to Lose"?

Perhaps nobody outside Google really knows how serious the search giant will be in the auction for C block spectrum in the 700 MHz range. There remains some thinking that Google's primary objectives--getting more openness in wireless networks--are well on the way to being satisfied.

Using that line of thinking, Google will submit the minimum required bid, but nothing more, essentially "bidding to lose."

But one never knows. Given the current economic climate, and the failure of any takers for a smaller segment of spectrum that carried a requirement for public service services, the final auction price might not be as high as some had forecast just a year ago. If it appears prices might be low enough, even Google might decide it is worthwhile to play a while longer.

The 700 MHz spectrum is attractive for any number of reasons. It is the last chunk of spectrum likely to be made available for mobile use. And it's nice spectrum, with greater range than the 2.5 GHz spectrum used for much of today's mobile service. The signals also have greater ability to penetrate walls and buildings, a big advantage, as anybody who uses a mobile phone inside a building can attest.

Those signal propagation characteristics also might mean lower costs to construct the network. True, it can be argued that Google doesn't need to own that, or any other spectrum, to accomplish its mobile Web and mobile advertising objectives. But you never know. The auction might not require as much capital as many had thought just a short while ago. An opportunistic buy always is possible.

Mobile Web is About the Big Brands

You'd be hard pressed to find a more significant year in the U.S. mobile business than the one that is passing. We witnessed the entry of a major consumer and computer electronics retailer--Apple--into the mobile business. We saw the emergence of an unprecedented revenue model for the iPhone.

We saw Google put together an open source community around Android that includes tier-one mobile service providers. We saw Google make at least an opening bid for actual spectrum, and cement development deals with Sprint and Clearwire for WiMAX handsets.

We saw the Federal Communications Commission mandate an "open networks, open devices" regime for the 700-MHz C block spectrum, the best quality mobile spectrum yet to be made available, because of its wall-penetrating abilities signals in the 700-MHz range possess.

We saw Verizon Wireless declare its support for "open" networks as well. Taken together, all the developments signal the emergence of the mobile Web. And that is going to create new space for contestants, including the most-popular Web brands.

That is not to say networks are unimportant. It is to say that now handsets and brands become much more important in the wireless business. That's a huge change.

700-MHz Bidders Surface

Some 266 bidders for 700 MHz spectrum auction have surfaced so far. Not all the bidders will content for the national C block, though. Many of the bidders are small, independent telephone companies angling for local blocks of spectrum. But a few cable companies also are on the list. Of course, over time those fragmented allocations probably will be rolled up into larger networks, as has always happened in the past.

The bidders include Google (GOOG) Airwaves Inc.; Towerstream; Vulcan Spectrum;
Alltel; AT&T Mobility Spectrum; CenturyTel Broadband Wireless; Chevron; Cincinnati Bell Wireless; Cox Wireless; Iowa Telecommunications Services; MetroPCS 700 MHz; Qualcomm
Cablevision (CSC Spectrum Holdings); Verizon Wireless (Cellco Partnership) and Advance/Newhouse.

Wireline Substitution, Mobile Plans, Broadband

KPN seems to have found a way to take market share in the German wireless market: give customers unlimited calling for a flat fee, avoid phone subsidies or selling phones, and keep things simple. The growing number of wireless-only customers apparently is helping, as one obviously needs more minutes in the plan to cover the additional volume when all calls in and out are taken on the mobile.

For $108 a month, Base subscribers can make unlimited free calls anywhere in Germany. A comparable offer by Vodafone costs $144. The sister E-Plus brand KPN supports also has shifted to this "no frills" approach.

In the third quarter 2007 subscriptions wereup 16 percent year-over-year, to some 14.1 million. E-Plus operating profit also rose 79 percent over that period, with profit margins of 38 percent.

Of course, KPN will have to figure out how to translate that success into similar good fortune in the mobile broadband segment, where it might not be quite so easy to maintain robust margins of this sort. Still, KPN's approach to the market is an example of what a carrier can do in an environment where phones are unlocked.

As Verizon moves to "unlock" its CDMA network, and as the C block 700-MHz spectrum goes into operation, also with an "unlocked" approach to device use, one wonders how soon somebody will try this in the U.S. market as well. Cricket Communications, one might argue, already has been chasing the wireline replacement market, but without the unlocked phone component.

