Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google, Sprint, Others to Build Wireless Data Network

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fast-buildout dept.

Nerdposeur writes "Google has announced that it will partner with several other companies to build a high-speed mobile data network. In a separate but related deal, Google will also become the default search provider for Sprint, including having one-click search access and Google Maps pre-installed on some Sprint phones. 'The consortium includes a disparate group of partners: Sprint Nextel, Google, Intel, Comcast, Time Warner and Clearwire. The partners have put the value of the deal at $14.5 billion, a figure that includes radio spectrum and equipment provided by Sprint Nextel and Clearwire, and $3.2 billion from the others involved. They expect the network, which will provide the next generation of high-speed Internet access for cellphone users, to be built in as little as two years, but there is no timetable on when it will be available to users and the price is not determined. The partners are seeking to beat Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless to the market.'"

16 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. The better deal by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as they don't have mysterious "fiber splices" into a sealed room, I'm in. Ma Bell's mobile broadband service sucks. If these folks set up a reliable connection and don't get greedy then they will win.

    1. Re:The better deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they weren't greedy they wouldn't be investing.

    2. Re:The better deal by blhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you know that they don't already have the keys to the aforementioned protocols? Because they're the same protocols and encryption suites used by the NSA (who develops a lot of them). Whenever they find a big or vuln. in an encryption they always release the fix for it.

      The NSA has an interest in strong security too. If there is ANY loophole in the encryption (even one that the tin-foil hat crowd thinks they put there) it would be exploitable by the enemy as well.

      HOnestly, if the NSA wants to sniff your communications, it would be a lot easier for them to just break into your house and install a sniffer inline between your keyboard and your puter. No I am not talking about the hardware keyloggers you see online for $50.
      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
  2. What is their masterplan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It does give food for thought, google have some much resources, and apparently a finger in every pie, but have stated little publicly about what their eventual goal is.
    They seem to be moving into telecommunications, as well as data warehousing, on-line information storage, retrieval, and personal communications...
    Does it make anyone else wonder whether we heading towards a future where there's only one communications company?

    1. Re:What is their masterplan? by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have been saying that Google is the new Microsoft for some time. Most everyone else pooh-pooh's them because Google has been the darling of the tech community for years now. I'm old enough to remember when the tech community loved Microsoft too.

      Google will do what any publically held company does. They will grow and grow and take over as much as they can until something or someone stops them. That's not as alarmist as it might sound, it's just how things work.

      One company owning all of our data scares me a LOT more than one company providing all of our software.

    2. Re:What is their masterplan? by DamonHD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, I don't ever remember M$ being that favourite child. My one and only communication with Mr Gates was 20-odd years ago (by telex) to ask him to force his UK office to honour its bloody contract with us. Which he did, very quickly, all credit to him.

      Also, the most expensive (and pretty much the most crap) technical manual I ever had to buy was a £100 ($200 today) book from M$ in the same sort of epoch, so maybe £300/$600 today.

      No, M$ was never ever as highly regarded as G still generally is, tin-foil-hat wearers et al aside. And G sets out to do good whereas M$ never gave a rat's arse if the alternative was more $$$.

      A perfectly legitimate way to behave for a company, but G is trying not to be in that mold IMHO. They do have duties to shareholders of course, and other than Google.org, they're not a philanthropy.

      Partial disclaimer: I use Google (and Microsoft) products, and know people at Google.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  3. Have to make the market - lot of risk. by mediocubano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sprint has the spectrum, they paid for it a long time ago. Now that Nextel isn't generating as much free cash they don't have the money to build the network, so that is where the outside investors come in.

    The tightening credit market has not helped either.

    You have to spend money to make money. There are already a lot of last-mile data solutions out there, so someone has to spend a lot of money get the ball rolling. Have to make the market in this case.

  4. Rats... by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...looks like the Android train has left the station, with only Sprint aboard. So much for T-Mobile offering Android and Google stuff. This also means I'm going to have to ditch my GSM phone too. Dammit Sprint!!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:Rats... by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think that the phone is the primary market for this - intel makes the WiMax chips, they are part of this too. I bet we start to see peripherals for laptops and desktops to get this into the home as well as mobile. hell, get some of these in your car / navigation device - its broadband access to your music on the road. Put em anywhere you want broadband access - the infrastructure is expensive but the chips aren't.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:Rats... by MBCook · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. If I had to chose one specific strategic reason for this I'd say it's to keep things open for Google.

