The Google phone?

[alaskaflyer]

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9747799-7.html

I look forward to throwing my Nokia in the river, advertising be darned.

With full leasing ownership of the 700MHz spectrum, Google will try to effectively cripple the cell phone industry. Before you scoff and say this is a bunch of garbage, consider this: Google will offer the $4.6 billion only if the government agrees to the terms above. And perhaps the most compelling of those terms is that Google is requesting "open devices" that will work on the "open networks." In other words, Google wants to create the ability for companies (and most likely itself) to create devices that will seamlessly connect to the broadband spectrum. Why can't one of those devices be a phone?

 

[RJM62]

I personally think the 700 MHz spectrum is going to auction for much more than the the $4.6 billion Google is offering. It's a fine spectrum with excellent radio characteristics. It's also one of the last spectra that will be auctioned off in the foreseeable future (barring reallocation of some of the Amateur Radio bands). I think the stakes are high enough for the cell phone industry that they'd put themselves into hock to avoid Google obtaining a monopoly over the 700 MHz spectrum.

Cable carriers, I believe, would also consider a Googleopoly over 700 MHz a threat. I already implement stationary EVDO service for clients who can't get wired broadband, but I'm encountering an increasing number of people who can get cable Internet but are interested in EVDO -- at a higher price -- simply because they despise cable companies. The prospect of the cable industry's market share (which is already under attack by FIOS and, to a much lesser extent, EVDO and HSDPA) being further eroded by free broadband ala Google is not something that Time-Warner, Cablevision, Comcast, et al are likely to take lightly.

Also consider that the 700 MHz spectrum could conceivably support virtually every telecommunication service that most people use, albeit differently from conventional technology does it. People in both urban and remote areas could pipe their phone, Internet, and possibly even television signals over IP via radio. With no wires to string, the capital investment could well be lower than that of wire-based services, even considering the cost of erecting towers. Factor in the possibility that this could conceivably kill the cable industry, and I think you have a powerful motivator for them to pony up some buck to keep Google out of the game.

The last factor to consider would be whether consumers would even want a Google phone. I, for one, would rather pay for cell service than have to put up with more advertising in my life. I really am getting tired of ads. It seems like the advertising industry won't be happy until our lives are one non-stop commercial. My monthly combined wireless bill presently approaches $200.00, and I would rather keep on paying it than have to listen to a single ^%(*&%$ commercial before making a phone call.

But I do like the idea of being able to buy a cell phone or other wireless communication device and not be locked into one carrier's service. I've been with Verizon for many years and am happy with them, but the prospect of consumers being able to jump ship at any time couldn't help but improve service and lower prices industry-wide.

-Rich

 

[mikea]

Google wants DIGITAL spectrum, for data. It could support voice but that's not the point. They want to thumb noses at AT&T and cable companies saying Google needs to pay for carrying their content.

 

[JohnR]

I hope it's true. The concept of having "plans" for phone service, with so many minutes per month, roaming, long distance, international, and junk fees and taxes wore thin about the second day I had a cell phone a decade ago. I'm convinced the only thing cell phone service providers have to offer right now is fancy phones, not customer service, lower fees, or simple plans.

As for ads on Google products, I really don't pay attention to them, so I don't think it'll bother me.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

The last factor to consider would be whether consumers would even want a Google phone. I, for one, would rather pay for cell service than have to put up with more advertising in my life. I really am getting tired of ads. It seems like the advertising industry won't be happy until our lives are one non-stop commercial. My monthly combined wireless bill presently approaches $200.00, and I would rather keep on paying it than have to listen to a single ^%(*&%$ commercial before making a phone call.

You make some good points in your post, Rich. As I read this one, I agreed... I hate the encroachment of advertising on every corner of life.

Here's a thought... instead of $200 for ad-free cell, what if Google's service was free for those that didn't mind hearing advertisements, or $30 for those that didn't? I'd rather pay $30 than $200.

 

[KennyFlys]

I think we're overdue for a radical change to the cellular industry. Clark Howard was saying the US is about the only country left where companies nit-pick and bill the customer to death on added features.

For example, of my two accounts on T-Mobile and Nextel, I would have to pay an extra buck a month for caller ID on the Nextel. It has been included on T-Mobile as well as an AT&T account I had years ago. I don't need it on Nextel anyway as it's only outgoing calls. But, can anyone tell of another company who does this? I'm sure there are many more features that are charged for which cost the company absolutely nothing more to provide.

I pay a pretty good price for full phone service on my Treo. Why is it necessary and how much more expense could it be to allow web access included rather than an extra twenty bucks a month? I pay thirty bucks again web access on the laptop's air card.

I'm all for a free economy and market supplier/consumer choices but some seem so ridiculous to charge for or for the high rates still charged. HDTV prices have come down much faster by comparison.

 

[RJM62]

Here's a thought... instead of $200 for ad-free cell, what if Google's service was free for those that didn't mind hearing advertisements, or $30 for those that didn't? I'd rather pay $30 than $200.

Assuming good service quality, $30.00/month ad-free would get me to jump ship.

-Rich

 

[wsuffa]

We can use a good competitor to the closed cellular networks.

Let Google team up with EBay/Skype and see what happens.

 

[JohnR]

We can use a good competitor to the closed cellular networks.

Let Google team up with EBay/Skype and see what happens.

Skype sucks.

They may be ok at Skype to Skype talk, but it's almost impossible to pay them for the Skype Out minutes.

 

[wsuffa]

Skype sucks.

They may be ok at Skype to Skype talk, but it's almost impossible to pay them for the Skype Out minutes.

Hmmm... must have changed recently. I used it a couple of months ago for some international calls and it worked like a charm.

 

[alaskaflyer]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119369951717475558.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Within the next two weeks, Google is expected to announce advanced software and services that would allow handset makers to bring Google-powered phones to market by the middle of next year, people familiar with the situation say. In recent months Google has approached several U.S. and foreign handset manufacturers about the idea of building phones tailored to Google software, with Taiwan's HTC Corp. and South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. mentioned in the industry as potential contenders. Google is also seeking partnerships with wireless operators. In the U.S., it has the most traction with Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA, while in Europe it is pursuing relationships with France Télécom's Orange SA and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.'s 3 U.K., people familiar with the matter say. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment.
The Google-powered phones are expected to wrap together several Google applications -- among them, its search engine, Google Maps, YouTube and Gmail email -- that have already made their way onto some mobile devices. The most radical element of the plan, though, is Google's push to make the phones' software "open" right down to the operating system, the layer that controls applications and interacts with the hardware. That means independent software developers would get access to the tools they need to build additional phone features.