Should ‘Don’t be arrogant’ be Google’s new motto?

Isn’t it interesting how Google makes its money? It takes free information, information that doesn’t cost it to get, codifies that information and repackages it in new forms, makes it accessible to others — and charges businesses to advertise on it. In some cases, Google takes information without the permission of the author — e.g. with Google Print and Google Scholar. In other cases, Google gathers and stores personal information with little informing of users — Gmail. Google then sells that information to advertisers. You see, most people are NOT advetisers and so they like Google because its services are free; but they have had their personal information used and haven’t had their written work stolen by Google without their permission, people like me have.
Google is indeed arrogant because they think that they are being altruistic by opening up information for public use; but what they are also doing is opening up new avenues for data mining and selling advertising space. Is it any wonder that Google keeps buying media advertising companies? In fact, Google isn’t a search engine anymore, — it’s an advertising company that pretends to be a search engine company.

Be afraid, be very afraid — Google is taking over.

Why is the new spectrum worth billions of dollars? Because the companies who bid on it hope to charge the public even more! But the radio spectrum is owned by “We the People…” and managed by the FCC for our benefit. Would we really benefit more with closed networks run by large monopolies, or would we benefit more with a more open network run by the FCC? Of course the service providers should be paid, but only if they provide a service We want to pay for, otherwise We should have the right and the option of using some other service provider. I for one do not what to have only the options that monopolists want to offer to me on a take it or leave it basis. I want Google and a thousand others to be able to offer me anything they can invent. Don’t you?

Google is not the arrogant player here! The FCC is mandated to manage the radio spectrum for the PUBLIC good, not for any company’s benefit. All Google is asking for is that the new spectrum be managed for the public good, not for a specific company’s benefit. Looking at the specific points: 1) ‘any device’ really means any device approved by the FCC, just like the phone system. This means the FCC, not the companies, will control the devices. 2) do we really want company specific software? Isn’t the complaint against Microsoft because they have a virtual monopoly on the software? 3) this does not say ‘for free’; what this means is that the big boys cannot block some new company from renting a bit of the spectrum later and competing. 4) The companies might want incompatible networks, to lock their customers in, but why should anyone else?

To companies like Verizon and AT&T Googles ideas are very foreign concepts. In fact though, this mentality of proprietary networks and devices is one of the major reasons that the USA is behind Europe and even further behind Asia when it comes to wireless technology. The self interest of companies in the US has hampered the implementation of standards and slowed the development of the technology that runs the networks. One of the best things in Europe is that if the battery on your phone dies you can just pop your sim card into your buddies phone, even when he has service from a different company, and start calling. That way your buddy doesn’t have to worry about running up his phone bill. It all going through your sim card and your account. It is still amazing to me that some companies in the US don’t even use the sim card technology. Another example of the market in the US limiting itself with proprietary restrictions is shown in the highly publicized iPhone. Recently hackers were able to unlock the device so it could be used on any network. This will boost the sales of the iPhone. The way things currently work is when you get a new phone it is locked so you can’t use a card from another carrier. This limits the type of phone you can get when you sign up for service, depending on what company you use. Currently the iPhone is only being sold by AT&T.

The technology limitation of the US wireless market are not really the issue here. The question is whether or not Google has overstepped it’s boundaries by putting forth such demands for the new radio spectrum auction. Or wait, maybe it is really about the limitations the US market has put on itself…..

Google has always claimed to be working for the greater good. With their bold moves into book scanning, word processing software and now the wireless market (as well a many, many other areas), to some it has become unclear what the “greater good” is. Even better, for who’s “greater good” are they really working. In the case of wireless technology however, they make a valid point. Maybe now is the chance to the industry to move forward. If the US market would adopt a more uniform and open network, instead of the major carriers trying to go it alone and out do each other. We would all see a much more robust system in the US. The consumer(something I fear many of the wireless companies have forgotten about) would win big if this could be achieved. Being able to buy and phone you want for any carrier; a market for reselling your phone, especially if you like to always have the newest phone; would be two of many positives. Yes, this would bring down many of the barriers restricting customers from jumping from one provider to another, something the providers of course fear, but then that would force them to concentrate more on service. A novel idea, don’t you think?

So, to go full circle… Is Google Getting Too Big For Comfort? Most likely yes if you are a TelCo company. If you’re the average consumer, maybe not yet…

Bryan Coe
Blackbird e-Solutions
http://www.blackbirdeolutions.com/elife/

I admire the plans that google has for the FCC frequencies. However, Google really should not have created this hype. It would have been a lot easier for google to go about its plans under the radar. But, google is definately doing a good thing from a consumer’s point of view.

What Google is asking is exactly what America needs. I don’t think they are overstepping at all. If FCC will try to block their demands, they will be holding a progress in our country. It would be a shame.

Google is the Microsoft of the Internet. However, the good news is that centralization and consolidation don’t work there. Microsoft found this out and has beens stagnant since 2000. Google hasn’t produced a single new revenue stream from its core business.

Press releases, acquisitions and standards wars are good to keep a company in the press and make people think their stock has value — but the bottom line always wins. Google is a prima donna ready for a big fall.

Google is definitely right on this one - open networks are the best way to run it. Think about it - open networks promote capitalism and competition, not closed network monopolies like Verizon and at&t. We should all be happy that a company as successful in the U.S. open market cares about promoting competition and choice. The same definitely can’t be said about Verizon and at&t.

The privious comment is just intent to open your eyes and think as well. I do like big companies if they respect privacy, civil rights, and compete fairly. Also, in order to improve the internet we need to take all the Google programing and make it public to USA citizens who want to be a bussinesman/woman. When I said open, I mean the real internal program and the programing will growth so big and no owner at all.

Frankly US consumers are being held over a barrel by the current telecom (Cellular) providers. You dont have too look to far to find out why ! Every business survey about Consumer satisfaction has its bottom feeder as a Cellular company.
They lock you in for long term contracts and then nickel and dime you with “special charges” . all of this for a service that is actually worse then what you get in many 3rd world countries. And should you ask .. “why dont you buy your own phone?” which is perfectly legitimate, but it dosent prevent cellular providers from locking you in once you sign your service agreement.
Open competition, with open standards + applications will give everybody a chance to compete and frankly will make the cellular space far more viable commercially then it currently is.
From a analogy standpoint, think of verizon as Big Blue and the wireless device as the x86 PC that they have just launched. Once big blue went open architecture … we all know the rest .