Comcast Won't Bid for 700-MHz Spectrum

Some financial analysts and investors had been worried that Comcast would do so, further depressing its battered stock price.

Verizon Will Support Android Devices

Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam says the company will allow Android phones on its network, which is scheduled to open up next year to outside applications and devices, according to Business Week. Of course, that's what one assumes Verizon Wireless meant when it said it would open its CDMA network to all devices compliant with technical standards it has yet to release. Still, it is good to get confirmation.

"We're planning on using Android," McAdam says. "Android is an enabler of what we do."

It remains to be seen how active developers may want to get for devices and software on a network that Verizon has declared is not its future, however. Presumably Verizon has figured out that apps and devices compliant on the CDMA network can be authored in such a way that the air interface is not a problem as its planned LTE fourth-generation network is put into service in several years.

And, of course, some note that Verizon retains the ability to reverse course on LTE and choose some other air interface, in any case. It should be an interesting couple of months, as Google and Verizon dance around each firms' strategy for the 700-MHz auction.

Comcast, Time Warner Won't Bid for 700-MHz Spectrum

Google is in, Time Warner Cable and Comcast are out, at least in terms of submitting an initial bid for 700-MHz spectrum. The big issue is how many of the incumbent wireless carriers will participate in the initial round. Verizon has been seen as a certain bidder, at&t a possible bidder, T-Mobile a potential bidder as well.

Cable companies have bid for spectrum in the past, in partnership with Sprint. So far, though, financial results from the cable-Sprint collaboration in the consumer market have been disappointing, though it remains unclear how much of the sluggishness is attributable to operational or marketing issues, and how much to "core competency" issues.

Up to this point, cablers have been most successful with products that can be delivered over their own plant. Wireless is outside that realm. Wireless might also be an area where telecom companies simply have more "core competence" capabilities that force cable companies to compete where they have few natural advantages.

For the moment, cable executives seem unwilling to acknowledge that wireless services are strategic.

Consumers really don't want a quadruple-play bundle, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt insists. "I don't think the quadruple play is a big deal," he says. "So far we've not seen a great demand for that." Comcast likewise only says it continues to study the matter of wireless services closely and continuously.

Apple to Bid for 700-MHz Spectrum?

Technology pundit Mark Stephens insists Appls is going to bid for 700-MHz spectrum, most likely in concert with Google and possibly two additional partners brought in to lessen the amount of capital each partner has to kick in. So far, all we know is that Google will submit an opening bid at the reserve price. But Google has the ability to bring in other partners.

Perhaps Apple has decided it likes the recurring services revenue approach to life. Perhaps getting a portion of recurring revenues has whetted appetite for getting 100-percent of the recurring revenues (shared with the other partners, of course)?

Up to this point, "services" such as iTunes were simply a way to sell iPods. iPhone is the first product in Apple's history where recurring services revenue was a huge part of the business model, even though selling the devices obviously is primary. Like all other consumer products manufacturers and software providers, Apple knows that services are becoming a bigger part of the overall value proposition for any "product."

Can it be that access and services built on access are seen as a bigger part of Apple's future? One wonders. At least, Stephens does. Perhaps the other Stephens (Randall) also is wondering what is afoot. Wouldn't it be a shock if Google was not simply using the 700-MHz bid as leverage to get what it wants (openness) from the wireless service providers?

Google will Bid for 700-MHz Spectrum

Google plans to submit at least an initial bid for 700-MHz wireless spectrum, the Wall Street Journal reports. There is some thinking that with Verizon's declaration of willingness to open its network to any technically-compliant device, as well as similar open access provisions for any winner of 700-MHz C block spectrum, Google has less need to acquire its own spectrum to ensure an open environment for wireless Internet services.

Google also is working with Sprint and T-Mobile on open devices and applications on those wireless networks, plus Clearwire for WiMAX service. Given all of that recent development, there simply is less need for Google to own spectrum simply as a way of ensuring an open environment.

Will Google Bid?

The deadline for filing an application for the 700-MHz auction is Dec. 3. The actual auction starts Jan. 24; the names of the bidders will be disclosed on Jan. 14.

