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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    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?

    How exactly is AT&T monetizing me?
  • Reply 42 of 67
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    rogifan wrote: »
    How exactly is AT&T monetizing me?

    By being on a list of their customers (I assume you are since you asked) that they sell, that simple. I would bet that list has as much information attached to each name as they were able to legally garner.
  • Reply 43 of 67
    I would bet that list has as much information attached to each name as they were able to legally garner.

    You mean to tell me it's not anonymous? (yes, not a ¿ but a ?)
  • Reply 44 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    rogifan wrote: »
    How exactly is AT&T monetizing me?
    A couple of different ways...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/att-selling-data_n_3561263.html
    http://adworks.att.com/products/tv-audience-targeting/

    BTW, when you get frustrated at trying to figure out how to stop selling your information let me know. I'll give you the well-hidden link to opt-out.
  • Reply 45 of 67
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,040member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post



    Where does wifi factor into this?

    And why aren't there multinational MVNOs?



    We need handsets that use wifi for most calls, switch to cellular very cleanly when wifi quality drops, and uses the stratosphere towers when out of cellular range (or to augment data provision).

    WiFi/cellular voice handoff is both dependent on the handset (the capability needs to be built in) and the mobile operator needs to support it. Over wifi, voice is sent as packetized data to the carrier's servers where it is converted back into a cellular voice stream and forwarded through the telecommunication lines to the appropriate carrier for the recipient. The handset itself needs software/hardware to say "hey, the cellular signal is getting pretty bad, but WiFi is good, switching over when we get confirmation from you (the MVNO server)." Thus, there's a fair amount of infrastructure that needs to be in place. Discount MVNOs will not offer such premium services in order to keep costs low. For the same reason, many of these MVNOs don't offer Visual Voicemail for iPhones.

     

    There are multinational MVNOs. The MVNO negotiates deals with the local carriers. Unfortunately, the terms of these deals don't make it cost effective, particularly concerning cellular data rates. Multinational MVNOs make the most sense for business users with heavy international travel and need their number for voice calls. The biggest issue is the affordability of high-speed cellular data. MVNOs often cannot access the fastest cellular data networks because the costs are too prohibitively high.

     

    The multinational MVNO I'm using (Tru SIM) does not offer LTE connectivity and their rates vary wildly depending on location. If I go to Mexico and call the USA, it's $0.40/min., and cellular data is a whopping $4.50/megabyte. If I go to the UK and call the USA, it's $0.09/min., and cellular data is more reasonable $0.09/megabyte. However, in both of those countries, incoming calls from both landlines and mobile phones,  as well as incoming SMS are free. Also, Tru SIM users -- like other MVNOs' customers -- do not get prioritized for best cellular data performance.

  • Reply 46 of 67
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    philboogie wrote: »
    You mean to tell me it's not anonymous? (yes, not a ¿ but a ?)

    Truthfully I don't know, it may not be legal these days to include actual name, maybe someone else here knows. Certainly anonymously.

    EDIT: Gatorguy seems to be on top of that question.
  • Reply 47 of 67
    Truthfully I don't know, it may not be legal these days to include actual name, maybe someone else here knows. Certainly anonymously.

    Thanks. I would expect anonymously as well.
  • Reply 48 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    Truthfully I don't know, it may not be legal these days to include actual name, maybe someone else here knows. Certainly anonymously.

    EDIT: Gatorguy seems to be on top of that question.

    Anonymised of course, in the sense there's no name and address included with the data. For a 3rd party it's a really simple process to take what ATT gave them and combine it with other personally identifiable information from CC providers, pharmacy records, loyalty cards and credit bureau data. A company like Acxiom would be a prime example. Google is a relative data welter-weight in comparison.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    @PhillBoogie: Yes Acxiom may well a file on you too. They operate worldwide.
  • Reply 49 of 67
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Anonymised of course, in the sense there's no name and address included with the data. For a 3rd party it's a really simple process to take what ATT gave them and combine it with other personally identifiable information from CC providers, pharmacy records, loyalty cards and credit bureau data. A company like Acxiom would be a prime example.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    @PhillBoogie: Yes Acxiom probably has a file on you too.

    Well as long as they don't cross correlate with the CID I'm ok ;)
  • Reply 50 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post







    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?

     

    Good points, and good to know. I can't wait for Apple to get into the pharmacy, loan, mortgage, credit card, and cellular/wireless industries. ;)

  • Reply 51 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    How exactly is AT&T monetizing me?

     

    http://www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=13692#menu

     QUESTIONS ABOUT MY INFORMATION & ADVERTISING


    1. Do you use my information to send me advertising?

      Yes. We may use information like the preferences you have expressed and interests you have demonstrated on our websites, in our stores and through use of our products and services, to provide you with marketing information and advertisements for AT&T products and services. Those ads may be delivered on our websites and mobile applications. This is called "first party" advertising. It is part of our service relationship and you are not able to opt-out from this type of advertising.

