Although we hate to link to a press release, we feel its safe to make an exception for this one as it contains the full text of a letter sent from Google to the FCC. In it, Google seems to hint at how it might revolutionize wireless technology in America even more than the iPhone:

In a filing with the FCC on July 9, Google urged the Commission to adopt rules for the auction that ensure that, regardless of who wins the spectrum at auction, consumers’ interests are served. Specifically, Google encouraged the FCC to require the adoption of four types of “open” platforms as part of the license conditions:

* Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;

* Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;

* Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and

* Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network.

Today, as a sign of Google’s commitment to promoting greater innovation and choices for consumers, CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, stating that should the FCC adopt all four license conditions requested above, Google intends to commit a minimum of $4.6 billion to bidding in the upcoming 700 MHz auction.

Bulletpoint #2 to “utilize a handheld communications device” seems the most interesting as rumors have long swirled that Google had a skunkworks dedicated to building some sort of mobile device. Buying some spectrum would allow Google to bypass the traditional byzantine world of obsolete wireless carriers and their aged, incompatible wireless protocols. But is being cash-rich and high-tech darling Google enough to jolt the FCC out of languishing in the status quo?

Veoh has started to become popular recently since YouTube and other sites have started to implement automatic copyright filtering (and Veoh does not). But Veoh has also introduced VeohTV, their new online video application that aggregates videos from several popular sites including the traditional broadcast TV networks:

Veoh does not ask for permission to play material from other Web sites, though Mr. Shapiro says he wants to strike advertising-sharing deals with content owners to ensure that shows appear in high-quality video. But Veoh does not think that it needs consent because VeohTV is doing nothing more than playing what is already online, including any commercials shown during the programs.

The networks may disagree. By only offering video, VeohTV omits all the other advertisements on the network sites. For example, people who watched an episode of “Heroes” on NBC.com last week also saw for 40 minutes a banner ad for McDonald’s on the same page. VeohTV users watching the same episode would not see the banner.

This reminds us of a story we wrote about earlier when CBS announced their pre-approved web video syndication network. Once content is released on the internet, loss of control is an inevitability that should be embraced. It’s true that this loss of control means less advertising control (i.e. banners) but having more people see your programming is always better than having less viewers.

Despite large drops in number of viewers and wider adoption of ad-skipping technology, TV networks have been making more money this year because at the end of the day, who else can bring in so many viewers?

Last week, after NBC Universal clinched a $1-billion deal for its television properties with Group M, one of the biggest advertising-buying companies, the floodgates opened in television’s annual ritual known as the “upfront” market. Since then, the networks have been busy processing orders for their time. Fox has been selling time for rates that are nearly 9% higher than last year, and ABC’s prices are up by about 10%.

We can’t help shake the feeling that we’re not being told the whole story here. Are the networks making these premiums simply because media buyers are that desperate? Or is it because the networks have been promising ancillary deals that provide alternatives to traditional 30-second spots that they then bundle and sell to Ad buyers?