Microsoft is the biggest most evil monopoly ever to exist.

AT&T is a monopoly. Verizon is a monopoly.

There is no way that Google or Apple are monopolies. In fact, they are two of the only real tech companies, ones that actually create new markets, truely new technologies and do it on their own, not by buyinig out or eliminating competition in the sense of Microsoft’s ‘embrace and extend’ methods.

One thing is clear. If Google ever were a monopoly, the Justice Department would be the last group to break them up. What did they do in the Microsoft case? Nothing whatsoever, evevn though they had a conviction. At least under a far better executive branch they busted up AT&T back in the day, or you would never have had the reasonable long distance rates we enjoy today.

Google is in no way, shape or form a monopoly. They are far and away the best search service, so much so that hardly anyone uses anything else. This is not the way Microsoft rose to dominance, BTW.

all i can say is this….

every ‘tech writer’ i know is as brain dead on technology as a blind dung beetle is on astro-physics.

i always laugh my ass off when i see some R-tard tech writer attempt to sell us their version of a technical understanding.

it is no suprise that this self proclaimed geek is as far off base as she can be.
(did i say that right? the picture does look like a lady, albeit, an old tattered one)

perhaps this tech writer should go back to something she knows best, NOTHING TECHNICAL!
(just because you can hook up your DVD player to your TV does not make you a technical geek.

as for the contents of the article, as one of my closest buddies in VietNam used to say…”google is as google does!”

open access is usually better than closed access…notice i said usually, unlike many readers that posted here. some of you think any open access is always the best…just like i told this tech writer…go with something you know and stay away from these more technical issues you struggle to get your little brains to comprehend.

in this case, google could use their recommendations to the benefit of the consumer…this is clear.

on the other hand, it is very, very clear that google could use their recommendations to the benefit of google.

this is not necessarily a bad thing but i will not be the typical lemming seen here and agree without a doubt that only good can come from this for the consumer.

Google is so right here.

Your article about Google’s efforts to open up a broadband web touched only briefly on the controversy that has been bubbling for a long time before Google’s recent public efforts to open up carriers’ mobile walled gardens. There’s a dilemma for mobile network operators: while they can claim claim a rightful need to recover network expenses, their decision to offer only their own ‘enhanced’ services; limiting access to an open mobile web is thwarting plans and ambitions of vast communities, of innovators, techies, artists, entrepreneurs, investors, academics, and civic groups with thousands of interesting ideas on the benefits of a mobile web. Ironically, carriers narrowly constrained services are completely dependent on limited creativity of their own internal or partner developers, and so are vulnerable to potential subscription churn and subscriber loss due to mediocre implementation. and, their walled gardens’ are discouraging engaged end-users and entrepreneurs, who want to create new content, media and services which ironically would stimulate instead of discouraging usage of their networks by current offerings of boring, limited services.

The author repeats the CTIA charge that Google’s proposal is “Silicon Valley Welfare’. It is true that there are hundreds of great applications and services, ready for deployment once a more open mobile service ecosystem is enabled by a network platform. By lobbying visibly at the FCC, and directly with carriers, Google is indeed widely admired for acting powerfully on behalf of thousands of entrepreneurs, service providers and innovative, engaged end users who believe that a true ‘mobile web’ ecosystem will stimulate a blooming economy of continuous new, useful applications. Google’s interests and public interests coincide perfectly. Google’s contextual advertising and mobile web search service only can work if there is a community of thousands, even millions of mobile web services to search for. Meanwhile, despite wireless network operators objections, the same operators could actually benefit hugely as more developers attract more users to their networks.

Contrary the to the author’s assertions, Google is not acting strictly selfishly, in their requests for open networks, and not asking for special conditions for their sole benefit. Instead, Google is acting on behalf of thousands of others asking the the US Federal Communications Commission follow their official mandate to manage public radio spectrum for public benefit, by removing special conditions that benefit only legacy, incumbent wireless network carriers, and not the larger public and business communities.

Yours Truly,

Michael Liebhold
Senior Researcher
Institute for the Future
Palo Alto, California
IFTF.org

I agree with Brent. Google puts itself forward as a sort of Anti-Microsoft and yet they are behaving in much the same way as MS did a few years ago. On top of that, they now have access to huge amounts of your personal information yet have the worst privacy record of the top 20 web companies. They are arrogant and they need to be taken down a notch or two.

Google Arrogant? They don’t have to pay attention to copyright laws, why should they have to put up with this ridiculous ruling. The government should do whatever Google wants them to do. Don’t they know who Google is?

I’m sick of at&t and verizon having an incredible monopoly on internet access and the telecomm market.

Anything to get rick of those beasts

Come on, who are you kidding, Brent?

This is just modern capitalism: it’s not arrogance, it’s a call to an open market.

This is the future, buddy, get used to it!

‘Silicon valley welfare’ indeed! All kinds of corporations get BILLIONS in tax write-offs and other myriad forms of government aid.

Google is trying to devalue the price of the auction. They do this by asking and getting these rules adopted. They may not have an evil intent– more likely they believe in open networks and would institute one if they win the auction. But if the rapacious cell phone companies have their way they will win the auction with huge prices since they can just perpetrate their predatory pricing as they have for 20 years. I would say this is a good thing Google is doing. It is hard to know for sure until things play out.

Google is right. Brent is wrong.

What exactly is Google asking for? Make the wireless platform OPEN so everyone can compete.

Will Google benefit from opening the spectrum? Probably.

But one thing is for sure, *someone* must come out the winner no matter if the airwaves are open or closed.

Might as well make it open!

Reselling isn’t competition! I do like the internet like-ness of any device and software. Teleco’s certainly are revenue on just dumb internet access.

I am appalled that Fortune/CNN would run this article. The complete and udder lack of any relevant argument here is staggering.

