Google announces Project Fi: Partners with Sprint and T-Mobile for Network Access (previous title: Google to start it's own Wireless Service; using T-Mobile/Sprint for it's Network Footprint.)

[travismheim 604]

TMO sprint will sell wholesale at $/gig. I doubt google could afford to carry a customer if it costs google money to carry that customer.

There are already MVNO's on Sprint that offer unlimited, I'm not sure about T-Mobile though. Why would Google be any different?

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

There are already MVNO's on Sprint that offer unlimited, I'm not sure about T-Mobile though. Why would Google be any different?

They don't offer truly unlimited only a high speed bucket then throttled

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Google definitely wants you to use content, so they can track you and serve you ads.

 

I would expect that unlimited would be a given.

 

I would further expect, that it will be even cheaper if you 'opt in' to letting google track you at an even deeper level than they normally do.

I don't think that per person, that information could make up for someone using 15gb per month on lte for only $50 or $60.

 

Sprint and tmus have an interest in protecting their differentiating asset: unlimited.

[travismheim 604]

They don't offer truly unlimited only a high speed bucket then throttled

That is still unlimited data. For every 15-20GB per month user on unlimited plans, there are hundreds if not thousands that use far less in the 1-5GB range. Besides, I doubt Google would have trouble affording it. Look at Google fiber, they offer far more than their competition at significantly cheaper prices.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

That is still unlimited data. For every 15-20GB per month user on unlimited plans, there are hundreds if not thousands that use far less in the 1-5GB range. Besides, I doubt Google would have trouble affording it. Look at Google fiber, they offer far more than their competition at significantly cheaper prices.

That's diff cause they control the infrastructure. Being an mvno, your costs per gig are probably orders of mag higher than if you own the infrastructure.

[travismheim 604]

That's diff cause they control the infrastructure. Being an mvno, your costs per gig are probably orders of mag higher than if you own the infrastructure.

Its not different. The light users in essence subsidize the heavy users. Wholesale costs are not likely as high as you think.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Its not different. The light users in essence subsidize the heavy users. Wholesale costs are not likely as high as you think.

But they're higher than owning the infrastructure. Much higher. As a infrastructure owner, you're foolish to not make the cost to operate an mvno on your network significantly higher than your operating costs. Otherwise a savvy enough mvno might seriously threaten the infrastructure owner.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Its not different. The light users in essence subsidize the heavy users. Wholesale costs are not likely as high as you think.

Ahem just like the on network sprint voice users subsidize the roamers so there's no need for sprint to restrict roaming? Uh huh.

 

Companies don't care about "overall" they care about the individual.

[travismheim 604]

But they're higher than owning the infrastructure. Much higher. As a infrastructure owner, you're foolish to not make the cost to operate an mvno on your network significantly higher than your operating costs. Otherwise a savvy enough mvno might seriously threaten the infrastructure owner.

Sprint already gets slammed for adding wholesale and not enough post paid subs every quarter because they are low profit. Light users subsidize heavy users, even on Sprint and T-Mobile post paid. They could not afford to offer their unlimited plans for the prices they have if everyone on the plan was a heavy user. Look at what happened to clear.

[travismheim 604]

Ahem just like the on network sprint voice users subsidize the roamers so there's no need for sprint to restrict roaming? Uh huh.

 

Companies don't care about "overall" they care about the individual.

Roaming and wholesale rates are vastly different and can not even be compared.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Sprint already gets slammed for adding wholesale and not enough post paid subs every quarter because they are low profit. Light users subsidize heavy users, even on Sprint and T-Mobile post paid. They could not afford to offer their unlimited plans for the prices they have if everyone on the plan was a heavy user. Look at what happened to clear.

You're talking about network usage (gb) subsidization vs direct $ subsidization.

 

Sprints costs for a user using 1gb vs 10gb are probably not that much higher AS LONG AS the 10gb users are not overloading the network.

This is because sprint owns the infrastructure.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Roaming and wholesale rates are vastly different and can not even be compared.

But they're similar in that the "mvno" pays more than just the OPEX for the infrastructure.

[travismheim 604]

You're talking about network usage (gb) subsidization vs direct $ subsidization.

 

Sprints costs for a user using 1gb vs 10gb are probably not that much higher AS LONG AS the 10gb users are not overloading the network.

This is because sprint owns the infrastructure.

