back to article Should Google play carriers at their own game? There's never been a better time

In the week that Microsoft made its last, best bid for mobile relevance, Google was active all over the mobile ecosystem. It had recently announced an investment in satellite venture SpaceX, and was said to be stalking mobile payments outfit SoftCard, and even planning to launch direct mobile services via its own mobile virtual …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As long as they can provide a better service than what we currently get, then I welcome our new overlords.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why be an MVNO?

    It's actually easier than ever. All Google needs is the core and radio connectivity. All the specialist Telecom stuff has gone IP. This means the billing, messaging and all other services can reside in Google's sever farms. Anyone in the business of supplying these services, to carriers and MVNOs, should be worried (and that includes the Chinese players in this space). Google can afford to give away pretty much everything, driving many companies out of business. This move isn't necessarily (merely) anti carrier.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    why would anyone want to be an operator these days?

    Telecoms is a sunset industry.

    The operators and vendors will have a tough time ahead with Apple and Google reaching into their pockets.

    You may think they deserve it and maybe they do, but these are the guys who build the networks took the risk and made the investment. Expect no additional coverage if only Google and Apple (Apple supposedly make 80% of all the profit in the industry?) gain from the investment. If it is win win for telcos then it means the users are getting screwed.

    Disclaimer: I've worked for both mobile operators and equipment vendors. I want out of the industry, maybe the decision will be made for me and Tescos shelf stacking awaits. I see no bright future.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: why would anyone want to be an operator these days?

      "Sunset industry....I've worked for both mobile operators and equipment vendors. I want out"

      Why? If you've got skills and experience you should be in demand, even if not in demand by the established oligopolists. I too work in an industry (energy) where old business models are under continuous assault, where new entrants enjoy a tilted playing field, and where former incumbents believe they are under attack. Factor in (currently) falling energy demand, government regulation, and it too looks like a sunset industry. But that's rubbish - its never been such a vibrant and exciting industry - huge technological change, misguided political meddling, unsustainable "eco" policies that will have to change, new competitors, vast investment left right and centre, significant multi-billion pound problems still to be addressed, new energy products coming to market all the time. There's the impending change to electrified transport that'll reshape demand curves, and possibly the widespread introduction of heat pumps which will change demand further, electricity storage, local micro generation, etc etc.

      Coming back to your sector, until somebody demonstrates telepathy, the situation is similar. The need for telecoms is going to grow and grow, and even if prices are falling, that means new, more competitive business models are needed, new approaches to technology, new ways of merging fixed line and wireless in ways that benefit both (and customers). There's all the changes that IoT will bring, in both demand for connectivity, and in new uses, there's the need for faster delivery of LTE, every prospect of OFGEM's new boss deciding to do things differently. And in both energy and telecoms, the companies driving change are doing so to make money - and if they're making money, you could be part of that.

      If you're thinking that Tesco's shelves are beckoning, take a day out (chuck a sicky if need be), and write down all that's happening in the industry. What are the long term trends and what do they mean in terms of both threat, but more importantly opportunity? Who's eating who's cake? Who's growing? Who's been in the news, and could that mean job opps for you? What skills do you have that are important in this big picture? Who's got problems that YOU could help solve? Who would you LIKE to work for? Can you spot the organisations that maybe haven't yet made a move in the telecoms sector, but have positioned themselves to do so? Are there new entrants with an unstoppable proposition, and how can you climb on board their bandwagon? Where have your former colleagues go on to better things, and can they help you directly, or offer wise counsel on what you need to do?

      Your glass really ought to be at least half full.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why would anyone want to be an operator these days?

        @Ledswinger, a crate of beers for you! thanks for the great feedback, it's really insightful and helpful and cheered me up. I'm too much of a '...half empty' personality type sometimes.

        PS... the free coke got removed from the fridge... I'll start on that diet then...

    2. chris 17 Silver badge

      Re: why would anyone want to be an operator these days?

      some one has to deliver the message from source to destination. The Cellcos and Telcos are merging, IoT and all things digital rely on moving the bits around. There will be great consolidation in the near future likely around the quad play (tv, landline, broadband, mobile) with Three likely to try and "Think Different" with the O2 acquisition.

      There will be:

      Premium:

      Sky: with Vodafone (C&W backhaul for sky BB & Vodafone Transmitters)

      Main Stream:

      BT: with BT Vision & EE (BT for EE Transmitters)

      Value:

      Virgin: with Three (Virgin backhaul for Three transmitters)

      Seems like NTL:Virgin will never shake loose their "National Transcommunications Limited" founding and will seek to push others produce on their net which fits Three's ideology.

      The consolidation is not good for customers or staff but the operators are far from done, there are plenty of profits to be made just by consolidating.

    3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: why would anyone want to be an operator these days?

      "Start Chrome, you are asked to "sign in to Google". Start IE, you are not asked to "sign in to Microsoft". Google is the only browser publisher that wants to know who you are from the outset."

      So all those tax breaks, monopoly guarantees and taxpayer funded infrastructure that was gifted them count for nothing? The telcos were handed their goddamned businesses on a plate - and still are, when you look at tax breaks and protectionism against competition - but somehow it's the telcos you see as "taking the risks?"

      Nyet!

  4. ratfox
    Go

    I'm optimistic

    I have the utmost respect for the trick Google pulled on the operators on 2008, forcing them to pay through the nose for spectrum under conditions which they had claimed were so unfavorable they would refuse to bid. That felt good.

  5. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
    WTF?

    Just as Apple has introduced the user-transferable SIM card

    According to Wikipedia the iPhone came out in 2007 and the SIM card came out in 1991.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      The latest iPads have a reprogrammable SIM, so you can change carriers without having to get a new SIM.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @big_D

        Providing it's to another Apple device....