So if Google wants to allow users use one phone on any carrier and force any carrier to lease space to others that is “giving away the store”? So basically this is an argument to admit that if you give the customer freedom of choice they will leave the current TELCOs behind. NEWS FLASH! That is exactly why this would be a good thing for the consumer. Everyone knows the TELCOs are the current tyrants. They lock you in for 2 years and do exactly nothing for you outside of what they are required by law.

If you allow the customers to buy the phone they like and then use it on any network they choose to sign up to, that makes you arrogant?

And yes Google is “demanding” these terms be met. If they aren’t Google won’t buy in. What is wrong with that? If I am about to sink $4.6B into something you are damn right I am going to have some expectations as to what I plan on being allowed to do with that. If the FCC really doesn’t like it they will deny it and Google will drop.

I think the question you should be asking are why are the current TELCOs currently “mulling” their decision on whether or not to bid on this? The changes were geared toward the consumer. So now why are mulling? Because they don’t want to give the consumer CHOICE!

If they win will google hit the market with ad-supported devices? Of course they will! But the beautiful thing about all this, as mentioned above, YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO BUY THEIR PHONE! If you don’t want it, stay on Verizon and use your RAZR! I don’t see the downside here.

While I understand that everyone has their own opinion, and that is protected, I am VERY disappointed in this not mentioning at all this is the opinion of one person. If an unfamiliar person was to read this article they would take it as truth.

This article alone is enough to convince me to never subscribe to a Fortune magazine. This guy is supposed to know about high tech? Message to the “Grouchy geek”, you are an idiot.

It is funny Google set terms for their bid. Shouldn’t it be the other way round? Is FCC or US government short of money?

I don’t get it. I hope somebody can explain to me which part about this deal I misunderstand:

1. The FCC is leasing?/auctioning? a spectrum to different networks (AT&T, Verizon et. al.)
2. I though at first that the winnning bid would give them exclusive rights but realized from the comments here that all networks who bid will have access anyway.
3. Google wants to bid for the right to use the spectrum along with the other bidders.
4. Google will bid only under certain conditions that may be very disadvantageous to the other bidders.
5. Google may not bid if their conditions are not met.

Here are my questions:
1. If everybody will have access, why call it an auction? Shouldn’t it be called just a simple lease/rental?
2. If Google’s conditions are really
unreasonable, couldn’t the FCC just tell them “No”. Google doesn’t bid, the other networks get to share the spectrum. End of story. Wouldn’t the anology of a person buying a dvd player from a store and telling the sales person I won’t buy unless I get lifetime free dvd rental. The sales person can say, “No you’re crazy I’ll sell to somebody else!” and I walk away with my money or he can say yes and I get a really nice deal. What’s so arrogant about that?

I really want to understand what I’m missing. Hope I don’t get flamed.

Open networks and standards for everyone! Don’t pretend what the current telco’s have going on isn’t evil. 2 yr contracts and overcharging for services.
I’ll take my free searches from Google, thanks.

It may be arrogant, but it’s Not Evil™ (unlike Google’s lapdog…or is that running-dog?…attitude toward China). In fact, it would be the best thing to happen to technological innovation in this US since DARPA let others use what would later become the Internet.

I also happen to think that Google’s going to get hoisted on its own petard as one of the first things people are going to do with any pervasive handheld info device is find a way to scotch ads, including (and, more and more, especially) Google’s.

By “giving away the store,” the people actually get back some small measure of the commons that have so perniciously been whittled away by privatization and the notion that someone can actually own an idea into perpetuity. (I’m looking at you, Disney!)

And it’s only in those commons that the next Wright Brothers, Bell, Tesla, or Edison will flourish…NOT in the fluorescently-lit halls of AT&T or Comcast.

The last time we had a simple standards based network, added intelligence at the edge (in the devices connected to the network) we got the internet and a flood of innovation and economic expansion. Creating the same environment with this spectrum would have a similar effect.

Forget google, forget the cell phone companies, it is in our countries and citizens interest to mandate exactly the rules google was suggesting. It will, sadly, never happen, since our government seems less interested in doing good for it’s citizens then doing large corporations bidding.

So, do no evil, Damn, perhaps google DOES believe their own motto. . . . .

Anything that changes the existing locked structure of the market is a good change.
I want more choices… lots more… and that will not happen with 5 companies choking the market and stifling technological innovation. A great example: Who can explain how blocking the adoption of number porting up until
4 years ago was good for the consumer… explain that to me in detail… because, to me, it’s pretty clear what was happening there. And this present argument is basically the same discourse taken to a broader horizon. I want CHOICES and INNOVATION ! If the big TelCos can not make that happen within a ‘walled market’ then the walls need to come tumbling down.

There is NO DOUBT that Google is overstepping its bounds. In fact, it sees no bounds. And how they are going to exploit this FCC decision is that they are going to offer free cell phone service. Who can compete with free? I have been beating the drum, shouting such things on my blog which is at http://montereyseo.blogspot.com. I have gone into delicious detail about how their mobile model will sweep the market. Thanks for the very good story.

Google never, never, never will do something for someone else’s benefit…they just leverage the fact that it will be for the benefit of consumers…and only later will you possibly see how they have manipulated the situation to their total benefit. Just ask any advertiser - they drove hundreds of thousands of advertisiers nearly out of business with their so called “quality” requirements - which hasn’t stopped all the porn and illegal sites on their SE - and then turned around and offered a joint venture where they guarantee impressions in return for a percentage. Clever and nasty. And still a majority of sites on Google don’t give quality…it was once again, using their leverage. They think they are God…and yes they have been a major part of opening up communication and ecommerce to the world…but it doesn’t give them license to be deceptive and unscrupulous.

