
Google Confirms Plan to Offer Wireless Service - uptown
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-confirms-plan-to-offer-wireless-service-1425308552
======
untog
The important quote:

 _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.

~~~
logn
They originally said Fiber was "to experiment and learn". They're just doing
some Sun Tzu strategy.

~~~
jusben1369
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?

~~~
adventured
It's the Gmail storage theory.

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.

~~~
nadams
> $70 they're already paying for 25mbps.

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.

~~~
res0nat0r
> 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.

~~~
nadams
> 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".

~~~
jeffmould
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.

~~~
nadams
Do you have a "real" static IP or just an IP that never changes? For a static
IP you can call Comcast and request to change the PTR for that IP.

Also do you have a business or residential account?

~~~
res0nat0r
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.

[http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/](http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/)

~~~
nadams
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.

~~~
res0nat0r
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.

------
wtallis
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.

~~~
ohsnap
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.

~~~
wtallis
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.)

~~~
ohsnap
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.

------
julianpye
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.

------
AndrewDucker
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.

------
minthd
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.

~~~
benologist
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.

[1]
[http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm](http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm)

~~~
minthd
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.

~~~
benologist
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...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/19/7853099/google-spacex-
funding-satellite-internet), they're looking globally _and_ interplanetary,
one already-connected country seems like such a tiny goal.

------
billions
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.

~~~
bluedino
In my experience, MVNO's have worse service despite being on the same network
as the big providers. Especially when it comes to data.

Isn't Google worried about that hurting user experience?

~~~
csears
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.

~~~
evandena
Curious if the new FCC rulings will put the kibosh on that, or if the MVNOs
are enough of a separate entity.

------
jtwebman
They are doing this so they can also be a telco company and then the phone
companies have to allow them to use there polls to lay fiber, etc...

------
ggonweb
Techcrunch thread
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9131700)

------
jt2190
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.

~~~
lvs
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.

------
click170
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.

------
steven2012
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.

------
thrillgore
For a while there, Larry Page was cutting a lot of Google services. Now, we're
getting much more bloat.

Has sensibility run out at Google?

~~~
zarriak
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.

~~~
Bahamut
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.

~~~
ethbro
_> If Google decides to mandate phones contain minimal bloat (just Google apps
preinstalled)_

Until the anti-trust lawsuits finish winding their ways through the courts...

------
ocdtrekkie
Now you can have your entire digital life entirely routed through Google. What
could possibly go wrong with that?

~~~
jarin
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.

~~~
ksk
> it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you
> trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness.

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?

~~~
Karunamon
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.

~~~
jacquesm
If all those providers are not in the same jurisdiction it might actually be
quite a tall barrier.

~~~
Karunamon
Not if they want you bad enough. Examples: Assange, Dotcom.

And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...

------
inthewoods
Maybe they're a buyer for T-Mobile or Sprint? Unlikely, yes.

~~~
strange_quark
T-Mobile, maybe, but I doubt Google actually wants to be a wireless carrier.
Sprint already has Softbank to bankroll them.

------
shockzzz
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!"

~~~
ohitsdom
Just google the article title and click through from the search results.
Annoying but it works.

~~~
shockzzz
How do websites actually implement that?

~~~
ripdog
Checking the referrer header.

~~~
shockzzz
Right, forgot about that. I wish something like this was rolled into AdBlock,
but it'd be nice for viewing NYT and WSJ:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-
control/hn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-
control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin?hl=en)

------
chronomex
I can't read this article. Is there a non-paywalled source?

~~~
iamdanfox
It seems you can bypass the WSJ paywall by Googling the article name:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+o...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+confirms+plans+to+offer+wireless+service+site:wsj.com)

------
_RPM
They're probably going to record and store all of the conversations that
happen over their network.

------
3327
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.

