Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Prepares To Enter Wireless Market As an MVNO

Posted by samzenpus on from the trying-something-different dept.

jfruh writes Google is getting into the wireless connectivity business, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to use them as your wireless connectivity provider any time soon. The company isn't building its own cell network, but will rather be a "mobile virtual network operator" offering services over existing networks. Google says it won't be a full-service mobile network in competition with existing carriers; instead, the MVNO will offer a platform through which it can experiment with new services for Android smartphones.

43 comments

  1. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Must have a google account, I assume? No thanks.

    1. Re:Yawn by Higaran · · Score: 1

      You pretty much need an account to something with any smart phone you'll get. It's not that big a deal, you can opt out of pretty much everything.

    2. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run a motorola android and have no google account. Everything is loaded via side loading.

    3. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my Android phone I need a Google account to access the Play store or use Google+ photo/video auto-backup, but I don't think for anything else?

    4. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an Android phone, and I don't even have a Google account. All my apps are from F-Droid.

    5. Re: Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so you're that guy?
      - Google

  2. Open to All? by macromorgan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this will be open to all handsets, or just exclusive to Android devices? I was thinking about doing some carrier hopping and would be interested to try them, provided something makes them stand apart from all other MVNOs.

    1. Re:Open to All? by mlts · · Score: 1

      How will this play to the mobile companies selling Android products? A MVNO is nice, but wouldn't that tick off the carriers, and carriers are the entities that sell Android devices?

    2. Re:Open to All? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No reasonable carrier should care about the handsets you're using. Just stick the SIM into whatever you want, and off you go.

    3. Re:Open to All? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For "plain old mobile service"...maybe.

      What I'm looking for is a good cheap carrier without stupid data plan limits that supports wifi calling on my Nexus 5... what I have now is T-Mobile with 1gb data (really unlimited, but slows down after you hit the limit) - but in order to use their wifi calling feature, I have to have a phone that supports their wifi calling feature (which apparently requires custom firmware).

      I would love if Google provided a similar service for a similar price (~$40/mo) that had wifi calling that worked on all android handsets... sign me up! Note: I have terrible cell coverage at my house, no matter what carrier - and a lot of my friends do too... but wifi calling would fill the gaps.

    4. Re:Open to All? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      No reasonable carrier should care about the handsets you're using. Just stick the SIM into whatever you want, and off you go.

      The logic goes, what will att's reaction be considering they spend their time hawking google's android phones but then goog comes in and undercuts them? I would be pretty po'd.

    5. Re: Open to All? by GTRacer · · Score: 2

      Unless I did something without realizing, Google Hangouts does WiFi calling, no root required.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    6. Re: Open to All? by radl33t · · Score: 1

      yep, I use it exclusively over 3g/4g and wifi.

    7. Re: Open to All? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      I imagine it would be no different than any other MVNO, in that they are usually restricted in some form by the bigger networks (throttling, etc.)

      I doubt phones would be a problem, since most MVNOs now offer LTE (throttled).

  3. Can you actually buy it? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    It sounds like this is just something they're going to use for product testing. Or if you can buy it you'll find a bare bones service at a higher price point.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Can you actually buy it? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      will it work better than google voice? I heard about the forwarding for text and voice.. and thought to myself "hey, now i can get a burner phone and not even pretend to care what the number is" But alas, horrible call quality and every 5th text was silently dropped :(

    2. Re:Can you actually buy it? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      It's true, they might keep it internal for testing. However, if they do open it up for use I imagine it'll likely not be at a higher price point. If they open it up, they'd want people to actually use the service.

    3. Re:Can you actually buy it? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Remember when Apple pushed AT&T to make 'visual voice mail?' Soon other carriers were adding similar things. This is Google's attempt to push carriers to do what they want.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Can you actually buy it? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      every 5th text was silently dropped :

      Every 5th? Wow, that's good. With my T-Mobile service, most texts from AT&T are dropped. I suspect it is because my number was originally a Pacific Bell number and somewhere within AT&T is a database that still shows my number as one that is with AT&T.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's AOL for Android, supplementing their existing dial-up connection with exciting new features!

  5. MVNOs.. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    If it lets my phone work through cell towers from multiple carriers and doesn't suck like other MVNOs, sign me up.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:MVNOs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also want truly unlimited data. Enable wifi hotspots with the latest version of Android when paired with an "approved" phone. No bloat ware, just a Google experience.

      Google will make a killing even if they eat the costs. At that point they turn Google Fiber into it's own real cell phone company and cut out the middleman.

    2. Re:MVNOs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used Straight Talk for 5 years now and have had at times devices on Verizon and AT&T towers. They all worked just as well/poorly as devices sold by those providers.

    3. Re:MVNOs.. by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't know how an MVNO can be cheaper than a carrier except for cheapskates who want those weird, super low-end plans because they're always on wifi and only use their phone for emergency calls away from wifi. I can't see an MVNO ever able to buy airtime and sell it cheaper than carriers can directly without strange limits or associating with a sucky carrier with shitty coverage and slow data.

      I'd like an MVNO that could associate with multiple carriers, let me rank those carriers by preference but override my preference if another carrier has a better signal by some threshold as well as provide VoIP service to my PC or any of the cheap SIP devices.

    4. Re:MVNOs.. by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Reasons MVNO's can resell airtime at cheaper rates.

      No phone subsidies.

      No paying other carriers early termination fees

      No data roaming agreements

      No visual voice-mail and other "value added" services

      No bloated management team endemic of large corporations

      No huge debt incurred for acquiring wireless spectrum, upgrading infrastructure

      MNVO's are not for everyone but for many people they are a great option for service.

