Google Confirms Plan to Offer Wireless Service
wsj.com
wsj.com
The service would be small in scale and not intended to compete with the big four national carriers, Sundar Pichai, who oversees Google’s mobile operating system Android, said in a presentation at an industry conference in Barcelona.
Though maybe it should read "small in scale, for now", because unless they intend to scale it I'm not sure what use it would provide consumers.
I'm on the fence about whether I'd ever sign up for this, but it barely matters - the point is that it'll bring competition to the big four, much like Google Fiber has done.
Very few people could access Gmail initially. If it's out there, and people start to hear about 1gbps internet service (Google is tremendous with PR), it becomes an idea in the public consciousness. That immediately changes everything, even if the reach only ends up being 5%. Perception can be incredibly valuable. Your average person has no idea what the Google Fiber reach is, they do not care; they've heard about it though, and now they know that 1gbps Internet is possible and exists for the $70 they're already paying for 25mbps.
When the first iPhone came out, I didn't think much of it, but I had heard of it. I wasn't much of an Apple fan. Then I saw a guy play a nice video on it, from a trip he took to Tibet. Even though my carrier didn't have the iPhone circa 2007, that video's quality immediately changed everything about how I perceived phones and what I wanted out of them. My expectations were forever shifted upon seeing / knowing that was out there.
I only wish I could get 25mpbs internet speeds. It's not that I'm willing to pay thousands of dollars for it - Comcast told me that they needed to upgrade their infrastructure to be able to offer me anything above the lowest package that I'm already paying over $100 for (just for internet). Over the past 20 something years and the billions of dollars in profit - they are just getting around to upgrading their hardware now...
Did I mention that they refuse to let me purchase my own mode digressing from the fact that they keep raising the modem rental fees? They claim something about proprietary network information and a hash that is used on the modem. My bullshit detector went off the scale - I'm not sure if they genuinely don't know or just don't want to tell me.
> Then I saw a guy play a nice video on it, from a trip he took to Tibet.
> changed everything about how I perceived phones
Windows Mobile was able to do this many years before Apple. People disliked Windows Mobile because it was made for the power user and the interface wasn't very friendly. I will always have a certain love for Windows Mobile especially considering the ability to make applications in VB6. VB6 language sucked but it was easy to use and learn - when I had a Windows Mobile phone I wrote a TCP client/server app to remote control the audio on my computer in about 5 minutes in VB6. It wasn't pretty but it did what I needed it to do.
I see this mentioned online, but are you sure this is an actual policy somewhere you've signed, or just what you've heard?
I've setup Comcast in 3 locations where I've lived on opposite sides of the country in the last 8 years or so and not once have I ever gotten any flack about using my own modem.
Once the tech comes to wire up my house and verify my signal is correct etc, I just call the 1-800-comcast number and connect to their internet reps and tell them I have a new connection and a modem I'd like to associate, give them my MAC address and I am on my way.
This is an actual policy - apparently only applies to those who have static IPs (how convenient for them...)
> I just call the 1-800-comcast number and connect to their internet reps
I wish it was this simple. Apparently I have an account that is neither business or residential. I have business services (due to the static IPs) but whenever I call the system goes "oh you have a residential account let me connect you".
Till the day I die I refuse to believe that they don't have a master database that they could not have just punched in the MAC address. There is no way a multi-billion dollar company can't figure that out. I get that broadband is complex - but there has to be a way for me to use my own modem.
Don't even get me started on my modem upgrade and their "SLA".
Also do you have a business or residential account?
I've never had the need for one as my IP address hardly ever changes, and if it does I've just had a cronjob that updates Route53 automatically every $X hours so it isn't an issue.
Also here is a site made by Comcast showing you what DOCSIS type modems are compatible with their service. You can bring your own cable modem without issue. I would call their number, tell them you need to hook up your modem because you've upgraded and give them the MAC and that will be the end of it.
Apparently there are only a select number of DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems that support multiple static IPs.
As a note - even though your IP may not change - the rest of the world knows it's a residential IP and many email servers will automatically bounce email from you.
No one questioned what make/model I had at the time, I just gave them my MAC and I was on my way. The networking folks have been helpful and just did what I asked and we were on our ways.
I don't know if they would have flagged anything if my MAC didn't happen to be in range of an approved company and I would have gotten any grief; I'd buy one off that list from Amazon and return the Comcast provided one.
Regarding the iPhone, you're spot on. What captivated me about it, was seeing how natural the interface was for the person to load up a video and use it. Plus, the presentation - the screen, the phone's design, the video quality, for the time were beautiful. At that point in time, I associated Windows Mobile with products such as the Palm Pilot and Handspring. The iPhone, to my impression, was an entirely new epoch.
Only 16Mbps down/3Mbps up - which is kind of funny because they have a "speed test challenge" where if they can't offer you fastest speeds then they are supposed to give you $150...
I do have a block of 5 static IPs (well...technically 6) for an extra $20. However, the increase in modem rental fee making me rethink using Comcast (that and I get faster speeds off my phone...).
However they're continually expanding to new cities and doing Fiber for actual business value. Yes it's a slow rollout but I think "experiment and learn" is an understatement, similar to this wireless announcement.
FYI, source of Fiber announcement, 2010: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-ou...
Also, if a small investment in the space can spur the incumbents to increase their own investment, the leverage Google gets from their own small investment is tremendous.
Republic is more focused on cutting costs by providing a more efficient (but basic) service... which is a very different business.
(And Google's in a great position to make sure that the WiFi that gets deployed actually works well enough to reliably support VoIP, which has been the biggest problem Republic faces.)
