Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wants To Be a Wireless Carrier

Posted by samzenpus on from the google-calling dept.

zacharye writes "Google has already conquered the software side of smartphones and now the technology giant is reportedly in talks to take over the air waves. A report on Thursday claims that Google has held talks with satellite television provider Dish Network regarding the possibility of a venture that would see Google launch its own cellular network and compete directly with the likes of Verizon and AT&T."

20 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the current crop of American wireless carriers look like a group of mustache-twirling Bond villains, it won't be hard for Google to come off as the better choice. At least they'll have an incentive to give you unlimited high speed data.

    Too bad the coverage area will probably be tiny.

    1. Re:Shut up and take my money by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as it forces the other carriers to have a look at their rates, it's good. It probably won't affect me anytime soon seeing as I live in the UK (besides, my phone is a company phone anyway), but I'd like to see what kind of rates Google considers to be reasonable.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Shut up and take my money by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they follow their general model we'll probably be looking at something ad supported - in-browser, SMS ads, that sort of thing - to support "unlimited" data, and with the option to pay $5/month to remove them. If Google take this as a near-loss-leader then we could see a big shake up amongst providers, although I suspect we'll simply see a host of competitiveness lawsuits and the lawyers will be the only winners...again.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:Shut up and take my money by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When the current crop of American wireless carriers look like a group of mustache-twirling Bond villains, it won't be hard for Google to come off as the better choice. At least they'll have an incentive to give you unlimited high speed data.

      Too bad the coverage area will probably be tiny.

      You might get slightly better deals with Google, but the additional privacy/tracking data that Google (and the US government) will have on people...internet and phone/voice history, voice call recordings and internet browsing history, all that data from one convenient source...scares me.

      I wish someone would write a credibly-strong voice/data encryption/scrambling smartphone app. They would probably have to develop/release/distribute it outside the US in a country unfriendly to the US, however, to avoid the long reach of the US government.

      They wouldn't be happy that a large chunk of the domestic civilian signals surveillance data they planned to store in that mega-sized (and a mega-sized price tag) government data storage center they're building in Colorado became all but useless to them before they even cut the opening-day ribbon. That's one very large chunk of taxpayer money I wouldn't mind seeing turned into waste.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they follow their general model we'll probably be looking at ...

      If they follow their general model we'll probably be looking at Google tracking anything and everything your phone sends and receives, and then they'll send you ads. So, in the middle of texting back and forth to pick a time and place for dinner you'll get a Google sponsored text message telling you about a great restaurant in your area and they happen to take Google Wallet as a payment method.

    5. Re:Shut up and take my money by neonKow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, if they follow their general model, then we're looking at something data-mining supported. Google products may have ads, but don't forget how many non-google sites carry google ads.

      As for how it'll affect the industry as a whole: there won't be lawsuits. Rather, AT&T and Verizon will have to follow suit to stay competitive, and then data mining your unencrypted mobile data will become both legal and the norm. Yay for privacy errosion!

    6. Re:Shut up and take my money by EvilBudMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We'll the government does that tracking anyhow. So why not? That one thing that makes Google successful as their ads are less intrusive and therefore more effective. I would trust them more with my data than let's say any other third party.

    7. Re:Shut up and take my money by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, banging a porn star is easy, all it takes is money. Many of them have side jobs as escorts in Las Vegas.

      You DO realize porn stars are essentially prostitutes with a camera crew, don't you?

      Of course, they charge more than the $20 crack-hos you're used to so you'll need to have some serious income first. Stupid details.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Shut up and take my money by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AT&T and Verizon already do a lot of this.
      I know Verizon had an opt out page I had to go to recently to end some of it.

      http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/

      You will note that the document about how much they share your data is called privacy. Talk about double plus ungood.

    9. Re:Shut up and take my money by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Google follow their general model, they're not doing this to make money directly, but to pave the way for their main product when unacknowledged monopolies and soft cartels threaten their advance.

      See also: Android.

      If the telecoms have any sense, the mere threat of competition ought to scare them in line. But don't count on it.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    10. Re:Shut up and take my money by alostpacket · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, this has been their strategy for years. Warren Buffet Called it building their "moat" around the "castle" of the search business. Datamining helps with targeting and increases the value of an advertisement. But the primary purpose here is to make sure no one can throw up a toll bridge between them and the consumer. Their original and still current goal was/is to "be the interface to information."