Its still the same thing. A MVNO buys capacity on the network and sells plans. If a MVNO had an unlimited plan, the light users are directly subsidizing the heavy users by paying the same rate plan but using far less network capacity. They couldn't afford everyone being a heavy user, just as Sprint and T-Mobile can't afford it either.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Its still the same thing. A MVNO buys capacity on the network and sells plans. If a MVNO had an unlimited plan, the light users are directly subsidizing the heavy users by paying the same rate plan but using far less network capacity. They couldn't afford everyone being a heavy user, just as Sprint and T-Mobile can't afford it either.

That same logic applies to roaming albeit with higher multipliers. How many sprint subs roam every month?

[travismheim 604]

That same logic applies to roaming albeit with higher multipliers. How many sprint subs roam every month?

The difference is roaming rates are much much higher than wholesale. Why do you think T-Mobile has been campaigning to get fair roaming rates?

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

The difference is roaming rates are much much higher than wholesale. Why do you think T-Mobile has been campaigning to get fair roaming rates?

There's not one mvno that offers truly unlimited data. That's my best argument against google being one.

 

I'm on TMO but i hope fcc rejects TMO's petition. If TMO will really cover 300mil with lte then there's no reason for roaming anymore on att.

[bigsnake49 1,618]

If I remember correctly Apple had filed a patent on dynamically changing the carrier based on price. Some had speculated that Apple was going to bundle service and handset for a price but we have not seen it yet. This is just the first step!

Edited January 22, 2015 by bigsnake49

[Deval 2,887]

And will their cust service speak English.

 

Eh, we all speak English.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

Eh, we all speak English.

Not TMO weekend customer service. They're like my college TAs: take some key words from the question you ask and answer a completely different question.

Small price to pay for using 13GB data per month not including speedtests, music streaming.

[Deval 2,887]

Its still the same thing. A MVNO buys capacity on the network and sells plans. If a MVNO had an unlimited plan, the light users are directly subsidizing the heavy users by paying the same rate plan but using far less network capacity. They couldn't afford everyone being a heavy user, just as Sprint and T-Mobile can't afford it either.

 

What if you got unlimited data capped at 8mbps? But not advertised as a cap, it's still unlimited, just not max peak speeds.At that point network capacity isn't as much of a problem.

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

What if you got unlimited data capped at 8mbps? But not advertised as a cap, it's still unlimited, just not max peak speeds.At that point network capacity isn't as much of a problem.

Something like that I could see having a chance at keeping costs under control.

Google could throttle to 1mbps and it'd still be acceptable. Like go smart.

[sbolen 2,770]

You never know this may be really good choice for some

My guess is android only, so I may end up picking up a device to run on the new network (unless it's BYOD, in which case I'm down with my iPhone 6/future 6S).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987 378]

This could be what forces all smartphones to be multi band like the nexus and iPhone.

 

Could also be what forces sprint to kick into gear with b26 deployments for volte.

[sbolen 2,770]

What if you got unlimited data capped at 8mbps? But not advertised as a cap, it's still unlimited, just not max peak speeds.At that point network capacity isn't as much of a problem.

I hate the ePenis contest for fastest network speeds. I'd trade a 70Mbps+ speed test result 5% of the time for a reliable, low latency consistent 8-10Mbps 95% of the time. I'm on a phone - 8Mbps is more than adequate for nearly all mobile tasks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mhammett 616]

That is still unlimited data. For every 15-20GB per month user on unlimited plans, there are hundreds if not thousands that use far less in the 1-5GB range. Besides, I doubt Google would have trouble affording it. Look at Google fiber, they offer far more than their competition at significantly cheaper prices.

As Gogle is significantly push heavy, the end-users with their pull traffic are essentially free.

 

The difference is roaming rates are much much higher than wholesale. Why do you think T-Mobile has been campaigning to get fair roaming rates?

Because their network sucks?

 

There's not one mvno that offers truly unlimited data. That's my best argument against google being one.

 

I'm on TMO but i hope fcc rejects TMO's petition. If TMO will really cover 300mil with lte then there's no reason for roaming anymore on att.

Throttled unlimited is still unlimited.

 

I hate the ePenis contest for fastest network speeds. I'd trade a 70Mbps+ speed test result 5% of the time for a reliable, low latency consistent 8-10Mbps 95% of the time. I'm on a phone - 8Mbps is more than adequate for nearly all mobile tasks.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. Significantly more useful.

 

And will their cust service speak English.

Google has customer service?