Prediction: Google will submit a bid of $4.6 billion. But maybe no more than that, and the winning bid will certainly be higher. Now that Verizon has agreed to open up its mobile network to any compliant device or software, and having already gotten working agreements with Sprint, T-Mobile and Clearwire, Google might not need to secure spectrum simply to ensure that its open approach to the mobile Web has a place to develop.

What Google Wants

Confused about what Google really wants in the mobility space, and in particular what it wants from the 700 MHz spectrum auctions? The simple answer is that Google is for mobile what the Internet was to telecom service providers: an alternate communications medium whose value does not hinge on access, but on applications.

Wireless service providers will fight Google without quarter for the same reason they learned to loathe the Internet: it is difficult for them to extract revenue when value lies in applications not dependent on recurring payments for access.

That doesn't mean Verizon and at&t, in particular, won't try to make a business out of it. After all, despite the margins, despite the gross revenue implications, both are fierce competitors in the broadband access business. But the tack will be to stop it if possible, slow it where possible, but adapt if necessary.

But Google is not the only force pushing against the old order. iPhone, for example, seems to be the first of any number of approaches to thinking about what a mobile handset is, what an operating system is, what a platform is and where value can be extracted in the ecosystem.

As Skype and UK cellphone operator 3 reportedly are working on a new mobile handset that promises to "make Internet calls mobile," rumors continue to swirl about a possible Gphone or Google phone. Nokia is rolling out N95 series devices that also raise the question of where the leverage lies: operating system, user interface, handset, application or extended application ecosystem.

It’s an important question. Remember back when people seriously thought the browser would somehow translate into “ownership” of the user? That largely proved incorrect.

But operating system ownership has proven a more durable lock on value and customer ownership. Facebook might be showing the power of the platform. But the iPhone seems to suggest the power of the device itself. In short, getting the answer right might confer genuinely significant leverage in the mobile business.

Much of the impetus for thinking about such things comes on the heels of rumors about a Google phone, Google mobile operating system or mobile platform. While the thrusts are not mutually exclusive, the strategic approach Google takes conceivably could redefine much of the existing mobile business.

The difficulty of pinning down the likely thrust is difficult, as Google has to be working on a number of aspects, all at the same time. It must create a mobile interface to the Internet while supporting voice services not significantly inferior to those handsets offer today.

That means Google has to convert the Internet experience for the phone and create or enable a suite of related applications and applets that all work smoothly together and share data.

Then it has to create awareness of some mobile features users didn’t know they wanted, such as location-aware services and features.

All of that means an Internet-connected device supporting voice, instant messaging, Web browsing, search, document storage, retrieval and creation, email, storing and playing entertainment. The applications must blend “knowing you are available” to “knowing where you are.”

Google has to do all that and also make the PC and mobile experiences similar and intuitive. And after all that is done, has to create a business process for supporting all of that with an advertising revenue model.

Of course, Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and Samsung—among others—will try to do the same thing, at some point. Unless it can be done, Microsoft will have a tough time making 25 per cent of its revenues, or about $14 billion, from advertising in the relatively near future, as it says it will.

The issue, perhaps, is how many of these sorts of things have to be handled by the handset. How “skinny” can the device be and still provide a reasonable user experience?

And how much does an actual handset matter, if a widely-distributed reference model can be propagated? Still, as Apple has proved time and again, a tightly-coupled hardware and software approach can yield outsized results in the user experience area.

Many argue that Google will want to avoid getting entangled in the consumer electronics business. True enough. Others make the same argument about any possible plans to bid for its own spectrum.

But Google executives have said mobile offers Google the biggest possible opportunities. If that is true, stretching into unfamiliar areas might be the best way to dominate the new business.

It’s just an opinion, but an “operating system” approach offers the least risk but the least reward. Devices and the ecosystem are much more risky, but offer greater reward. And since Google is sure to encounter resistance from the established wireless carriers, owning its own network might be the only way to get rapid adoption.

So that’s what Google is up to: creating a mobile broadband version of the open Internet.

Google Riding Global Wave

As much speculation as there has been about a possible Google bid for 700 MHz spectrum, there now are new reasons to think Google is deadly serious, and that provide new strategic reasons to win the auction, not just to bid for tactical reasons.

A U.N. telecom meeting has decided to give mobile service providers access to similar bandwidth currently reserved for terrestrial television broadcasts, making mobile Internet access a major new wireless feature globally by 2015.