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  2. Good by dnahelicase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Competition is nice, but I don't live in Seattle or Kansas City, so it probably won't affect me. ATT will probably just come up with a new plan where my family can share just a little bit less data for a little bit more money than I'm already paying.

  3. Technical Question by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't work in this field so I'd like to know if there is a technical reason that cell phone companies charge different for text, data, and voice? In other words is the data all treated the same on the network or is voice given bandwidth priority because it needs to be real time?

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Technical Question by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know the technical details, but even if voice is given priority (which is probably is), the rates they charge for texts have always been ludicrous, even compared to their data plans. So obviously they're just milking it for all they can get, rather than charging differently for technical reasons.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Technical Question by kriebz · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, SMS came from a GSM feature that sent data in tiny packets in the control channel phones used all the time for presense and syncronization. The bandwidth was always in constant use, so packing data into it didn't really cost anything. CDMA probably implements a similar feature that uses squat bandwidth.

      Now, the weird thing is, carriers charge the same for SMS as MMS, at least in my experience, where MMS uses 3G to send potentially a lot of data.

    3. Re:Technical Question by YoopDaDum · · Score: 5, Informative

      The pricing is not so much driven by the technology than by what operators can charge. It's particularly true for text, where the margin is really really huge and unrelated to technology. But as it's a geek site let's go over the tech now ;) All 3 use slightly different mechanisms.

      Short messages (SMS, or text) piggy back over the signaling protocol.

      With GSM and WCDMA 3G (3GPP standards), voice and data share the same radio network. But on the network side there are separate core networks for voice (CS domain, for Circuit Switched) and data (PS domain, for Packet Switched). In the CDMA world there are actually separate radio networks for voice (CDMA 1x) and data (EVDO). This is why you can't do both voice and data at the same time on most CDMA phones: it would require 2 radios, which adds cost and complexity. Whereas with 2G/3G, both goes over the same radio network so both can operate concurrently with a single radio.

      Starting with 4G, or LTE in practice, there is still a single radio network as before but now the core (EPC, Evolved Packet Core) is also unified and built over IP. Voice over LTE (VoLTE) is not common yet but it's basically VoIP built on IMS. All is unified, but voice is of course prioritized over best effort data using QoS both in the RAN (radio access network) and EPC.

  4. Re:I think it's a mistake by Enry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) Just because you're a monopoly means you're going to get sued for antitrust
    b) Just because you provide a bunch of services at once doesn't make you a monopoly
    iii) Verizon and AT&T better watch out

  5. Re:And so it begins... by chill · · Score: 3, Funny

    You forgot "3. Profit!"

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. Re:I think it's a mistake by neonKow · · Score: 3, Funny

    There will be one more itty bitty carrier, run by a ragtag band of Linux and BSD geeks, with connections to Tor and the EFF. They will use cool, cutting edge tech paired with some ancient, unscaleable techs and almost everyone who is willing to use the carrier in their limited markets are only separated by 2 or 3 degrees by PGP keys. A connection will require line-of-sight to a tower, even by hovertrain, you only see them once every 5 minutes, but a connection is so fast that most users carry a cache of 95% of the web with them if they need it on-the-go. Their motto will be "More free than beer" (or some recursive acronym), but they will be nameless, but people will still whisper among each other about the ones who managed to find their way to "a truly open connection."

  7. The Wireless Networks are setup wrong! by bartoku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We do not need huge carriers that produce individual networks.

    Cell towers should run like WiFi access points, and the mobile device should handle the hand off between towers.
    Each tower can even be run by an individual entity if desired.
    Instead there would be entities that sell data credit.

    A mobile device would have an account with a data credit reseller.
    The mobile device can scan for access in its area and connect to a tower based on how the user priorities (cost, speed, signal strength...)
    The tower would then charge the data credit reseller for the user's usage.

    This setup allows for each cell tower to compete for users in an area.
    This would allow start-up wireless companies to compete immediately.
    Once enough individual towers went up then it would compete with the big carriers and force them to change.