Personally I think an independent Republic is the most interesting business because they have a lot of room to really drive prices down, something they couldn't do within Google.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGAnDQEQJ_s
[2]: http://www.rearden.com/DIDO/DIDO_White_Paper_110727.pdf
If people can look at a few places and see that it's possible to have affordable wireless service that makes a profit, then it might kick more municipal providers into delivering the service, and provide more competition for the big boys.
That together with other technical innovations google is talking about could, in a later stage let google offer an attractive service - or push the carriers to do so, and thus lower wireless costs.
As for what those technical stuff , few possible ideas:
1. A wifi bandwidth exchange, that could let wifi access point owners compete and charge for bandwidth, and that including monitoring and quality assuarance for customers.
2. Offering small business a wifi access point that includes some marketing incentives and free software(maybe POS, etc) in order to entice them to provide wifi bandwidth.
3. There are few companies offering wifi based backhauls at speeds of 300-1000 mbit/sec which could solve the access issues of those wifi access point providers. An alternative technology for this would be 60ghz smart antenna - and google bought alpental technologies, a startup that does this sort of thing.
4. Let phones support dynamic roaming based on price and quality.
5. I think in certain areas - like rural areas, google loon can play an important part.
6. Maybe with those changes, google can achieve a low enough bandwidth costs , that it could offer a basic plan for free - which will solve the marketing problem and subsidize with ads and selling extra bandwidth. But i'm leaning less towards the free plan, because google is interested in mobile video catching on.
I'm skeptical about your second point too as many businesses can afford internet connections, especially if there are any advantages to be had sharing them publicly.
Your final point, it is hard to imagine google caring to offer western audiences free internet. This is a very incremental benefit to a modern country, something like 87% of the USA [1] may already be online.
I think this is practice for doing it globally where internet can be very niche.
And if they succeed in building infrastructure that way, that's the whole game.
The part about the free wireless,yes 87% of the u.s. is online, but with regards to mobile internet, maybe some people prefer a zero bill, and in general zero(even with an option to premium) is a good marketing technique. But that's just one option.
I hope it's for the whole world, in addition to their Loon project you mentioned they also made a billion dollar investment in SpaceX to prepare for a multi-planet internet - http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/19/7853099/google-spacex-fund..., they're looking globally and interplanetary, one already-connected country seems like such a tiny goal.
Isn't Google worried about that hurting user experience?
Edit: I find it interesting that this comment got all the way to at least +5 and has now descended to -2 as I edit it. Apparently what I said was more polarizing than I thought -- I honestly thought it was something that everyone agreed with.
> The service would be small-scale and not intended to
> compete with the big four national carriers...
> Instead, it would be intended to demonstrate technical
> innovations that the carriers could adopt.Has sensibility run out at Google?
The new services are not bloat, but very important steps for Google to take. Just as a startup has to go acquire customers face to face and ask them what they can improve upon, Google has to experience being the customer facing company. Currently, they don't handle or deal with the most important point of the mobile phone sales process. They can't know what problems they can fix or have made for the carriers by having to perform those tasks. It really is quality control for the experience of Android.
Most importantly, Google can provide what no other (to my knowledge) carrier can offer, the ability to have OTA updates as soon as the device manufacturer completes their modifications. This allows Google to push other carriers to reduce/minimize bloatware and to see the cycle from Google to Manufacturer to Carrier to Customer.
Google made the Nexus line of products to be the flagship of Android, and now can provide the flagship of carrier experiences.
Until the anti-trust lawsuits finish winding their ways through the courts...
If I'm reading this correctly, and they're just becoming an MVNO, then they don't have to create any infrastructure (unlike Fiber). In exchange, they get two things: more robust tracking, and a chance to try to siphon off a few of the most profitable customers from the major carriers. Fiber gets them these things as well -- I'm guessing they only roll it out to high-margin areas -- but requires more investment.
I assume that, if this becomes profitable later, they can use Fiber in areas that have it to save money.
I'm not making any assertions about Google's trustworthiness, but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.
On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you.
>but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.
True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?
Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
As I'm sure people are aware :-
1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content
If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc.
Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
You're not constitutionally protected from any invasion of privacy; the 4th amendment requires that authorities explain what they're looking for when they apply for a search warrant. Obviously Google services are not ideal for everyone, and could become less suitable depending on the future evolution of the political climate wherever one happens to be, but for a lot of people what you describe is just not a practical problem.
If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami".
OK, then use 20 different services. For other people, the utility of convenience and vertical integration outweighs the utility of keeping private their searches for 'rubber duckie kitchenware'. (Disclaimer: I have never actually searched for rubber duckie kitchenware)
"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
>"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar.
However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
I don't really do it because I'm super paranoid or because I'm attempting to hide illicit activity. I just don't believe it is any of my ISP's business what web sites I visit should they decide to derive additional "value" (for them) by data mining.
If and when they want to offer to pay me in the form of a substantial service price discount for access to my web history I might reconsider but there is no way I'm giving them that information for free.
Why? It's not like they actually know whether your 80/443 traffic is real browsing or just chaff. One's best bet is to let them datamine the hell out of you for a discount (since they, NSA, and everyone in between is going to do any anyway), and then spend some of that savings on a VPN provider to route your insecure protocols over (as you're already doing, which is why I'm making this point).
I'm looking forward to services that charge less to inspect traffic harder, because I'm hoping it'll making your average person realize that their privacy is worth more than eg $30/mo, and that it can be better protected for $5/mo to a third party. Discounts for traffic inspection is a nice tip of the iceberg for us - some practice upfront totalitarianism that will hopefully inspire development, testing, and adoption of protocols that are truly opaque to the network.
Then again maybe I'm just being too optimistic on this point (hey, I need at least one).
If you sign up for their wireless service they can write in the Terms of Endearment that you auto accept them vacuuming up all your on-line activity.
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+o...