Slashdot Mirror


Patents Show Google Fi Was Envisioned Before the iPhone Was Released

smaxp writes: Contrary to reports, Google didn't become a mobile carrier with the introduction of Google Fi. Google Fi was launched to prove that a network-of-networks serves smartphone users better than a single mobile carrier's network. Patents related to Google Fi, filed in early 2007, explain Google's vision – smartphones negotiate for and connect to the fastest network available. The patent and Google Fi share a common notion that the smartphone should connect to the fastest network available, not a single carrier's network that may not provide the best performance. It breaks the exclusive relationship between a smartphone and a single carrier. Meanwhile, a story at BostInno points out that Google's not the only one with a network-hopping hybrid approach to phone calls.

31 comments

  1. First post... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and it's all thanks to Google Fi.

    Unless it isn't, in which case, damn you Google Fi.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:First post... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Before the iPhone we were not primitives. They were smart phones years before the iPhone was released. The big players was Blackberry and a slew of windows mobile phones, and Palm. They had a keyboard you could browse the web you could even get apps, and watch videos. Android OS was in development. But the idea of smart phones were all centered around a full keyboard and some sort of pointing device. The key features where there. So it would make sense for Google to look for ways to improve bandwidth without the iPhone designed phone.

      However after the iPhone was released it put the smart phone market in shock. It seemed that a larger screen was preferable, people picked up in using gestures quickly, and was willing to sacrifice a physical keyboard for it. This made all the other companies future plans obsolete thus giving Apple a two year lead.

      But saying before the iPhone we wouldn't imagine trying to get faster mobile data is naive.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. clickbait headline.... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but really good article. I would love to have a plan where it simply works on all different wireless spectrum. even short range (walkie talkie) tech when possible. If the phone knew how to switch from one to the other without dropping calls that would be simply awesome for everyone (except for cell carriers)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:clickbait headline.... by Adriax · · Score: 2

      Voip modified to support stream handoff.
      If a handset gets a new network signal (wifi or just a better 3g/4g connection) with a higher priority, it could sign into the voip servers over the new connection without killing the other session and schedule a stream handoff from the lower priority connection to the new one.
      Basically what a cell signal already does when a user moves between towers, but Over The Internet. So probably already patented by 30 different companies.

      This is why I would love to see a cheap data only service. There is no reason for smartphones to have dedicated voice/text service when it could all be taken care of by a data connection and a VoIP provider.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:clickbait headline.... by adolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically what a cell signal already does when a user moves between towers, but Over The Internet. So probably already patented by 30 different companies.

      This is why I would love to see a cheap data only service. There is no reason for smartphones to have dedicated voice/text service when it could all be taken care of by a data connection and a VoIP provider.

      This is why cheap data service can't exist right now.

      Someone has to build the towers, string the cables, install the radios and antennas. Someone has to change the oil in the genset, and (depending) rotate out the diesel. Someone has to maintain the aircraft warning lamp. Someone has to handle ESD (lightning) damage. And still, someone has to deal with farmers and their backhoes.

      And mitigate interference and overlap issues. And deal with routing issues. And. And. And.

      There's no way for a data service to be cheap: With modern codecs, voice (which is much, much better than my first digital/non-AMPS cell phone) already uses very little data, and Youtube uses lots. Which is why unlimited voice/text service is cheap, and genuinely unlimited data is like a hen's tooth.

      I used to get consistently better bandwidth with my OG Droid on genuinely-unlimited 3G than on any public hotspot, so when I was stuck in one place for awhile (selling/"donating" blood plasma, for instance) I'd just stream Netflix over 3G instead of using Biolife's carrier-grade TDM-sourced Wifi.

      But in doing so I knew that I was squandering a limited resource: Actual bandwidth, aka spectral capacity.

      And the only way to increase that total available bandwidth is to have more towers with smaller footprints AND maybe an institution of like-minded people who securely open up their home routers for the world to use (didn't Vodaphone do this on the other side of the pond?).

      But the first case involves lots of money (see above), and the second case involves cooperation and trust and hardware that is smart enough to configure itself to deal with interference mitigation autonomously.

