Google becoming a wireless carrier?

[supert0nes]

I don't see the current top of the line handsets as cheap. Even at somebody like Voyager Mobile, the GS III costs $549, which is not exactly cheap. Unlocked iPhone is $649. So, I don't know where you're drawing the line between cheap and expensive.

 

I guess I don't believe that Google is really selling the Nexus 4 at a loss. Take the new Samsung Chromebook for instance. It has a better processor than any phone on the market and is being sold at $250. It's only a matter of time before other manufacturers will have to bring their prices closer to their manufacturing costs. The sum of the parts in our phones just isn't that expensive.

 

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iPhone5-Carries-$199-BOM-Virtual-Teardown-Reveals.aspx

[bigsnake49]

Yeah, but you are ignoring company overhead plus profit. Even at really well run large companies you have a 2.5-3 multiplier. So if you're selling the phone for the manufacturing costs you are losing money. It does not take into account R&D, building rent/mortgage, worker salaries, 401K contributions, taxes and FICA, etc, etc. Forget about the profit.

[koiulpoi]

What!? Mid-2013!?

 

This is pretty spectacular, if true.

 

Now, as we know, Google and Sprint already have a decent working relationship (if Voice and Wallet are any indication)... makes me wonder if there won't be cheap roaming agreements between the two, or something similar.

[supert0nes]

I think it would be very difficult to start a new nationwide wireless network unless it is hosted by T-Mobile or Sprint equipment. Most of the towers I drive by these days are pretty full already.

[WiWavelength]

Yeah, but you are ignoring company overhead plus profit. Even at really well run large companies you have a 2.5-3 multiplier. So if you're selling the phone for the manufacturing costs you are losing money. It does not take into account R&D, building rent/mortgage, worker salaries, 401K contributions, taxes and FICA, etc, etc. Forget about the profit.

 

A large corporation can easily sell a "loss leader" if it is an ancillary product that helps sell its "bread and butter."

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

If 2g networks only use 10kbps for voice, wouldn't HSPA+ be fine? Not sure how gsm works though.

 

Are you referencing this post?

 

Moreover, a CDMA1X voice call requires an average throughput of approximately 10 kbps.

 

If so, keep in mind that circuit switched voice and VoIP are two different animals. Traditional circuit switched voice via CDMA1X can take advantage of variable rate codecs and does not require routing info be included in the data stream. For a counterexample, Google Talk, which can be leveraged by Gmail and GrooVe IP integration for VoIP calling, uses the G.711 codec at 128 kbps (64 kbps each way) plus routing info for a total bit rate of approximately 160 kbps.

 

VoIP is much harder to do well, especially with mobile. This is why I am in no hurry to replace gold standard CDMA1X voice with questionable VoLTE.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I doubt any Google network, Dish network, or Google/Dish network will be organically grown from the ground up. They will either purchase an existing network or do a hosted network deal with Sprint, or someone else. At least that is what I believe.

 

Robert

[bigsnake49]

A large corporation can easily sell a "loss leader" if it is an ancillary product that helps sell its "bread and butter."

 

AJ

 

Sure Google can sell their Nexus products for a loss if they can sell ads/search results/customer profiles. Same Thing with Amazon and their content. Apple on the other hand might be forced to augment their income stream with service revenues in order to compete with Google or Amazon.

[Ascertion]

I doubt any Google network, Dish network, or Google/Dish network will be organically grown from the ground up. They will either purchase an existing network or do a hosted network deal with Sprint, or someone else. At least that is what I believe.

 

Robert

That'd be cool if they bought Sprint out. I have a strong feeling they're going to go with gsm technology though because that's what all of their Nexus devices originally work with.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[bigsnake49]

Yeah, I don't know about bgr.com anymore. They (Dish) might be have their spectrum reclassification approved for cellular broadband use by the middle of 2013, but a network will take a lot longer, even if riding on Sprint or T-Mobile's coat tails.

[WiWavelength]

Sure Google can sell their Nexus products for a loss if they can sell ads/search results/customer profiles. Same Thing with Amazon and their content. Apple on the other hand might be forced to augment their income stream with service revenues in order to compete with Google or Amazon.

 

Tuff nutz. I would say that is Apple's problem. I own quite a bit of Apple hardware -- though no iPhones nor iPads -- but if Apple cannot compete on price with Google and Amazon, then I shed no tears for Apple, which has acted like an arrogant jackass since the release of that spawn of the devil, the iPhone. Apple will have to find other ways to compete, or heaven forbid, accept lower than record profits.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

Tuff nutz. I would say that is Apple's problem. I own quite a bit of Apple hardware -- though no iPhones nor iPads -- but if Apple cannot compete on price with Google and Amazon, then I shed no tears for Apple, which has acted like an arrogant jackass since the release of that spawn of the devil, the iPhone. Apple will have to find other ways to compete, or heaven forbid, accept lower than record profits.

 

AJ

 

That's why I think they are also a candidate for being owners or at least MVNOs of cellular networks and sell hardware as well as service. They have gobs of cash and can make some major moves. So far they have been buying some rinky dink companies.

 

Google's and Amazon's moves arenot going to hurt just Apple but Samsung and other handset makers. I would not be surprised to see Apple make some major investments in Toshiba, Micron, Sharp, LG, TSMC, etc. in order to lower their costs.

Edited November 16, 2012 by bigsnake49

[dmchssc]

Are you referencing this post?

