Google to reportedly enter cellular service industry as MVNO running on Sprint, T-Mobile networks

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    philboogie wrote: »
    Ha!
    Also if this happens:

    “Your wife will be right back on the phone…after these words from our sponsors”

    As a semi-retired person these days I hardly ever use the phone as a phone, so I'm OK :) I always let it go to VM so i can think of a good excuse reply first. ;) If I want to contact my wife I use iMessage. After so long using email I find instant communications annoying, as I say, I prefer to contemplate anything before replying, emergencies excepted of course.

    Of course in voicing support i am hedging my bets. In case Google achieve world domination I want it on record i did say a few good words ;)

    Not someone who likes to think on their feet, eh?

    Fair do's. We can't all be quick-witted.
  • Reply 22 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bighype View Post



    No other company scares me as much as Google scares me. They're totally evil and hell-bent on dominating the world and everything around us.



    What I want to know is how are they not in court for being a monopoly?



    Dear AI members, degooglify your lives as much as possible. When a single company has this much data on people, they will use it to suck as much money out of you as possible and that data is also in the hands of the government. And government can now jail you for for all kind of minor infractions.



    If you can work in the Knights Templar and the RAND Corporation, I'll subscribe to your newsletter today.

  • Reply 23 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    It should also be noted that Google and Fidelity just bought a 10% stake in Elon Musk's rocket company SpaceX. There is talk of SpaceX deploying their own fleet of satellites to create a satellite-based alternate Internet...an Exonet, if you will.



    http://www.cnet.com/news/google-reportedly-in-satellite-investment-talks-with-spacex/

     

    Latency.. latency, latency.

     

    Satellite based internet will never be all that great, except for those who cannot get land line or even cell based internet..

     

    Reason is latency.. they satellites are so far up that you end up with really laggy response times.. especially for any type of games or VoIP or Video teleconferencing.. useless basically..

     

    If it were that easy, Dish and DirecTV would have something much more popular than they do now. 

  • Reply 24 of 67
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    IMO...

    This might be a prelude to Google rolling out Google Glasses 2.0, automated cars, and a few other services that need always-on data.

    Like if you think about it, the gordian knot in getting people to use these services is the constant worry about paying to use free services. Get rid of the mobile carrier from the decision, and people will be far far more willing to use services like Google Maps for more than just quick turn-by-turn instructions to their destination.

    Like back in the day of Blackberries, a different data network was used (used also by the Apple Newton Messaging card) before moving to GPRS.

    Mobile Data is now fast enough at LTE speeds that "cloud" services become possible. But unless there is 100% coverage, there Google has no control over Sprint or T-mobile in where their cell towers cover. A lot of missing coverage is in congested places like convention centers and subway/transit stations. These are the very places that people are more likely to use data services to find what they need nearby.

    For automated cars, there needs to be 100% coverage, including under bridges and tunnels. And the coverage can't just degrade to EDGE 2 miles outside the LTE service area.
  • Reply 25 of 67
    The late Mr.Jobs talked about a company should be focused and "saying no is a good thing".I'm beginning to think that Google needs to focus more.
  • Reply 26 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    bighype wrote: »
    No other company scares me as much as Google scares me. They're totally evil and hell-bent on dominating the world and everything around us.

    What I want to know is how are they not in court for being a monopoly?

    Dear AI members, degooglify your lives as much as possible. When a single company has this much data on people, they will use it to suck as much money out of you as possible and that data is also in the hands of the government. And government can now jail you for for all kind of minor infractions.

    What about Google scares you? Honest question.

    Unlike your current cell provider Google wouldn't be selling your information to 3rd parties. ATT does. So does Verizon. So does Sprint. So does Telefonica
    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513016/how-wireless-carriers-are-monetizing-your-movements/
    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/419101/mobile-data-a-gold-mine-for-telcos/

    Google does not. What they "know" is used to deliver ads for products and services you might be interested in, and from companies like GM, Bass Pro, Proctor and Gamble... and even authorized sellers of Apple gear. That's the scariest thing you can think of, an ad that might (or might not) interest you?
  • Reply 27 of 67
    There will be ads.
  • Reply 28 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    adrayven wrote: »
    Latency.. latency, latency.

    Satellite based internet will never be all that great, except for those who cannot get land line or even cell based internet..

    Reason is latency.. they satellites are so far up that you end up with really laggy response times.. especially for any type of games or VoIP or Video teleconferencing.. useless basically..