      Our advertising affiliate, AT&T AdWorks, and our advertising partners may also use anonymous information gathered through cookies and similar technologies, as well as other anonymous and aggregate information that either of us may have to help us tailor the ads you see on non-AT&T sites. For example, if you see an ad from us on a non-AT&T sports-related website, you may later receive an ad for sporting equipment delivered by us on a different website. This is called "online behavioral advertising," which is a type of Relevant Advertising.


    2. Do you use my information for other types of Relevant Advertising?

      Yes. AT&T AdWorks also uses information we get through your use of our products and services, from our advertising partners, and information like your age and gender to deliver Relevant Advertising that is not online behavioral advertising. We combine your anonymous information with that of other users into aggregate "audience segments." These segments are based on particular interests and/or factual characteristics that everyone in that audience segment is likely to share. We might use that information to send you advertisements that are relevant to those interests or characteristics.

      We are careful to create Relevant Advertising with aggregate audience segments that are large enough that you can't be identified individually.


    3. Do you use the location of my device for advertising purposes?

      Yes. AT&T AdWorks uses information about the locations you visit in order to create combined wireless location interest characteristics that can be used to provide Relevant Advertising to you and others like you.


  • Reply 52 of 67
    gatorguy wrote: »
    @PhillBoogie: Yes Acxiom may well a file on you too. They operate worldwide.

    Oh my. That doesn't sound good, so I searched. Didn't like the results:
    2003 http://www.computerworld.com/article/2571741/cybercrime-hacking/acxiom-database-hacked.html
    2006 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/acxiom_spam_hack_sentencing/

    "Acxiom database hacker jailed for 8 years
    Florida spammer off to slammer"

    700
  • Reply 53 of 67

    Will your phone only call contacts that pay Google to move to the top of the contact list?

  • Reply 54 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    boriscleto wrote: »
    Will your phone only call contacts that pay Google to move to the top of the contact list?
    If the rumor is even true I tend to agree with an earlier poster that it might have more to do with automotive services.
  • Reply 55 of 67
    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. 

    Security would become the selling point. It's harder to access the data when it's not land based.

    Musk intends to establish this new space based internet before eventually taking it to Mars.
  • Reply 56 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     



    A few people here are worried about that.

     

    Google becoming an MVNO makes sense following their business strategy, more so than buying a handset manufacturer (like Motorola). Everything you do on your phone goes through Google's system. Sure, your handset connects to Sprint/T-Mobile cellular towers, but it's relayed to Google's infrastructure.

     

    Your voicemails? On Google's servers. Your SMS messages? Through Google. Your MMS messages? Through Google. Your cellular data? Through Google. You don't even need to be using typical Google services, they can track you through SMS, MMS, voice, even cellular tower triangulation. All of this adds to their aggregate data so they can sell AdWords, the source of >95% of their revenue.

     

    They want to know more what you are doing with the electronic devices that you are interfacing with.

     

    They will make their service cheap or free (the latter perhaps with curtailed limits). Google doesn't need to make a profit off of MVNO services. They simply need better data to sell Google AdWords.




    Someone is paranoid.

  • Reply 57 of 67
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,040member

    I'd say realistic. 

     

    About ninety percent of their revenue comes from selling Google AdWords. They want to know everything what you do so when you search, they can throw up sponsored ads. That's their business, they're an online ad agency.

     

    I'm a Google shareholder, I read their SEC filings. As a publicly traded company, they are required by law to disclose to current and potential investors how they make money.

  • Reply 58 of 67
    maltamalta Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    I'd say realistic. 

     

    About ninety percent of their revenue comes from selling Google AdWords. They want to know everything what you do so when you search, they can throw up sponsored ads. That's their business, they're an online ad agency.

     

    I'm a Google shareholder, I read their SEC filings. As a publicly traded company, they are required by law to disclose to current and potential investors how they make money.


     

    I am not a google shareholder, I don't read their SEC filings and I know where their money is generated. Who doesn't? So the qualifiers at the beginning of your statement are completely meaningless. How they go about aggregating and segmenting the audience has never been fully understood by many people here "That Evil company sells my personal information to spammers, but I got my tinfoil hat".

  • Reply 59 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    I'd say realistic. 

     

    About ninety percent of their revenue comes from selling Google AdWords. They want to know everything what you do so when you search, they can throw up sponsored ads. That's their business, they're an online ad agency.

     

    I'm a Google shareholder, I read their SEC filings. As a publicly traded company, they are required by law to disclose to current and potential investors how they make money.




    Hahahaha...it all depends on who you've paid at this point. The law is flexible.

  • Reply 60 of 67
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

     
     

    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. 


    I wonder if it is the distance or simply lack of bandwidth that causes latency. Geostationary satellites are at an altitude of about 35,000 km so a radio signal can travel that distance in a little over 0.1 ms.  I've seen terrestrial connections with ten hops each taking many times longer. I routinely have video conferences between California and Japan and also Germany where the distances are about the same and they go through dozens of hops, different networks, undersea cable and yet they work just fine.

Sign In or Register to comment.