I agree with Brent’s article on the “arrogance” displayed by Google. A lot of readers have talked about Google offering different services for free. No doubt, that benefits all of us. And frankly no body would have any problems if Google built a wireless network and offered services for Free, yes Free. I am sure a lot of us would grab that service (if it were available). But that is not what Google is asking here. Please remember this spectrum is purchased by Telcos for a hefty charge - they do not get it for free from FCC. Subsequent to getting the spectrum they have to spend billions to upgrade their network infrastructure. It follows that for them to spend these billions of dollars, they must get a return on that investment. By offering absolutely open access, Telcos believe their chances of making an ROI are significantly diminished. I am open to believing that in future, this reasoning might change. But today, this is what they believe and it is unfair to expect them to spend money but not get their ROI. Its almost like asking Wal Mart to open up its shelves / racks for use by anybody else for a flat wholesale charge. I am sure that logic would be treated as absurd; but when the same thing is proposed to Telcos it is greeted as a great innovation! Funny.

Google has placed itself at the apex of the free market system, and anything that floats all boats floats Google’s the most.

If everyone else does better, so does Google. The big telecoms benefit from asserting their rules over everyone else; Google found that it can achieve success by freeing markets from monopolies and regulation, so it does so.

That’s what it’s trying to do so now. When you say Google is arrogant, exactly who are you supporting here? Whatever your personal dislike of the company may be, is that really relevant to the wonderful thing Google is fighting for - open access, interoperability?

I agree. An apology to the readers is in order. Hopefully Brent will see the light on this.
He thought this was a controversial issue, but it isn’t; old media (including journalists) tend to be so negative against Google.

Yes, Google is the new Monopoly on the block. They will overstep all bounds until someone slaps them. Happens every time, and sooner or later Google will get what they deserve - a visit from the Justice Department.

GOOGLE has several goals here, but IMO the one that matters most is that of simple cost control. GOOGLE has up until this point, been a HUUUUUGGGGGEEEE!!!! beneficiary of a no-cost distribution medium (the internet) paid for by others (carriers, and you, the consumer). The ‘Net Neutrality’ legislation that GOOGLE heavily favors is an example of another attempt to force (legalize) others to give them a distribution medium free. They didn’t win there, so now they try to get spectrum on the cheap, by trying to pull a ‘fast-one’ on the FCC by forcing winning bidders to lease them network capacity at wholesale rates. Arrogance and hubris are gross under-exaggerations. I agree that Google is more dangerous know than Microsoft ever was.

Kudos to Jessica of Crump, MI for picking up on the country/GM misquotation. The guy from GM had said, “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors.” It was the d..n politician who later, probably deliberately, tried to claim that the GM guy had said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country”, which would have been arrogant if it had been the actual quotation–but it wasn’t the true quotation. It would seem to indicate how left-wing and anti-business most of the media is/are that so many people think the original quotation was the second one rather than the first one.

…If they pay billions for spectrum, shouldn’t they be entitled to use it as they see fit?…

Answer: No. The spectrum belongs to the American people, not the phone companies. The phone co.’s are only leasing it. The people consent as to how the spectrum is to be used.

Grouchy is right.

Yes, we should keep an eye on google. But open standards will help consumers and innovation. If it helps them in the process, all the better

Google is not only extremely arrogant, Google is one of the most evil outfits on the planet. The more one finds out about Google’s evil practices, the more alarmed one gets. Google makes Microsoft look like the Boys Scouts.
The only thing for freedom loving people eveywhere to do, is boycott Google search where Google makes 99% of their profits from.

After reading some of the comments.

Think of if General Motors could force you to advirtise their logo on your Ford… All in the name of open systems. Really all in the name of someone else pays for googles infrastructure. Today, you dont like ATT, go to Verizon, Dont like Verizon, go the Nextel. I dont see google out there risking anything.

Google wants some one else to build it, finance it, and take all the risk and do all the work… so they can sell service on it. Pure and simple.

Google and its position on the Internet is much more dangerous than Microsoft ever was.

As for the don t do evil motto, it’s reverse psych. 101…If they make that statement, they must mean it.

Let’s see here. First you accuse Google of being a monopoly. Then you complain that Google is demanding that no one provider should be able to completely control the spectrum.

To answer your question: no, Google has not overstepped their bounds. Whatever their intentions are, their demands will encourage competition by providing open standards.

Many readers mistakenly believe that Google is trying to free up competition to benefit consumers. The truth is that Google is trying to get rid of competition from telecom companies so it can freely grab all your cellphones for its ads and its software. The idea that Google is making altruistic moves is simply naive.

Wow. I just read all the other comments, too. There is absolutely no disagreement here. How do you feel, Brent, championing the spectrum cartel against the *entirety* of your readership? (And do I mean 100%, just read the comments, even those who are cynical of Google disagree with you.)

You should be very embarrassed. And I think an apology is in order if you hope to avoid being forever labelled as a ’shill’. You stepped very, very wrong here.

Black is ‘white’. Up is ‘down’. War is ‘peace’. Lobbying for open fair market access to networks for everyone is ‘arrogance’. A lease agreement is ‘welfare’. And refusing to lease common spectrum is somehow *not* arrogant and in fact, fair play. Oh, and Google saying that there has been ‘progress’ is an unwillingness to compromise, and Google should be *grateful* for any access to a market at all in a supposedly free-market system.

Are we beginning to see the problem here? Brent Schlender not only lives in a Bizarro world of his masters’ making, but lives there happily, and recommends we all move in. Unfortunately, we don’t get paid to write opinions in favour of more roadblocks to competition.

Does anyone remember John Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness efforts? They were suppose to develop powerful tools to mine and cross-pollinate millions of data points on American. There’s little need for the gov to do the job (little money to invest with the billions we are spending in Irag)so why not have Google do it for them. Need I say more>

I must be missing something. let me see if I have this straight. I’ve just combed this article no less than ten times for something alarming, and I gotta tell you, I’m at a loss for your incredulous tone.

yes, monopolies in a capitalist economy are bad. we need only to look at the age when AT&T was to phone service as Q-tips are to cotton swabs, or a few years ago when Microsoft was clearly throwing it’s weight a little too far. We can all seemingly agree on this. a company having a monopoly on any industry means that they can charge whatever they want, essentially do whatever they want in that field. We’re all on the same page here, this is bad.

Thing is, I use google daily, my main email address is on gmail, I’ve defected from mapquest to google maps, use the engine to convert money or measurement, have google earth on all my computers and watch youtube/google video in my downtime.

total charges from google: $0.