    If it were that easy, Dish and DirecTV would have something much more popular than they do now. 

    Elon Musk claims his SpaceX satellite internet venture will be low latency, with satellites in low-Earth orbit. Rather than the typical 26K miles above the Earth like HughesNet and other use he's planning to array his at around 750 miles, where latency would effectively be a non-factor for the most part.
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/197711-elon-musk-unveils-new-plan-to-circle-to-earth-in-satellites-for-fast-low-latency-internet
  • Reply 29 of 67
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 473member
    Be scared... When you hear Amazon wants to offer you telcom cellular services.
  • Reply 30 of 67
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,638member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Elon Musk claims his SpaceX satellite internet venture will be low latency, with satellites in low-Earth orbit. Rather than the typical 26K miles above the Earth like HughesNet and other use he's planning to array his at around 750 miles, where latency would effectively be a non-factor for the most part.

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/197711-elon-musk-unveils-new-plan-to-circle-to-earth-in-satellites-for-fast-low-latency-internet

    However, these satellites won't be in geosynchronous orbit because they have to travel very fast to keep gravity from causing them to fall back into the Earth's atmosphere. There would have to be a lot of satellite shifting to make this work. There's also a lot of space junk in LEO so it would be interesting to see how many of Elon's satellites have accident avoidance (and forgiveness :-) ). Saying OTA transmissions of 750 miles would not have any latency is a stretch unless he's developed some light-speed electronics.

     

    information on low earth orbit http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/satellite/4/4a/4a.1.html

  • Reply 31 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    rob53 wrote: »
    However, these satellites won't be in geosynchronous orbit because they have to travel very fast to keep gravity from causing them to fall back into the Earth's atmosphere. There would have to be a lot of satellite shifting to make this work. There's also a lot of space junk in LEO so it would be interesting to see how many of Elon's satellites have accident avoidance (and forgiveness :-) ). Saying OTA transmissions of 750 miles would not have any latency is a stretch unless he's developed some light-speed electronics.

    information on low earth orbit http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/satellite/4/4a/4a.1.html
    He doesn't say no latency. It's low-latency, so not the issue that it is with a service like DirectTV or HughesNet.
  • Reply 32 of 67
    davendaven Posts: 626member

    To save bandwidth and improve customer experience all while the customer will save on data, the other networks should give their users tools to block the sending of google advertising data.

  • Reply 33 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    All this cheap/free stuff bothers me because it just devalues everything and makes people think they should get something for nothing. Look what dominates the App Store. All this fremium crap. So now people will be expecting unlimited data at super fast speeds for next to nothing whether it's sustainable or not.

     

    It is tough to watch many of my favorite product categories go the Wal-Mart direction. It's gotten more and more difficult to buy nice mid-level power tools from reputable mfgrs, as they're all outsourced and rebranded now. Hell, you can't even buy a high quality pocket tape measure in a store any more. I'd pay $15 for a nice one, but all that's available are the $0.99 plastic pieces of crap unless you go online, where you can't feel the product first.

     

    That said, as long as the bits are traveling at adequate speeds, I think it's tough to complain about free connectivity. The market will work itself out, and I will not lose any sleep over telecoms and cable companies going out of business, if it comes to that.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Elon Musk claims his SpaceX satellite internet venture will be low latency, with satellites in low-Earth orbit. Rather than the typical 26K miles above the Earth like HughesNet and other use he's planning to array his at around 750 miles, where latency would effectively be a non-factor for the most part.

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/197711-elon-musk-unveils-new-plan-to-circle-to-earth-in-satellites-for-fast-low-latency-internet

     

    I don't know. 100 miles is still a millisecond, and you're not always going to have a satellite near your zenith, so 2ms one-way is more likely. Not exactly a good Call of Duty sniper connection. Streams should be doable though.

  • Reply 34 of 67
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    It is tough to watch many of my favorite product categories go the Wal-Mart direction. It's gotten more and more difficult to buy nice mid-level power tools from reputable mfgrs, as they're all outsourced and rebranded now. Hell, you can't even buy a high quality pocket tape measure in a store any more. I'd pay $15 for a nice one, but all that's available are the $0.99 plastic pieces of crap unless you go online, where you can't feel the product first.

    That said, as long as the bits are traveling at adequate speeds, I think it's tough to complain about free connectivity. The market will work itself out, and I will not lose any sleep over telecoms and cable companies going out of business, if it comes to that.

