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.
It hasn't really moved beyond that right? I would guess at this stage with deployed and regions they plan to deploy in over the next 12 months it's still only 2 - 3% of all US user reach?
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.
> 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?
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.
> but are you sure this is an actual policy somewhere you've signed, or just what you've heard?
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".
Interesting I have my own modem with a static IP running on Comcast with no issues. I never even thought to ask when I switched from my "rental modem". I just bought one and plugged it in. The first time I logged in to my computer the browser defaulted to the Comcast site saying I needed to authorize the modem. Went through some simple verification questions and 5 minutes later was up and running. Never spoke to anyone to hook it up, have not had any problems, and still have my static IP.
I believe only business class accounts can get real static IP's, unless possibly you can pay $10 or so extra a month for the service on a 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.
I did that and they told me that I bought a modem off their list that isn't sold commercially so they wouldn't attempt to let me use 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.
I own a Zoom 5341 that I went out and bought just because it was DOCSIS 3.0. I had no idea that list even existed at the time but my modem happens to be on the list.
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.
I have a "real" static on a residential account. I think it is an extra $5 or $10 I pay monthly for it. When I first got it (about 2 or 3 years ago) they fought me a little on the residential account part, but I went to the office and talked with a manager there face-to-face who was able to get it done for me. I luckily live about a mile from a local office and have always had much better luck with the face-to-face customer service for any of my issues (although I have learned that just asking to be transferred to the retention department usually results in better outcomes on the phone).
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...).
I just interpret "experiment and learn" as something that would stay small scale forever, like an academic experiment or a playground for their developers.
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.
Because it would be an inefficient use of their capital given their other alternatives.
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.
To be exact, I am surprised they were able to make deal with cities where Fiber has launched given telecom franchise basically is a in-or-out. I guess they are Google they have plenty of resource at disposal.
If Google really wants to become a MVNO, then I don't understand why they haven't bought Republic Wireless yet. They had a chance at becoming the most vertically integrated carrier when they owned Motorola Mobility, and they've already got a relationship with Republic's parent company providing the back-end for Google Voice.
Google is more interested in solving the bandwidth cap problem. They want to deploy high speed municipal wifi to solve this. Unlike Republic, they are not looking to cut your monthly bill - Google wants people to consume more data, not less.
Republic is more focused on cutting costs by providing a more efficient (but basic) service... which is a very different business.
There's still a ton of overlap in using WiFi to work around the limitations of cellular. Google won't want their customers using large amounts of cellular data any more than Republic does, because they'll have to face the same cost structure as a MVNO. Google's got a lot more money to throw around than Republic, but they're not going to spend it on subsidizing cellular data costs. They're going to use it on making WiFi offloading more broadly available, and thus they'll be every bit as focused on offloading as Republic.
(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.)
Yup huge technology overlap in offloading but I don't think Google really needs Republic's help there. But your right both are focused on making offloading as reliable and seamless as possible.
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.
I will add to this that Republic Wireless has been a mostly awesome experience. I am not even convinced the bad points have been their fault. Just some times when the bloody phone will not actually make a call for me. (I should note I log a ridiculously low number of hours on voice calls.)
Personally, I have two problems with Republic Wireless: no ability to bring your own device (I'm never buying a device from a carrier again), and an attempt to guilt-trip the customer into not using data (either you're unlimited or you're not, don't tell me I have unlimited data if you're going to gripe when I use it).
Google can and probably eventually will solve the bring-your-own-device problem by making WiFi-to-cellular call handover part of the default Android stack. Until they do, anyone else has to make the modifications themselves, which is about as time consuming as bringing a whole new phone to market. The discouraging of cellular data use is something that all MVNOs have to do because they don't have enough leverage against the major carriers to get reasonable pricing. Google's got part of a solution by being an ISP that can deploy WiFi (and perhaps some cellular service on suboptimal spectrum) to the kind of places that suffer from the most congestion on the cellular networks. The rest is just a consequence of the market being controlled by an oligopoly, and it's not the little guys you should be blaming.
I'm not blaming the MVNOs for discouraging data use. I'm blaming them for advertising "unlimited data". If you have unlimited data, great. If not, don't claim you do.
Well, Republic doesn't have a hard limit on data usage except when roaming (which most MVNOs don't offer at all). Republic will throttle your speed after 5GB but won't cut you off or charge you extra. The only difference between this and what the major carriers that charge 2-3x do is that Republic's threshold is lower and more publicized.
What makes most sense in this space is for Google to build a global MVNO for M2M communication. This would allow them to create a network for devices without roaming restrictions and fully leverage IPV6 without legacy considerations. Right now M2M traffic on GPRS/UMTS legacy networks using IPV4 is a total pain to manage for the carriers and results in poor user experience.
I strongly suspect that this is more about Google showing that "Better is possible."
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.
I think the basic idea here ,is for google to learn about the wireless industry from the inside out, and to start create the basics(brand, customer support,etc) needed for a big business in this field.
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.