Christ, that’s one arrogant monopoly.

so, as many of the other commentators on this forum have noticed, the crime here is that google wants to make everything easier for it’s consumers. this goes against the historical notion that doing what’s right for the consumer is bad.

the lesson you seem to want us to take from this is that when a company spends money towards doing something good, in this case, trying to make the entirety of the United States connected at any given moment, this is bad. not just bad, “hubris”! Google considers itself God’s equal as far as fiscal clout goes. but companies like Raytheon, Halliburton, the oil companies, when they pump money into the war effort, resulting in thousands dead, higher gas prices and a select few *already rich white men* profiting heavily, this is good.

Thank you CNN, if not the entirety of the 4th estate. you’ve opened my ideas to the evils of Google’s arrogance. the nerve! how dare they try to force our beloved slave driving wireless providers to cut their christmas bonuses.

i think the overwhelming response here, Brent, is that we’d like you to answer a) how a company trying to destroy the less-than-becoming status quo is bad, and b) how much verizon /AT&T would be willing to pay one of us to write a google hate speech in one of our glorified blogs.

Go Google!!! Arrogant? Maybe. Who cares. What they asked for would benefit consumers. The telecom spectrum is owned by the American people, not Verizon et al. Here’s an idea: why not write about why telecom services in this country so much more expensive and inferior to those offered in the rest of the developed world?

What an incredibly opinionated piece. I was incredibly happy when I read Google was attempting this as the whole world of proprietry cellphones (and locked features) would fall, should this happen.

When putting up an extreme amount of money, it is customary to put forward certain expectations and these ones would benefit the customers so yay Google.

Oh and by means of personal attack, what the hell is up with this columnist’s picture? Talk about having a face for radio. Please sir, wear a bag or something at photo opportunities in the future. Doing so will provide untold benefit to your unfortunate readers. We thank you.

You forget to mention what was wrong with the 4 demands that Google had…

methinks google is not at all out of line trying to force the wireless telcos to allow users to freely use their network… don’t you think that users should have this choice since they are already paying to access the network? fcc should have allowed this to begin with.

The “Do Some Evil” Empire

Google’s “do no evil” slogan sucked in millions and millions of people worldwide, who had become accustomed to the business practices of Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Novel and others over the years and who wanted, and needed, a break. It was an easy audience to buy into the “hype”.

It worked … probably far better, and far faster, than even Google expected. In fact, when Google CEO moved to Google from Novel (and earlier Cisco, I think) he indicated it would be a pleasant change of pace for him to not have to deal with Microsoft day in and day out anymore. Right Eric … we hear you!

Google hired some of the smartest people in the world to help them carry the “do no evil” banner to the masses. Like rallying certain religious cultures to become more hostile to those of us in western civilizations, Google’s reach for support became a relatively easy mission and spread like wildfire by word of mouth.

Soon word of mouth converted to billions and billions of dollars of Venture Capital and advertising dollars and “Google” quickly became a common household word … even a verb in many cases … much like “Xerox” was used for all copying in the last century. Google stood for “innovation”, for “anti-Microsoft”, for “free and open source” and “free and open applications”, for “open and honest discovery” and “free gourmet meals”, and most of all for “simple and lightening fast search”. I don’t see too much evil in those causes, do you? … “DO NO EVIL”.

One thing Google forgot to tell us. Much of the content it planned to deliver for free was going to be stolen from others. It’s kind of like a business model that sets out to steal crops from thousands and thousands of hard working, and disadvantaged, farmers, while offering the food for free to the world’s millions and millions of starving people. As long as you do a good job promoting your good deeds, not one of the small time farmers (not even the largest ones for that matter) are likely to be able to stop you. And billions and billions of real dollars provide a ton of legal and public relations support to spread the word in that direction as well. “Is is fair to cut off the supply of food to these hungry people throughout the world, your honor?

Maybe I’m old school, but the shenanigans I’ve witnessed over the past three or four years since Google went public are the antithesis of “good deeds”.

And perhaps even worse, with companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, IAC, and Time Warner seemingly willing to follow Google’s search lead rather than trying to do what is fair and just, things could get far worse. I know this. I have communicated with senior level attorneys and executives at several of these “Image Search” companies about these concerns. Copyright infringement based business models are becoming more and more the norm these days. Bad news for this country in the long haul, I can guarantee you of that.

So, who are the farmers? Well, here’s just a few of the many I have heard from, or read about:

- book publishers
- book authors
- illustrators
- cartoonists
- poets
- journalists
- songwriters
- animators
- digitizers
- musicians
- television studios
- designers
- photographers
- playwrights
- universities
- producers
- cable operators
- actors and actresses
- professional athletes
- artists
- comedians
- speech writers
- magazine columnists
- models
- writers
- newspaper editors
- comic strip creators
- videographers
- investigative reporters
- movie makers
- programmers

Seems like each of these groups have been involved in lawsuits involving Google over the past four or five years … both here and in Europe.

In fact, how do you explain this fact: Google knew that YouTube was involved in literally hundreds of thousands of unlawful uploading and downloading activities BEFORE it agreed to give its two 20-something founders $1.65 billion in late 2006. And the infringement activity seems to have gotten worse rather than better since Google took the helm.

How does any modern, civilized government or industry explain that to the Chinese?
What signal has Google given the rest of the world regarding intellectual property and copyright infringement?

How about this one. “You probably shouldn’t do it, but if you do, please do it in a very big way, so that we can profit from the advertising exposure, and the giveaways of “docs” (one of Google’s terms for “food”) along the way.”

I make my living from one of the categories referenced above. I believe in copyright protection and have always been willing to put my money, and my reputation, where my mouth was. Still am. In my view, Google has become the DOMINANT EVIL EMPIRE it claimed to loath. Microsoft is just laying low now and waiting for Google to fall on its sword so that the original “Evil Empire” (as Google refers to them) can pick its way through the spoils.

“Do Some Evil” and count on the consuming public, and our elected public officials, to be too stupid to notice what you’re doing doesn’t work across the board, Google.

We all realize you now have half of the smartest people on the planet from the investment banking, legal, and engineering communities now squarely on you side. But does that really give you the right to try and take advantage of the rest of us?