    5. Re:MVNOs.. by wendyo · · Score: 1

      I use an MVNO, costs $30/month. Unlimited calls, texts, and 500MB of data. Their website and payment plan are wonky, but I hate AT&T and Verizon, and am wiling to put up with a little. To be fair, I've been screwed far worse by both AT&T and Verizon than by my MVNO.

    6. Re:MVNOs.. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      I'm on ROK mobile, uses att's network, $33/mo, unlimited talk/text, 5gb lte/ unlimited 3G. Pretty sweet deal.

    7. Re:MVNOs.. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how an MVNO can be cheaper than a carrier except for cheapskates who want those weird, super low-end plans because they're always on wifi and only use their phone for emergency calls away from wifi. I can't see an MVNO ever able to buy airtime and sell it cheaper than carriers can directly without strange limits or associating with a sucky carrier with shitty coverage and slow data.

      I'd like an MVNO that could associate with multiple carriers, let me rank those carriers by preference but override my preference if another carrier has a better signal by some threshold as well as provide VoIP service to my PC or any of the cheap SIP devices.

      I use ting. My main contacts use hangouts or kik for messaging, so texting is low. I use my phone as a media player but store most of the music on the phone. 32 GB is plenty if managed correctly. Calling is low, as my main contacts use messaging more. I am at work or home mostly and wifi is automatic. When I travel on 2-3 weekends a month, hotel wifi is mostly free, and enough for phone data. Consequently, even though I browse quite a bit my data usage is typically under 1.5GB per month.
      This is for me and my (gasp yes as a slashdotter, girlfriend). Our average ting bill is So with proper management and expectations (neither of which are difficult), MVNOs can be useful. Plus ting is branching out to gig fiber! And launching in my town 1st. I cannot wait!

      Am I biased? Yes, but I have been extremely satisfied with my experience with ting so far, both in price and customer service.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    8. Re:MVNOs.. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Ting now works on CDMA (sprint) and GSM (tmobile). If you have a phne with all the bands,it is as simple as buying another sim ($9) and popping it in.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    9. Re:MVNOs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500mb of data is terrible. Join the first world.

    10. Re:MVNOs.. by hankwang · · Score: 1

      "Our average ting bill is So with proper management"

      Looks like slashcode ate the less-than sign and the rest of the paragraph...

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    11. Re:MVNOs.. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      $54 per month.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    12. Re:MVNOs.. by radl33t · · Score: 1

      freedom pop gives better service for free if you live in a good coverage area.

    13. Re:MVNOs.. by emil · · Score: 1

      Ting actually roams on Verizon. If you want that, you will not be on GSM.

    14. Re:MVNOs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean $50 a month on Sprint's network.

  6. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good for them

  7. Too bad by neminem · · Score: 1

    I was just commenting to a friend just yesterday how much I hoped Google would decide to get into the phone carrier market as themselves, as it would really shake things up - if anyone could get mixed cell/satellite communication down to affordable prices and thus make internet finally *truly* available anywhere on the planet, it'd be Google. And I long for that day (i.e. the day where one doesn't have to pay cruise ships their hilarious gouging rate for basic connectivity, for instance.)

    I suppose setting up as an MVNO is a first step, but it isn't quite the same. (I like Google, but I'll most likely stick with Ting all the same.)

    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to see how Google would shake up the mobile market. Ads injected into phone calls and/or even more blatant spying on our conversations?

      What you people see in Google completely eludes me. Nothing but a bunch of creeps, they are.

    2. Re:Too bad by neminem · · Score: 2

      What I see in Google is the only company that pulls off ads and spying *without* being annoying or terrible. I hate companies that inject ads into things such that it gets in the way or makes it harder to do what you were doing. I hate companies that spy on you without your permission and then do sketchy things with the results. Google ads don't get in the way, they tell you straight-up that they're spying on you, and they don't generally do anything terribly sketchy with the results. Thus, they can spy on me as much as they like, if they keep it up and use it for good.

    3. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us are so naïve and trusting. You have little idea what Google does with the results of their spying.

      Google was one of the first to show up on the PRSM slide, after all. Even if they didn't cooperate, they wouldn't be such a rich target if they didn't keep warehouses of data that they collected on you.

      Frankly, that you're not creeped out by them creeps me out.

    4. Re:Too bad by ckatko · · Score: 1

      >Google [...] Ads injected into phone calls and/or even more blatant spying on our conversations?

      I think you mispronounced "Samsung."

    5. Re:Too bad by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What I see in Google is the only company that pulls off ads and spying *without* being annoying or terrible. I hate companies that inject ads into things such that it gets in the way or makes it harder to do what you were doing. I hate companies that spy on you without your permission and then do sketchy things with the results. Google ads don't get in the way, they tell you straight-up that they're spying on you, and they don't generally do anything terribly sketchy with the results. Thus, they can spy on me as much as they like, if they keep it up and use it for good.

      You do realize Google is the biggest purvey of annoying ads online, right? Popups, popunders, flash ads, etc. Basically all the crap that ABP and others block. Heck, Google through its DoubleClick subsidiary created a nice flash-to-HTML5 converter.

      And that Google is probably already spying on you through your apps with the in-app ads (Google owns AdMob, after all).

      You have to remember that pretty much every ad on legitimate sites is served through Google. Shady sites like torrents and porn usually are where the other ad networks go. But pull up a site loaded with ads that's legit and pretty much it's all going back to Google.

  8. Google has jumped the shark. by emil · · Score: 1

    If they had any real intention of competing in this space, they would have bought Page Plus Cellular. Even a purchase of BYO Wireless would make more sense than another Sprint has-been

    This is another round of Google Plus - great sound and fury, signifying nothing.