      Both concepts can have traction and will work with existing technology, though the latter will fall apart with non-stationary users since there's a -lot- to be desired in a given Wifi client device's ability to handle roaming between multiple disparate networks.

    3. Re:clickbait headline.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      and, and, and... and the cell companies have to build in rural areas, the cost of which gets subsidized by customers in more densely populated areas. One reason the U.S. will never have the fastest/best/cheapest internet or cell phone service (on average).

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:clickbait headline.... by adolf · · Score: 1

      The US already has near-ubiquitous coverage of populated areas. There used to be some well-known dead spots near me (in Ohio), but they're gone: Things work just fine in or around any town or village, nowadays.

      That doesn't mean that doing so was cheap. Or that giving me 4G coverage down in the holler at my buddy's farm in Kentucky will ever happen (there is no central electricity implicit in those parts, and last I was there I might have had enough service to send an expensive text message once I climbed a hill).

      One reason the U.S. will never have the fastest/best/cheapest internet or cell phone service is that some areas of the US are ridiculously rural, hilly, and hard to cover.

      Which, again, reinforces my point.

      The "Universal Service Fund", which we all (in the US) pay for with our phone bill, isn't providing for much Universal Service...much less the hard-wired bandwidth service of the sort that actually fucking works.

      *clears throat* *ahem* Depending on locale, apparently: Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than other people.

    5. Re:clickbait headline.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's no way for a data service to be cheap

      Of course there is. There's a way for data service to be free. It's called mesh networking, and all it takes is for enough of us to care at the same time to spend a few bucks (okay, maybe a couple hundred) on a fancy WAP and maybe build some decent antennas if we live in the sticks. Problem is, even here on Slashdot people will bitch and whine about how the uplink bandwidth has to come from somewhere and refuse to get involved. Well yes, no kidding. But we also have to start somewhere. Forget Internet2, we need Internet3. For me, since I do live in an area of low population density, there's no point in messing with it since I have no one to mesh network with, hence my endless campaigning.

      The only thing that's ever going to solve this problem is open mesh networking. That brings a whole new set of problems, but we need to tackle them sooner rather than later because centralization is getting stronger rather than weaker.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. So, roaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had that in 1999.

  4. Clickbait by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

    Patents Show Google Fi Was Envisioned Before the iPhone Was Released

    Heh, yeah. Remember when all the fanbois lined up in Cuptertino so they could own a phone that automatically negotiates for their optimal data connection?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. And since Google Fi is too hard to pronounce... by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

    ...people call it GooFi or Goofi.

    1. Re:And since Google Fi is too hard to pronounce... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      No worse than "Semper Fi."

  6. Not the same thing by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meanwhile, a story at BostInno points out that Google's not the only one with a network-hopping hybrid approach to phone calls.

    Scratch Wireless, which is the one the link talks about, isn't quite the same thing. Google Fi is about combining multiple cellular networks, while Scratch Wireless only uses a single cellular network. Both let you seamlessly roam between cellular and wifi.

    1. Re:Not the same thing by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Google Fi is about combining multiple cellular networks, while Scratch Wireless only uses a single cellular network. Both let you seamlessly roam between cellular and wifi.

      Which you get when using a T-Mobile phone abroad, where it can use multiple cell networks and can switch mid call between Wifi and various cellular networks, or at least the old UMA phones could do some time around 2003. Perhaps they could not go from one WiFi network to another mid-call, but will Google's phone really do this?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Not the same thing by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Sort of, but I'm pretty sure you can't switch between networks mid-call. Certainly not in Canada, because none of the carriers here support call handoffs while roaming. Calls drop when you switch networks.

      Google's phone seems to be very much a data-only cloud solution where everything runs through Google Hangouts. I believe the idea is to be completely network-independent by doing everything over IP, such that they can do stuff like seamless handoffs without needing support from the carrier.

  7. "Google Fi fie fo fum by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    better clickbait headline.

  8. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who gives a fuck really?

  9. Before the iPhone? Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patents Show Google Fi Was Envisioned Before the iPhone Was Released

    Cool story, brah. What relevance does the iPhone have to do with this at all other than butthurt fangirlism?

    1. Re:Before the iPhone? Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about providing a time period, you ignoramus fuckwad?