George P. Riddick, III
gpaine3@yahoo.com

Far from being arrogant, Google is trying to use its power for the greater good. Reading this article, the arrogance seems to be on Fortune editor Brent Schlender’s side, if anywhere.

Brent, tell us - are you in the traditional telco companies’ collective pocket? Getting lots of freebies and gadgets from them perhaps, maybe a press junket or two? It sure seems to me like you’re trying your hardest to make Google look bad despite all the available evidence - and I can’t think of many other reasons for you to do so.

Is this a sample of un-biased and thoroughly researched Fortune article writing? If so, then I have no interest in subscribing to this magazine ever. The facts in the article really paint Google in a good light, yet the opinions in the article are against them. Did an editor even read this article, or is it a type of joke? I don’t understand.

do you really want to have adds beeping you all day long and who will pay for the incoming minutes think about it

Hmmm, you mean that google would essentially be forcing the telecom companies to compete on even ground, and open things up to more fully benefit the consumer. This would force the telecoms to provide better service in order to retain customers. Since you could technically just jump to anyone you wanted with your shiny new universal mobile device.

I like it.

Am I dumb enough to not know that Google is also mounting this a bit in order to possibly inject some google adwords onto my universal mobile device… well duh. Do I really care… Nope, it would be worth it to me to have it all opened up. Universal is the way to go, and in the long run if a company has foresight. They will easily be able to take advantage of everything going universal.

Arrogant? Hardly. Its about time someone as powerful as Google stands up against the telecommunication companies for the rights of consumers. Certainly consumers as individuals or even as lobbyists, can’t. If Google is willing to throw money to make my networks free, my choices plenty, and my telecommunication companies actually compete for my money, more power to Google.

It appears I’m not alone in my thinking that there is nothing wrong in what Google is trying to accomplish here. The old guard is trying to keep everything status quo, while Google is trying to open things up for everybody. I say more power to them. Cellular companies have been raking in the profits for years with their closed systems, and can afford these changes anyway. Go get’em Google!

I find it funny that you decided to switch the two parts and then try to apply it.

What’s good for the country is good for General Motors. Please note who goes first here.

Now, plug it in. What’s good for the country is good for Microsoft. What is good for the country is good for Google.

Today, too many corporations are run by immature CEOS that only want to gain for themselves and theirs. A mature adult understands that keeping employees, customers and stockholders happy then they’ll be happy with you and reward you accordingly. I’m surprised by the lack of concern for mature adults in this country.

What are you, blind or something? Google is throwing it’s ‘weight around’… but it seems, at least for the moment, that that motto you started with stands true. Right now, Google is doing what it can to actually help the consumer. I see absolutely nothing wrong with them doing that. We should be thanking them for their effort.
I’ve not seen bigger vultures than the telecoms. Their plans, locking people down for years, are like a death grip for the consumer. It’s really sad that when Google tries to say what the telecoms should have been doing all along, when they have a good chance of actually helping the system, that a column pops up saying that they’re the bad guys.

Yes, to some degree, Google is being arrogant. They’re trying to force rules changes in an area they have only potential fiscal clout and zero market presence. It seems like they’re only willing to expand into markets that are similar to their “natural habitat.”

The ideas they put forth are win-win for Google and the consumer at large. With the availability of frequencies that allow older models and interoperability, the consumer’s choices go sky-high. With those choices, Google’s chances to make a fast buck go positively atmospheric.

I believe this is intentional. They’re doing what any good capitalist company should: improving their moneymaking power while making their service more appealing than another’s; the benefits we see are just the means to their ends. The only “loser” in the deal is the competition, and–even then–in a non-monopolistic way.

Well in the realm of big business it seems silly to ask a big player to play saint to another big player. Many of these telecoms are unbridled mega-sharks. That being unstopped they would take all the money they could get in any form from all of us(like an outgoing i.v). That said good if google takes us in another more creative direction and into a new spectrum. Oh poor Verizon.

No, google is doing the right thing. For too long the large telecom providers (Verizon, AT&T, etc) have been monopolizing the airwaves. They do this for their own benefit - not for the benefit of consumers or to make things better.

I think you should look at your objectivity sir. You blasted google, yet you apparently want only companies like verizon and AT&T to be able to use their devices. You failed to research that their proprietary ways have been in place for years - and that a public, open architecture solution would be far better for consumers and let internet based applications move to the next level.

I think the telecom industry is way overdue for open architecture and open airwaves. That gives consumers real functionality - and not what AT&T, Verizon, etc think that the customers want.

I hope google gets the rights and forces large telecom companies to go into a more open architecture. I wont say that google doesnt have its own interests at heart, but atleast they are using that money to do something positive - instead of letting large telecom companies own the open airwaves.

“Arrogant” seems to be a much better description of companies like AT&T and Verizon, than Google. If Google can open up the wireless industry, more power to them, I say. One day we’ll look back at the current state of wireless access in the US and be shocked that it was ever this ridiculously bad.

I have to agree with the other posters, they are pushing for standards that would benefit the consumer more then what other companies want. This was a poor article.

This wasn’t all about Google. The stuff the FCC passed, I think you called it “open devices and software” and “open networks”–isn’t that the same thing that people were debating pro and con under the phrase “network neutrality” for several months before Google entered the picture?

Telecoms have been facing similar threats
for years. VOIP (skype) offers free over the internet land telephone service. Wifi and Wimax will take business from traditional wireless providers. Google has had the foresight to see the convergence of these technologies and how to monetize it through advertising…sounds like the market is working fine.

So wait, Google wants to completely shake up the current TELCOM stranglehold the current companies have and that’s called “arrogance”? Are you serious. If Google is to be considered arrogant, what should we call old-school TELCOM companies who have no concept of net neutrality?

Brent Schlender must be retarded.

Demanding that the FCC ensure that all networks using the new parcels of spectrum be “open platforms”, which is good for customers, makes them arrogant?

I guess the old addage can easily be translated from “those who can, do, and those who can’t teach” to, “those who can, do, and those who can’t write about it”.