    Except nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. I'd rather pay for things than get them for free so I can be sold to an advertiser.
  • Reply 35 of 67
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,609member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Would Google be allowed to do that? Wouldn't that basically put other MVNOs out of business?

    Nope. For some people, they would rather pay money rather than give up their privacy to Google. Note that there are still e-mail hosts that run paid services.

     

    For others, maybe Sprint/T-Mobile simply doesn't provide adequate reception in the areas they frequent the most (home, work, school, etc.).

     

    Most likely the service won't be free, it'll probably be deeply discounted. It'll be interesting to see how Google prices this offering.

     

    Many questions, few answers at this time since has not provided many specifics.

     

    But for certain, even if you search with Yahoo, Bing or DuckDuckGo on Google's MVNO service, they will know exactly what you are looking for. Same with everything else. A product search on the Amazon app, a stock symbol lookup on the Bloomberg app, local restaurant inquiries using the Yelp app, all of your e-mails even if you use AOL as a mail host.

  • Reply 36 of 67
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Except nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. I'd rather pay for things than get them for free so I can be sold to an advertiser.

    Excellent point. Even without the advertiser into the mix. Nothing good can come from 'free'. A shame not everyone understands the fundamental aspect of 'free'.
  • Reply 37 of 67
    irelandireland Posts: 17,751member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    It should also be noted that Google and Fidelity just bought a 10% stake in Elon Musk's rocket company SpaceX.

     

    Did not know that. Wow. These companies have so much power it's pretty scary.

  • Reply 38 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    Excellent point. Even without the advertiser into the mix. Nothing good can come from 'free'. A shame not everyone understands the fundamental aspect of 'free'.

     

    I get it, but it's just a fair price, and the best value around for my use. . I run AdBlock, donate $20 every year, and that hooks me up most of the time. The majority of what I think Google is doing that affects me is manipulating search results based on what they know about me. This rarely bothers me though, and the majority of the time, it's appreciated.

     

    YMMV. There's been a lot of impending doom from Google's data collection, and yet all it ever does is makes things easier for me. All of my military insurgent revolution plans are run through yahoo! mail behind 8 proxies, so good luck!

  • Reply 39 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Except nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. I'd rather pay for things than get them for free so I can be sold to an advertiser.
    philboogie wrote: »
    Excellent point. Even without the advertiser into the mix. Nothing good can come from 'free'. A shame not everyone understands the fundamental aspect of 'free'.

    You pay for your cell service but still "get sold to an advertiser" by the provider.. Your pay for your pharmaceuticals but still get sold to 3rd party data aggregators who report your drug use to whoever wants to pay for the info. You pay for your car loans, mortgages and credit card use but still get sold by the credit reporting agencies and card providers. It sure doesn't appear that there's any difference between a free and pay service to me.

    But if you prefer to pay to be sold. . .

    At least Google is upfront about targeted ads. Did Verizon or ATT or Walgreens tell you about monetizing you?
  • Reply 40 of 67
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    I get it, but it's just a fair price, and the best value around for my use. . I run AdBlock, donate $20 every year, and that hooks me up most of the time. The majority of what I think Google is doing that affects me is manipulating search results based on what they know about me. This rarely bothers me though, and the majority of the time, it's appreciated.

    No no, by all means, use what works for you. I also use ad blockers, but hardly ever use a search engine to read up on a certain product. For that, I already have my preferred websites. Either already known to me, or links I get form sites like this one.


    gatorguy wrote: »
    You pay for your cell service but still "get sold to an advertiser" by the provider.. Your pay for your pharmaceuticals but still get sold to 3rd party data aggregators who report your drug use to whoever wants to pay for the info. You pay for your car loans, mortgages and credit card use but still get sold by the credit reporting agencies and card providers. It sure doesn't appear that there's any difference between a free and pay service to me.

    But if you prefer to pay to be sold. . .

    At least Google is upfront about targeted ads. Did Verizon or ATT or Walgreens tell you about monetizing you?

    Things are a bit different for me, as I'm not in the US. At this side of the pond, in The Netherlands, some stuff is kept private, other stuff has an expiration date of 1 year. Still, sometimes there's news that some agency had 'forgotten' to purge data older than one year, but stuff like drug use simply isn't being sold.

    True, Google is upfront about their ads. They pop up on top of search results, and I think they are tagged 'shopping suggestions by Google' or something like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.