    2. Re:Before the iPhone? Who gives a shit? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Then simply state the year. I agree with GP and the others, adding in the iPhone is just for clickbaiting.

  10. All Apple does is steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this case they fucked Google rather than the usual smaller company. This time they might actual pay for being such dishonest crooks. They hate us and want us to die. That is their way. They think that while they can own property that we do not have that right. As Jobs said, he thinks he is entitled to anything we have. That entire company thinks they own us. They do own us. We can't fight against them. That is their way.

  11. Before iPhone?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a joke.

    Fandroids conveniently forget that Google's Schmidt was on the board of Apple and stealing key design decisions from a very early stage of iPhone design, including prototypes. Thus the reason Google decided to purchase Android and build their own platform, and because they needed a lot of key details about people (location, friends, associations, emails and text data, etc, etc), which they failed to acquire from facebook after multiple take-over attempts.

  12. Bidding for Access by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought this was interesting. FTFA:

    One part of Google's patent that wasn't discussed during the announcement was micro-auctions, in which users pay for network usage by the sip. Google's patent describes a mobile device that submits a proposal for competitive bids by network operators each time the network is used. An app in need of a network connection would send a request for a bid to nearby networks and would accept the lowest bid with the matching network service level.

    Micro-auctions would provide consumers the best user experience because they would always connect to the fastest network available. Large mobile carriers would resist this change because they would forego subscriber contract revenues earned independently of network quality for revenues earned by bidding the lowest price to deliver the fastest network performance.

    My only question would be how would you verify that the provider is returning a realistic answer? Remember AT&T's "Faux G"?

    That said, I gotta admit that this is a neat idea, especially with the idea of network service levels. For example, I can get by with 2G service for a message to Google/Apple asking, "Is my software up-to-date?" But I'll want that 100Mbps LTE goodness when watching a high-def movie. I might be fine with something in between for casual web-surfing.

    1. Re:Bidding for Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      verifying that the provider is telling the truth would come from a relatively small amount of experience... ie: I tried network X a couple of time and didn't like it... remember, you're not locking into a multi-year contract so sampling a network and then marking it as 'unusable' in your phone's preferences is no biggie

      what will doom this (in the US and similar phone subsidising countries) is that suddenly people will actually have to pay for their phones up front... while total cost of ownership will go down (probably by a lot) but the ability of the masses to stay on the annual or bi-annual upgrade treadmill will be broken. unit sales will be down, old phones will stay in circulation longer... really it's what's best for the planet *and* is a proper market solution (no anti-consumer collusion between network and device mfgr)... yep, won't happen, ATT and Apple will probably manage to argue to some rube with the ironic title of Senator that allowing this will put the security of the nation at stake

      in countries where people do pay upfront for hardware I can see this working really well

    2. Re:Bidding for Access by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      My only question would be how would you verify that the provider is returning a realistic answer?

      I would guess by crowdsourcing the data like they do with google maps (and slow roads, contruction, accidents). If multiple users report a source as being slow then it'll get marked as such for all others.

      The app can do this in the background. And since it's done per app if you get a slow connection, then the next request for data can ignore the lying node.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    3. Re:Bidding for Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so how is handover being dealt with in this method?

  13. Apple was first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google only got involved in cellular because of Apple's work to develop the iPhone (before the iPhone was released!) and Schmidt being on Apple's board. Apple considered becoming an MVNO long ago, before Google. Google's actions now are just for publicity.

  14. Different name - new game by rasjani · · Score: 1

    Sounds a lot like Mesh networking ?

    --
    yush
    1. Re:Different name - new game by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      It's nothing like mesh networking. It's simply roaming across multiple cell company networks.

  15. cybiko? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this was done by the cybiko some time back? Any message was sent via the network of any/all in-range units and this surely wasn't the first store/forward daisy-chained type networking? Or is this 'with a computer' or 'over the internet' now with 'via wireless' to make it a completely new thing totally unlike anything else before?

  16. This same idea should by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    This same idea should be used with a credit card that is a credit card of credit cards to find at any one point the best credit card to use. So, when you swipe, you get the lowest interest rate and the best benefits automatically instead of going through thousands of cards to find the "right" one.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.