I wonder how Yahoo feels about Googles dominance in the search business. Perhaps Yahoo can lobby the FTC that Google isn’t even a protected copyright anymore, but rather a universal term for search (much like Xerox became for copy’s). Google is doing it can to dominate the world’s search needs and next it will want the same for all “information”. It resembles all early monopoly bullies and they have ditched the “don’t be evil” mantra that they had before they went public!

Arrogant? No way. Finally, FINALLY a company that is using their considerable wealth to HELP the consumer. Are you kidding me man? You should be writing an article thanking Google for what they are trying to do. Google would pay billions for this space and then probably give it to you and I for free as long as they can post ads. I can live with that! Your article is WAY of base.

Arrogant? Hell yes, they are arrogant - demanding (not asking) but DEMANDING that the spectrum Google “seeks,” (more on that in a sec) should be entirely open to all comers. They can demand as they see fit of course - what is interesting is the craven attitude of the FCC.

Somehow, they, and you dear reader, are under the impression that services and enhancements ought to be free. They aren’t.

One further fly in the ointment - Google NEVER had any intention of bidding on the spectrum in the first place.

Consumers. Well, yes, the poor downtrodden beat up consumer - who buys products and lives better than she ever has, at any point, ever in history. Because of us, yes, we, the innovators in every space.

Trust me Joe and Betty Six-Pack: the objects you crave, services you require, and soft lifestyle you live are the products of deep, long-lasting, prudent, trillion dollar investments in technology, plant, process, and infrastructure.

Let Google do whatever they please - as a force for good, they aren’t; as a business dynamo, they run slow; as a challenge to telephony, IPTV, the Internet, or technology in general - they are irrelevant.

This article reads like it was written by an AT&T intern. Which is it, is Google monoploistic or communist, aren’t the two mutually exclusive?

All of google’s terms are pro-consumer, both in the near and long term. The value of the “frequency” is decreased because the existing telcos will have to reduce their stranglehold on their so called services. These companies are charging insane rates for SMS, for example, which essentially a scaled back version of a service which has been available for over a decade.

The only people who would even feel a pinch from google’s request are AT&T, Sprint and Verizon… while the entire country would benefit. These companies have had decades (almost a century in AT&T’s case) of a headstart in the market, if they are this afraid of competition it is their own fault for being lazy.

What a horribly written article.

Google is standing up for CONSUMERS and the OPEN MARKET.

The bell companies own regional monopolies across the United States. Their anti-competitive force people into restrictive cell phone contracts, and restrict the cell phones that people can use on the networks. They also restrict how you can USE those phones.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could go buy a phone, use it on any network you want, and download any software for it that you’d like?

Wouldn’t it also be nice if startup cell phone companies could lease wireless spectrum in order to compete with the big boys? How the hell is the market ever going to remain competitive if it is completely owned by massive telecom companies, and no one else can ever get a slice of the pie?

THIS is what Google wants. Yes, it’s good for Google. However, it’s also good for consumers.

You REALLY think that VERIZON has your best interests in mind when it bids on that wireless spectrum? Give me a break.

We’ve already seen this fight before when it came to cable lines and high speed internet. The big internet companies won that fight. Look at what we have now as a result. Regional monopolies of cable modem services. Horrible customer service. Broadband speeds that lag far behind the international norm. INCREASING cable bills. That’s just one example. You want to see the same thing happen on the cell phone networks?

Brent, you’re either a moron, or you own a hell of a lot of AT&T stock.

That spectrum isn’t controlled by Verizon or AT&T, it’s owned by the FCC — that is, it’s owned by the American people to a certain extent.

What google did was not monopolistic, but just tearing down bariers of trade. If the only reason the old telcos are surviving is that they have strict control over certain capital, who exactly is the monopoly? Who the monopoly-buster?

I have to agree with google here. One should be able to buy any cellphone, from any maker, and use any software they want on it, on any network. How would the telecoms make thier money? By selling contrated services/monthly charges, you know, how they already make money. What consumers hate is that you shell out $500 for your smartphone and find out you are limited to a single provider and network. If their service doesn’t pan out as promised, your out all that money and your phone is a doorstop. I fail to see how standing up for consumer rights and fair competition is arrogant.

It’s strange that you repeat the line from the tired telecom monopolies without adding any fresh insight (apart from the gimmicky ‘don’t be arrogant’. The telecom monopolies have never cared for their customers, and their business model hinges on ‘locking’ people. How could you defend that. It has left the US far behind in mobile technology compared to even some developing countries.

“arrogance”? i think it’s refreshing that Google is trying to pull wide-open a market that has been for too long stifled by the actual arrogance of the old-blood telecoms like AT&T and even Verizon. their walled-garden approaches to mobile data communications are handicapping what could be the next great leap in interconnectivity and are the true examples of monopoly abuse.

i am glad Google is doing this. if our small consumer voices can’t reach the woefully money-grubbing execs of AT&T, Verizon, and their ilk, then perhaps having Google at bat will finally make them stand up and notice.

I don’t see how this is nearly as bad as what the phone companies have been doing for years. I applaud Google’s efforts to encourage competition in this spectrum.

I see no issue with competition. Forcing users to use specific hardware- now THAT is straight up Stalinism.

Google wants to open up competition, competition is good for the market.

How is this arrogant? They are merely trying to tell the FCC, one of the slowest moving government agencies, how they would be willing to spend their money - money that the government NEEDS- if they were to pay for the spectrum. Seems like the only cage they’ve rattled are those of the sleeping money hogs at AT&T or Verizon. What have those companies done for US consumers lately, except for keeping rates high and claiming they are constantly being hurt? People in third world countries have better wireless data access than some of us in the USA do.

I disagree with the notion that Google is looking out for the public interest here. They’re looking out for their own best interests with this deal. That said, they’re well within normal practices here, and this deal happens to be in the public’s best interests as well. I have problems with some of Google’s business practices, but this is definitely not one of them. If you think that the telcos aren’t lobbying hard for more of the same closed network systems, then you’re down right gullible.

How someone can use the words ‘Monopoly’ and ‘Communism’ to describe the same entity is beyond me. By asking for an open system (with compatible standards no less), Google will get the big wireless providers to compete for bandwidth. The spin put on this by the writer leads one to believe that he either has a vested interest in telecom, or an utter cretin.

