Could someone explain this scenario about Google's involvement in the wireless spectrum auction?
"If history is any guide, Page’s idealistic impulses could result in a vaster, more sprawling company. The following is an example of one of Page’s idealistic impulses (wanting people to share spectrum) which could result in a vaster, more sprawling company (if they hadn't been outbid, Google would have expanded by buying a business asset i.e. spectrum which they didn't need). I've no experience with bidding. I don't understand what's happening at all An 'auction' is a way to sell something. Instead of offering it for sale at a fixed price, you offer it 'to the highest bidder'. Someone (e.g. Google) says, ""I'll offer you [some amount: e.g. a million dollars] for it."" If no-one else exceeds that bid, then you say 'sold' and Google has bought it. Alternatively someone else comes along with a higher bid, ""I'll offer you two million dollars for it,"" in which case they're the new high bidder, and you'll sell it to them unless the process repeats itself with anyone counter-offering an even higher bid. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction The ""Disadvantages"" section of this article alleges (currently without a citation) that: Despite the apparent success of spectrum auctions, an important disadvantage limiting both efficiency and revenues is demand reduction and collusive bidding. The information and flexibility in the process of auction can be used to reduce auction prices by tacit collusion. When bidder competition is weak and one bidder holds an apparent advantage to win the auction for specific licenses, other bidders will often choose not to the bid for higher prices, hence reducing the final revenue generated by the auction.[citation needed] In this case, the auction is best thought of as a negotiation among the bidders, who agree on who should win the auction for each discrete bit of spectrum. Google's bid made that impossible (or, at least, ensured that the winning bid would be at least as high as the minimum which was set by Google's bid)." At the time of the auction android was just vaporware but many companies were restricting the phones that they allowed on their networks so that they could control what the phones were being used for.  The big guys (AT&T, Verison, and Sprint) feared that being forced to allow phones that could do things they did not have control over would cost them money(Especially since they charged for every little feature they added). They also wanted to prevent their phones (which they subsidize to their customers in to reap long term profits) from being taken to other networks.   Goggle saw the potential for the largest chunk of bandwidth available to the telco's to be restricted to services of one company and their strangle hold over the phones and services that were allowed to use it.  They manuvered the bidding to ensure that this did not happen.  There are many who believe that Verison bought the spectrum more to prevent anyone from competeing with them than because they actually wanted to use it.  But at least they are forced to allow other parties in to compete even if it is on their playground.
"Comment from the article:  ""In effect, Google acquired the talent it needed, got the IPR it wanted, and did not have to purchase the whole company and bring in the baggage it did not want.  What an Amazing deal for Google.  I have no idea where this leaves HTC, though.""  Could not agree more.  Not sure how HTC is winning in this aspect.  I guess we will have to wait and see." Hm. The largest ad network in the world, whom has a natural monopoly on the search market and the largest web browser by market share, is talking about blocking competitors' ads. That doesn't smell like an antitrust issue at all... /s Summarized article: Nationwide carrier T-Mobile and prepaid provider MetroPCS have agreed to merge in an effort to gain more wireless spectrum and build a faster, higher capacity LTE network.  T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, will buy a majority stake in MetroPCS and combine it with T-Mobile to create a new publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange that will retain the T-Mobile name.   Under the deal, MetroPCS shareholders will receive $1.5 billion in cash and 26% ownership in the combined company.   The transaction is to be completed in early 2013.    * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit "I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud.   Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market.  Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016.  I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next ""Amazon"" or ""Google"" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol" I thought Google (Alphabet) filed a suit against Uber for copyright infringement just a few months ago?   If that's still going on, then I'd imagine this is Alphabet setting the table for a stranglehold on a business model that could take over an entire industry. Google is about to get a kick in the ass. They're trying to compete against a company that fought with many industries on price and yet still won. This is a last effort from traditional retailer to save their business. Google hasn't really done anything great in the past few years, just relying on their ad revenue too much. I've always wondered why nobody has tried to use the broadcast spectrum for internet connectivity. Or at least tried to lobby for repurposing some of the spectrum for that purpose. I had always assumed there was some kind of technical limitation that kept it from being considered.  Seems like a much better use of our broadcast spectrum than our antiquated TV networks. Especially after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded. &gt; unlimited data plans on your phone  This may work in some countries; in the US, oligopolic wireless carriers are doing their level best to ensure it doesn't become the norm, because they collectively see it as a threat to their business models.    