Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patents Show Google Fi Was Envisioned Before the iPhone Was Released

Posted by timothy on from the I-could-show-you-my-notes-from-7th-grade dept.

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.

4 of 31 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
  2. 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.

  3. 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.