 

 

 

If so, keep in mind that circuit switched voice and VoIP are two different animals. Traditional circuit switched voice via CDMA1X can take advantage of variable rate codecs and does not require routing info be included in the data stream. For a counterexample, Google Talk, which can be leveraged by Gmail and GrooVe IP integration for VoIP calling, uses the G.711 codec at 128 kbps (64 kbps each way) plus routing info for a total bit rate of approximately 160 kbps.

 

VoIP is much harder to do well, especially with mobile. This is why I am in no hurry to replace gold standard CDMA1X voice with questionable VoLTE.

 

AJ

 

What about the newer, more advanced codecs like Opus? They can provide HD-Audio quality (for voice) with 10 kbps.

[WiWavelength]

Google's and Amazon moves is not going to hurt just Apple but Samsung and other handset makers. I would not be surprised to see Apple make some major investments in Toshiba, Micron, Sharp, LG, TSMC, etc. in order to lower their costs.

 

That could be. That would be the hardware route. But that would still leave Apple "vulnerable" on the software and portal side. Apple already has iTunes dominance. Maps has experienced severe growing pains but could become competitive. What Apple lacks is search. Come on, Apple, if you have the chutzpah, take on Google in search.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

What about the newer, more advanced codecs like Opus? They can provide HD-Audio quality (for voice) with 10 kbps.

 

Sure, VoIP codecs will become more efficient. That does not mean necessarily that they will provide better service, only that they will consume less data. Routing, redundancy, and QoS will long be the albatross around VoIP's neck. CDMA1X Advanced circuit switched voice looks like a winner in comparison.

 

AJ

[Tomas]

There are all sorts of things one can do to increase voice throughput once one views bursts of speech as just so much data instead of holding open a switched channel end-to-end even during silence.

 

As far back as in the 1960s, with tube circuits, Bell Labs came up with TASI (Time Assignment Speech Interpolation) where they were electronically switching analog bursts of speech from one conversation into the silent periods of other conversations. That technique more than tripled the number of conversations that could be carried on a fully loaded transoceanic cable.

 

(Most conversations are one-way-at-a-time, which doubles the capacity if one uses the transmit channel of the listener for another conversation. Add in the pauses in conversations and you nearly double the capacity again. Needs really fast detectors and switching, but even that is vastly simpler once one moves out of analog and into digital.)

 

Our TASI circuits used to fascinate me.

[bigsnake49]

That could be. That would be the hardware route. But that would still leave Apple "vulnerable" on the software and portal side. Apple already has iTunes dominance. Maps has experienced severe growing pains but could become competitive. What Apple lacks is search. Come on, Apple, if you have the chutzpah, take on Google in search.

 

AJ

 

I think that Apple plus Microsoft could team up and take Google head on on search.

[slibbidy]

For a counterexample, Google Talk, which can be leveraged by Gmail and GrooVe IP integration for VoIP calling, uses the G.711 codec at 128 kbps (64 kbps each way) plus routing info for a total bit rate of approximately 160 kbps.

 

Ah, this certainly might explain the issues I've been having with GV in Raleigh lately. Speedtest on 3G is showing consistently less than 150 kbps up/down. Calls ring once and go to busy, and people who call me go straight to voicemail. My wife is really on me about switching, but I'm holding out hope that NV will roll out soon even though no percentage seems to have been complete according to S4GRU's deployment status page.

[bigsnake49]

Since we veered off into efficient use of spectrum, I was fascinated by this article:

 

http://www.fiercebro...ency/2012-11-14

 

It would basically allow the use of current FDD spectrum allocations as two TDD channels both carrying bidirectional traffic.

Time-domain transmit beamforming is the key to doubling the efficiency of wireless networks, according to researchers at the Bourns College of Engineering at the University of California, Riverside.

The method enables the use of full-duplex radios, which can double the efficiency of spectrum, rather than the currently employed half-duplex radios. Full-duplex radios are not ideal in 3G networks and beyond because they suffer from interference between the transmission and receiving functions.

However, time-domain transmit beamforming enables the digital creation of a time-domain cancellation signal and couples it to the radio frequency front-end to allow the radio to hear much weaker incoming signals while transmitting strong outgoing signals at the same frequency and same time. "The new solution not only has a sound theoretical proof, but [it] also leads to a lower cost, faster and more accurate channel estimation for robust and effective cancellation," said UC Riverside.

Edited November 16, 2012 by bigsnake49

[S4GRU]

Ah, this certainly might explain the issues I've been having with GV in Raleigh lately. Speedtest on 3G is showing consistently less than 150 kbps up/down. Calls ring once and go to busy, and people who call me go straight to voicemail. My wife is really on me about switching, but I'm holding out hope that NV will roll out soon even though no percentage seems to have been complete according to S4GRU's deployment status page.

 

It changed from 0% to <1% last week. It is starting now in the Raleigh/Durham market. One live site so far.

 

Robert

[Feech]

I have to say all I need is data..They can keep the voice..

[nahum365]

I have to say all I need is data..They can keep the voice..

 

Same here.

[WiWavelength]

I have to say all I need is data..They can keep the voice..

 

All you need is data,

All you need is data,

All you need is data...data,

Data is all you need.

 

AJ

[Ascertion]

 

All you need is data,

All you need is data,

All you need is data...data,

Data is all you need.

 

AJ

 

Without voice, wouldn't this all be muffles?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Without voice, wouldn't this all be muffles?

 

Nope, not with a good VoIP codec and a low latency, high throughput data connection.

 

 

AJ