They may still lose; tho I consider it unlikely, as the best scenario for that would require increasing the number of players in the wireless market.   Some sort of open-access rule for infrastructure built by companies granted spectrum licenses would be a good start, but seems unlikely given how much more sway corporations have over the state than consumers. Competition is good. Google promoting its' own services and potentially endangering industries isn't.  The purpose of the technology is to foster innovation and competition, not allow one megadon of a company abuse its' position to muscle in on every industry that exists. Feel free to link to any research that supports his claims, I'll read it. And since Google isn't unionized, he doesn't really have much legal recourse. He can sue, but it's unlikely he'll win. More likely is that Google could be successfully sued if they continued to employ him and he exposed them to any kind of harrassment claims. The announcement comes seven weeks after Walmart inked a similar deal with Google to offer hundreds of thousands of products through the service. Other big-box retailers like Home Depot are also on board.  Well I guess I have to choose who's side I'm on. and if Walmart is on Google's side then I chose Amazon. "Disclaimer: Mozilla employee here.  Not speaking for Mozilla, of course, all opinions are my own and my own alone.  And I'm not in any way connected w/ the negotiations w/ Google (or anyone else, for that matter) so I don't have any inside information about either Google or Mozilla's stance on the matter.  A lot of what you're saying here makes sense, fab13n, but there's one thing that isn't quite right in my mind.  You say that Google ""subsidized"" Firefox.  That's not at all how I'd describe the relationship.  Yes, it's to Google's advantage to have the web as the platform, and before Chrome became such a player having FF around as a competitor to IE was a good move.  But as I understand it this is a business deal, pure and simple.  FF's market share may currently be on the decline, but there is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000,000 (that's half a billion) Firefox users out there.  That's a lot of eyeballs seeing Google as the default search engine and the default home page.  Which means a lot of Google searches, which means a lot of Google revenue.  I don't know how much they make from that, but I'd guess it's a whole lot more than the $100,000,000/yr they've been paying for that privilege.  Now if FF no longer defaulted to Google, they wouldn't lose *all* of those users.  Some people would still switch to Google as the default, and lots of people would just type ""google.com"" in the address bar, or make it their home page.  But a lot more people just go w/ the default than you'd first guess.  I think that if Google bailed on some renewal of the deal, they'd see a noticeable dip in their traffic, w/ a resulting dip in revenue.  This relationship has never been about philanthropy, it's about the money, as usual.  For this reason I'm not gonna stress out too much about an article that seems to be little more than speculation.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a new deal will fall through.  But I'm going to wait until I hear that from someone who actually has inside information before I start freaking out about it." Got it. I can definitely see how it can come across that way especially with all of these big tech companies lining up against the proposal. My understanding is that a lot of that is more driven by their size than anything else; the media focuses on the impacts to Amazon and Facebook because they're huge companies and it's easier to get information on them.  But when it comes to who would get hurt the most by removing NN, it's actually small businesses and startups that would suffer the most. In a world without net neutrality, ISPs would be able to provide access to web services at different speeds. For example, if you are a Comcast customer, if Comcast has a deal with Amazon Prime, they can make it so that your access to competing services like Netflix and Hulu are throttled -- moving so slow that it will be hard to use anything other than Amazon Prime Video.  Now, if that happens, it will be annoying for companies like Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. to have to pay extra for internet users to be able to use them. But they could do it; they have the money. The people who would struggle are people who own smaller businesses and smaller websites; when they're just starting out, they won't have the money to pay the ISPs to let people access them, and as a result they could be essentially locked out of many marketplaces. This is the argument made by people who say that removing net neutrality will stifle small business; removing the regulation would create this built-in structural advantage for large, established businesses and leave smaller businesses locked out. Just remember that LightSquared might bring real competition to wireless cell and broadband services and the big wireless vendors have every incentive to kill the wholesale network before it ever becomes real.  The article even says the tests are are at a much higher power than LightSquared would use. Yes, as you are Indian resident for Tax purposes, you have to pay Tax in India for the amount you have earned in Singapore. So essentially add the income from 1st April to Mid 2014 with the eq SGD earned in Singapore till 31st March 2015. Apply the tax brackets like you normally do, claim the exemptions you would normally do 80 C etc. As India and Singapore has a Dual Tax Avoidance Treaty, you can claim the portion the tax already paid in Singapore and pay only the balance. For example if the tax works out to be Rs 30, you have already paid Rs 20 in Singapore, you would have to pay only Rs 10 in India and mention that you have already paid Rs 20 to Singapore IRS. It is irrelevant whether you transfer the funds to India or not, the tax is applicable in the financial year you have earned. More on DTAA