Your first point hinges on using existing infrastructure which even within the US is a questionable situation. Being at the mercy of the infrastructure, where it exists at all, greatly limits the value they can create - a project on Kickstarter could achieve the same result.
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.
I read some article about bandwidthX which is a wifi bandwidth exchange. And the estimate there was that wireless providers could get around $5 gigabyte.That's far above internet connection charges, and together with the other benefits i mentioned could be a decent reason for businesses(at least in dense traffic areas) to install this. As for the demand side, it's hard to determine that, but i assume it could be considerable , especially if video is involved.
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.
You could be right - maybe they're just trying to fix a broken system of shitty download limits, there's precedence with their gigabit fiber addressing a political situation.
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.
It would be an MVNO. Maybe they plan to subsidize some of the line cost through advertising. Google could potentially have access to all network traffic for better ad targeting. As a side benefit, they could gain insights into iPhone usage behaviors.
The biggest problem with MVNOs is that they generally only get access to lessor company's towers, and not to any roaming agreements the lessor used to augment their coverage. The most obvious example is Sprint users have coverage in Montana despite Sprint having no towers in Montana (at least a year ago when I was carrier shopping.). But if you were on Virgin Mobile who are a Sprint MVNO, you got basically zero coverage in the state.
Being on the same network doesn't mean traffic from MVNO subscribers is treated equally. When the big providers have congestion, they will apply QoS to prioritize traffic from their direct subscribers over MVNO traffic.
When has google ever cared about the 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.
If the long term goal is to actually roll out their own network (and I don't know if that's true), launching as an MVNO would be the obvious next step towards that.
Not really the first thing I think of when I read "wireless service." From TFA:
> 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.
I suspect the idea might be to merge (and gang) service from multiple carriers and 802.11 more seamlessly than GSM "roaming" and current internet calling implementations, making use of the many available bands in modern radios.
I like the idea of another wireless competitor but speaking only for myself, Ill be avoiding it just as much as I avoid Google search and gmail. I value my privacy and Google has built their business model around depriving me of it.
I hope no one is surprised by this. Once they started with Android, it was glaringly obvious that their eventual goal was to offer free mobile phone service with ads service.
They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt". Android, and in turn Google rely heavily upon Wireless Carriers. There was a much larger threat present in the net neutrality fight, but there are still lots of problems present in getting a cell phone.
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.
In addition, if they decide to ever scale it nationally, they could become a big player in affecting the Android experience. For example, currently most Android phones come with a lot of bloat. If Google decides to mandate phones contain minimal bloat (just Google apps preinstalled), it could potentially force other carriers to follow suit, making Android phones more competitive with the iPhone.
> They realize that they have to do this, like they did with Google Fiber to "disrupt".
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.
Google has an ever expanding pile of cash - now at $64 billion - and nothing they can spend it on fast enough. Going forward there will be anti-trust concerns about nearly any big service they try to acquire. Spending money on fiber and wireless however, will not be an anti-trust concern, it will be welcomed almost universally. They will also be able to sell off these services easily in the future, and exit those businesses at their convenience. They set up Google Fiber Inc. for a good reason, and I'm sure they'll do the same with Google Wireless Inc.
In a way, it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness.
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.
The substantive difference is what, though? A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? To the kind of adversary you're worried about, those resources are nothing.
>A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers?
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.
Well, subpoenas are issued prior to someone being judged guilty. And, I don't know if you agree, but "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very poor justification for any kind of invasion of privacy.
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.
The chances of my information being subpoenaed are remote, and even if it was, the invasion of privacy would be more of an annoyance than any sort of existential problem. I waste a certain percentage of time online reading random stuff. I look at porn occasionally. I consume long-form journalism on obscure topics. I make international calls a few times a month...to immediate family members who live overseas in unremarkable places and circumstances.
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)
You can't evade a subpoena. A recipient could contest it, though.
>"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.
Indeed. This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. Google's cloud is the most dangerous thing in the world, because it's the most tempting target in the world. All of the data about practically everyone in one place.
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.
Always? Really? So a bunch open, unprotected baskets in plain view are better than a single closed, locked and hidden basket? I'm glad you're not in charge of my security.
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.
If something like that bothers you that much, you can do what I do and route your web traffic through a cheap VPS.
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.
> 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
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.
Unfortunately, your average non-technical person probably won't understand the privacy implications of an ISP offering a service discount in exchange for the ability to provide them with "relevant" and/or "targeted" advertising (typical weasel words used to avoid plainly stating your ISP is spying on you).
I hate it when people post HN articles behind a paywall. It feels oddly familiar of Borat's catchphrase, "You will never get this! You will never get this!"
I don't know how WSJ does, but Press+, a vendor used by many local newspapers uses Local Storage to assign a GUID, and then they track the GUID. It's easily defeated.
Thank god. This is a real problem, because the scum known as At&t and verizon have abused and locked in this market for too long. I honestly hope these companies go to 0 and all of their shareholders get punished for investing in such innovation blocking companies.
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.