      Microsoft has MSN which they like to try to push (quietly so as not to upset the DOJ). If AT&T, Comcast, Verison, Sprint, T-Mobile, or others decided to start giving preference to their own search (this includes site-finder like stuff) or net neutrality falters (so Google services are reduced unless someone pays extra) then Google could be in for a world of hurt. By the time the mandatory court case got far (at least far enough for an injunction) this could have become quite bad for Google.

      Should the court not grant such an injunction, take a long time to grant it, or the ISPs did it sneakily enough Google could suffer some real harm by the time things got "fixed".

      Google wants more people on the 'net. There is no question about that. This also serves branding ("I get my internet from Google", "Google lowered my broadband prices"). But it promises Google that even if net neutrality is denied by the supreme court, they have a possibly big partner that they can try to prevent from pushing stuff like that on them.

      This is at minimum (and skeptically) a preventative measure. In the short term I think the other benefits will be better, but this is a safe play for Google.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  5. This is also poised against Apple & Microsoft by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google maps as defaults on Sprint Phones. Who's ox is gored by this one?

    Apple, who doesn't have any one in particular for GPS and mapping, and their 'business partner' AT&T.

    Microsoft, whose strategy is clear as mud, and can't seem to get mobile working very well at all.

    T-Mobile/DT, who doesn't partner and eschews WiMax altogether.

    Verizon, who is more proprietary than any of the aforementioned, in my personal experience.

    Nice move Sprint. Too bad WiMax has proven so difficult and expensive to deploy.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  6. Sprint's Network by TimeSpeak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nextel/Sprint had an inferior cell tower technology and was forced to place the towers at a closer proximity than most other carriers. This turned out to be a big bonus for the new spectrum... Closer towers=faster more reliable speeds. The other carriers are going to have to play catch-up on the technologies or invest a lot more on towers....

    --
    Am no fek Buddhist, but this is enlightenment.
    1. Re:Sprint's Network by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? That's just plain wrong.

      Sprint/Nextel use CDMA, just like Verizon, Alltel, and a few smaller companies do.

      CDMA actually allows for a considerably larger cell size, whereas GSM is restricted to a "hard limit" of 35km. This is often touted as the reason why CDMA saw successful adoption in rural areas in the US, while GSM took a while to catch up, while densely-populated, developed areas stuck to GSM.

      Nextel/Sprint may have placed their towers closer together for some other reason, although they actually had the ability to place their towers further apart than their GSM-based competitors. I have no clue whether or not this was actually the case.

      Also, lots of operators share towers. It's a fairly common practice, and a legal obligation in some areas.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  7. Seriously? by mpapet · · Score: 2

    Sprint Nextel, Google, Intel, Comcast, Time Warner and Clearwire.

    I give the probability of fair pricing to the consumer coming out at 2%.

    I give the probability of anything actually getting built beyond a pilot in the next 10 years at 5%.

    I give the probability that these jokers can actually work together at 2%.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Seriously? by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 2

      I give the probability of fair pricing to the consumer coming out at 2%.

      I give the probability of anything actually getting built beyond a pilot in the next 10 years at 5%.

      I give the probability that these jokers can actually work together at 2%.
      I'd say you're being awfully generous with those numbers. This just sounds like one big clusterfuck to me. At some point along the line, one or more of these companies is going to decide that some part of the plan works against their own business interests, and pull out, leaving at best nothing changed, or at worst, a half-functioning network with poor coverage, even worse support and the early adopters (who pony up big bucks to use the new technology) shit outta luck. Like Ricochet, for example.
      --
      Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
  8. Google too close for comfort... by Prisoner's+Dilemma · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Google being this ingrained is not good. Is the wireless data going to become like Gmail or Google web accelerator where they read/analyze your private information to more effectively inundate you with advertising? I really hope that when/if it truely becomes illegal for carriers to tamper with the data that it also becomes illegal for them to access it as well.

    We're always looking for ways to work with carriers, device manufacturers, software providers, and others to help you get the information and content you need, whenever and wherever you need it. Unfortunately, too often these companies decide they know what I NEED better than I do. The more centralized this becomes, the more difficult it is to circumvent when you don't want what they say you NEED.