Anything AT&T is against I am for.Destroy them first then move on!!!

This is complete opinion and should be marked as such. Google seems to be one of the few companies still looking out for consumers. Their “do no evil” slogan makes me want to leap up and shout “buy Google!!!”
To me this sounds like Google made and offer and the gov’t didn’t meet that offer. Thus Google is only considering staying in the bidding. This is business.
As opposed to Ma Bell which just wants to rape her customers for all their worth.

Google’s aim to spread its suffocating ads barrage onto private cellphones is really over the top. The Feds need to have some spine to stand up to this latest arrival among tech monsters.

I think that in five years Google will be irrelevant. Search paradigm shifts every 10 years or so. We forget the history of search; no company yet has lasted long in the search business. Google is no exception, they will fall a side as did all the search engines before, mark my words!

Brent Schlender apparently loves Ma Bell.

AT&T and Verizon cannot digest the fact that their closely guarded private networks might come to an end some day. Fear of change, protectionism, I would say.

Google is fearless, and champions the cause of the consumer. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I, for one, find it refreshing that a major corporation has the foresight to see what could happen to this impending market and is willing to put it’s neck out there and try to keep it neutral.

The cell phone market is a mess of monopolies and they just want to extend that into the new frequencies. If AT&T and the other big boys had their way, we’d be buying PCs from them and could only connect to their portions of the nation. In other words, it would be the cell phone market.

Go, Google, Go!

I tend to take anything I read in Fortune with a grain of salt, but come on. I’m surprised I there weren’t advertisements for AT&T on the page.

It is called freedom and I’ll take it anyway I can get it. The US is years behind the rest of the world in terms of what cell phones can do and the capacity of our networks. Why?? Lack of competition. Innovation is not the problem is the inability for the market to innovate, the barriers to entry are virtually air tight.

Freedom = Good
Defenders of Freedom = Good
FCC = Bad

Most people don’t encounted Google’s arrogance on a daily basis because their only interaction with Google is using their search engine.

However, Google makes 100% of its profit through advertising, and controls close to 90% of the text ad market. Everyone who has ever worked with them purchasing ads or selling adspace knows that Google’s level of arrogance is way beyond anything the valley has ever seen. Recently digg.com dropped Google’s ads and went with microsoft because they said Google’s arrogance was just overwhelming. They treat all of their business partners like crap, because they CAN.

The latter demands that Google makes seem to violate property rights. I don’t think any company should share its network or facilities with any other, unless they choose to. The shareholders’ money built the networks and infrastructure. Just because someone has a cell phone does not mean they should be permitted to operate it on any network. An analogy to this would be a person owning an all-terrain vehicle and me owning a 100 acres. Just because they have the vehicle does not give them the right to use it on my land no matter how beautiful or perfect for riding it may be.

I absolutely agree! and I don’t use google’s products as a result. From day one I have seen them as rich little arrogant bullies. And they wonder why the telco’s don’t want to play ball with them. every chance they get they jump into someone elses sandbox kick up a lot of dust then run off to do whatever their new self serving objective is.

May I ask, “Who defines the bounds?” I have contended for many years that Google is a new type of company–a supranational entity. In its core technology, Google has leapfrogged over its nearest competitors. Now that same technology allows Google to use its platform to perform essentially the same functions as many “old line” businesses. In this situation, why should Google’s prowess and innovation be viewed as a negative. It’s time the “old line” entities invest in technology to jump over Google, not waste money with legal chess games and PR that doesn’t convert to shareholder value or new products and services for consumers.

Just because you think Google’s demands boarded on communism, it would be bad for the country? Could we please pass the simplistic good vs evil thing/

Looks like no one agrees with you that Google is being arrogant. In fact it seems the opposite, like Google is fighting the good fight against the players trying to exert control and limit consumer freedom. Perhaps your article should be titled “Should My New Motto Be ‘Don’t Be A Tard’?”

Watch out Google !! Learn the Wal mart lesson; if you step on enough toes along the way you will become the company we love to hate.

I agree with the other comments. I find it hard to see this as arrogant. I wish it would have worked. Innovative companies question the way things are done now and try to improve. That is what Google has always done. I think your arrogant for thinking that you are smart enough to know Google’s plans and motives for future products and uses and assuming that they are always negative. This article seems more of a play to add a crazy headline to to front page of a major news website to get people to get attention. You are arrogant for thinking we are all naive.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that little tiny Google is looking out purely for the interests of consumers. Google is looking out for its own self interest just as other bidders are. In reality Google never intended to bid. They offered to participate only at the required opening bid amount. Google could chose to pay what other might pay in a competitive market for this spectrum and then do all of the things they want to do. There is no restriction on Google doing all the things they suggest once they bid and win the auction. They however will not try to win the auction. They would prefer to let others build the network and then simply ride on it. I am not faulting Google, I just do not believe that they are looking out for anyone but themselves. The FCC rules are a good compromise that allows consumers to use various devices but allows those who buy the spectrum and develop it to reap the benefits of their investment.

I fail to see how Google negotiating the best terms it can get on a potential multi-billion dollar purchase is somehow arrogant. Last time I checked, it was called good business sense. And since the agenda they’re pushing may benefit consumers, this makes your argument that Google is being arrogant simply nearsighted. I think you’re being arrogant in thinking they should invest billions of shareholder dollars into a venture where they may not get terms acceptable to their business model. I believe its arrogant to tell a company they should be less aggressive with how they protect their assets.

No, it seems to me that the auctions are are already being run by the “other” monopoly. Ma Bell.

How is this arrogant? Finally a company that’s looking out for the consumer? Lord know the Government for by and of the corporation isn’t. Look at the 1996 telcom act it didn’t open anything up in the cable tv space. I’ve had 3 different cable companies in my life time and that’s only because they were bought out nit because I had a choice. If I buy an Iphone why can’t I decide to use it on the nest network?

Google is arrogant for trying to increase the amount of competition in telecommunications? I, for one, welcome somebody willing to step up and challenge AT&T and Verizon.