Google simply would be early in the new business if it acquires and then operates a mobile Internet service. Significantly, global data roaming will be much easier as the new rules on spectrum use will rely heavily on common frequencies in diverse regions, meaning handsets will be able to interoperate. That promises higher sales volumes and hence lower costs, on both the infrastructure and handset fronts.

Consumers in the United States are to gain access to at least some of the spectrum in question by 2009, but it will take an additional six years before those in Europe, Africa, China, Russia and much of the Middle East will have the same access.

A U.S. government auction of key 700 MHz spectrum 698 megahertz to 806 megahertz range)is scheduled for February.

The same frequencies will be available for mobile services throughout the Americas, India, Japan, Korea and a number of other Asian countries, while the rest of the world will initially use only the 790 megahertz to 862 megahertz range.

Unlike many recent spectrum auctions, which essentially resulted in more bandwidth to support legacy services, most observers think the new spectrum largely will be used for IP-based Web applications and data.

Despite the challenges and risks, Google might want to move more aggressively given the new global implications.

Google Will Bid on 700 MHz Spectrum!

Google is preparing to bid at least $4.6 billion for wireless spectrum to be bought at the Federal Communications Commission's January auction, the Wall Street Journal reported says. The company is planning to bid without partners, a move some of us would not have predicted.

The company is beta testing a wireless solution in preparation for running a full-scale national mobile network. Obviously, Google as a mobile network services provider would be highly disruptive to the existing legacy carrier business models, given the likelihood Google would emerge fairly quickly as a packaging, pricing and
network functionality innovator.

One simply has to point back to packaging and pricing innovation by just one carrier--AT&T--to illustrate the fact that a significant new pricing pattern, in this case the concept of a bucket of minutes for a flat fee, can cause an entire industry to react.

A bid obviously would vastly complicate Google's other efforts to gain favorable placement of its software on all sorts of devices compatible with all sorts of carrier networks. But Google probably wins even if it loses. By creating a "bid" poker chip, it can wring concessions out of recalcitrant carriers who might be wary of giving Google more play.

And there are very real costs to be borne by the likes of Verizon and at&t if Google enters the bidding contest. It is not simply the threat that Google wins. If Google bids, the final price paid by the auction winner, whether at&t or Verizon, will be higher than if Google had not been a contestant.

Sprint, Clearwire Deal Dead

In a surprise move, Sprint Nextel Corp. and Clearwire Corp. say they are scrapping their agreement to jointly build a nationwide high-speed wireless network based on WiMax technology, after failing to reach agreement on terms of the deal.

The move naturally will increase speculation about the fate of the Xohm WiMAX venture, given Sprint's desperate need to shore up its existing mobile phone business. Obviously, the asset is easier to sell or spin off if Clearwire isn't involved.

Is it not too early to predict that Google strategists now will be taking another look at spectrum options? At the same time, might not once more note that the complexity of running two separate networks, sets of devices and software are part of Sprint's problem?

Other carriers have dealt with such issues by collapsing all services and users onto a single technology platform. Clearly, most of the churn issues are caused by the Nextel base, heavy with small business users. The Nextel iDen network is a-now unusual platform that nobody anywhere else supports, besides.

At one point, the Nextel customer base was prized within the mobile industry for its significantly-higher voice average revenue per user. These days, as revenue growth is coming from new data services, the gap has narrowed almost to insignificance, and surely will vanish.

At one time, Nextel's "push-to-talk" feature was unique, but other providers now are able to mimic that feature. It's popular in the construction business, but when was the last time you saw anybody use that feature who wasn't in a field service work scenario?

Operating two networks leaves Sprint with a troubled customer base, higher churn issues, an unusual technology platform and all the other issues--such as limited handset choice--that come from being a low-volume customer. There's more downside than upside. And be clear, most of the churn is from the Nextel side.

From Google's vantage point, it is clear that the Sprint WiMAX network will be built and operational years before any 700-MHz network will. Sprint's WiMAX network has been designed for mobile access, where Clearwire has been taking the fixed approach. Mobility works better for Android devices, obviously.

Sprint now says it will review its WiMax business plans. It also should be seriously considering what to do with the Nextel assets.