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: @big_D

          It is the same device! There is no changing to another device, Apple or not. You can decide to change your carrier and just tell the iPad to change plans and use another carrier.

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        The latest iPads have a reprogrammable SIM, so you can change carriers without having to get a new SIM.

        And pushing hardware functions into software has never had undesirable revenge effects, so hurrah.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    it might work

    I agree, now might be the time when an operator is desperate to stay in the market, in this case Sprint.

    Back when Apple was trying to disrupt the market the operators had full control of the handsets, and Verizon locked down everything. Apple did not have enough power to call the shots. At that point AT&T was struggling, and desperate enough to let Apple in. The rest is history as AT&T had the iPhone for a while until the others agreed to take it on Apple's terms.

    At this point Sprint may be in a similar position. Their network is not competitive, their brand recognition is so bad that the can only add subscribers via MVNO. They are damned if they do take a deal with Google, but also damned if they don't.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wifi calling / Wifi first

    That would have been great five or ten years ago, but today it is pretty irrelevant, because calling is treated and priced as a commodity, as is texting. At least in the US, where you would expect Google would try this.

    Since they make you buy calling/texting plans to get data, they segment it so it saves you save little if you choose a less than unlimited calling/texting plan - if that's even offered, some packages only offer unlimited.

    I for one would never sign up with Google as my carrier, even if I could save $50/month, because they already have access to too much data of mine. Do you really want to let them know who you call/text, and when, and where you are at all times? They already collect too much data, especially on those who use Android phones. Don't need them as a carrier so there's even more they can cram into their data mining and advertising maw!

    I can see it now, you call your friend in LA six times in two weeks after not talking to them for six months, and Google starts showing you ads for cheap flights to LA. No thanks!

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Wifi calling / Wifi first

      "Do you really want to let them know who you call/text, and when, and where you are at all times?"

      A) I use Android, so they already know all that.

      B) It's not Google that are the problem, it's the NSA.

      Really, what's Google going to do? Advertise at me? The NSA can put a note in my file that gets me barred from the country which means I can't go to conferences and that leads to a dramatic loss of revenue. Google is an annoyance, not a threat. The spooks are a threat.

  8. chasil

    Google should have bought Page Plus Cellular if they were really serious about this.

    Republic Wireless, Lycamobile, and H2OWireless (or Red Pocket) are already established players on Sprint/T-Mobile/AT&T. There is too much competition in this space for Google to accomplish anything meaningful.

    Verizon has not been hasty in allowing MVNOs onto its towers, and they have all be constrained to 3G devices and speeds until last October, when Page Plus Cellular began offering 4G SIM cards.

    Page Plus was recently acquired by TracFone/America Movil, who immediately closed the Ohio call center, fired all the workers, and moved support to Telmex in various sites of Latin America.

    Failing a Page Plus acquisition, Google should try for AT&T coverage if they want a good network, but they appear to be most interested in a dual GSM/CDMA play with Sprint and T-Mobile. I see little sense in this.

    1. P. Lee

      >There is too much competition in this space for Google to accomplish anything meaningful.

      The point is, Google own the handset which makes things very different. Like iMessage for Apple, they can deliver services between handsets and fall-back to telco services in order to maintain reliability. You can do it with text messages which are async and time insensitive, but voice isn't really an option unless wifi-cellular hand-off is really good and there is no connection fee. That means that the phone is fixed in place -still a profitable area if you want to take a slice of the profitable business VoIP hardware market, but is Google ready to take on Cisco networking?

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      "There is too much competition in this space for Google to accomplish anything meaningful."

      Unless Google launch an all-data Internet of Things MVNO focused on the ability to bind multiple devices together under a single account and share data between them instead of having a bunch of individual packages.

      That is something Google could do that would disrupt everyone.

      1. (AMPC) Anonymous and mostly paranoid coward
        Thumb Up

        Good points, all

        Indeed, "owning" a ubiquitous comm device OS gives Google a very distinct advantage. Exciting (and competitively priced) services with immediate network effect can quickly roll out to a growing market. Mobile voice and internet is a killer app in its own right.

        The potential market for SDN, IoT apps, cloud based calling, roaming exchanges and other cool ideas is huge. Gartner reckons another 1.2 billion android devices will ship in 2015 alone. I can see companies and users quickly ditching legacy phone contracts as more ubiquitous wireless-first telephony becomes a reality. The other mobe sellers would quickly follow the trend.

        I am also a big fan of Google Talk / Hangouts and wish more people would use it. Video and voice call quality is better than Skype, there are no ads and dialing rates to regular phones remain very competitive or free.

        And there are good reasons this is so. One is that Google went on a network infrastructure bargain/buying spree during the Great Recession, back when many were too afraid to invest. Once they start buying up the cell towers, it could be game over for Ma Bell's many offspring.

        But I doubt anyone will miss being gouged by the Telcos, particularly in places like Europe. If the price of low-cost / free mobile telephony is more tracking/privacy issues (probably the main concern), I am willing to trade up as long as my calls and surfing get through anytime, anywhere for less or no money. If I feel overly spooked and all tinfoil-hatty there will still be options like the Black Phone, carrier pigeons and VPNs to choose from. Honestly, sounds like a win win to me.

      2. big_D Silver badge

        @Trevor, I don't know about IoT MVNO, but my current carrier allows me to use up to 4 devices on the same account, sharing minutes / SMS / data, with a data flat (throttling after 2.5GB). If I want more SIM cards on the contract, I have to pay an extra 4.60€ a month for each additional card.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Note the "€" in your post. That is different from the United States of privacy invasion. You'll note that such things in the US are rare, and getting rarer. And it's worse in Canada!

      3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Unless Google launch an all-data Internet of Things MVNO

        And that is when Tonstant Weader fwowed up.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like