Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding(wired.com)
wired.com
Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/google-apple-bid-best-cell-service/
21 comments
Exactly, If they are all combined they might as well Merge into one company.
I don't see what's new here. Cell phone service is already a competitive market in the USA, although slightly less so than in the UK.
- Companies that offer wireless service, even though they own no physical infrastructure? Yes, the US has >60 MVNOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
- The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
- Porting numbers between operators? Yes.
The issues aren't technical in nature. The issue is also not that the wholesale market is dysfunctional or nonexistent.
The issue is that an individual wants predictability in billing for usage, without negotiating prices each day. This objective is most easily achieved through serially monogamous relationships with operators or MVNOs.
- Companies that offer wireless service, even though they own no physical infrastructure? Yes, the US has >60 MVNOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
- The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
- Porting numbers between operators? Yes.
The issues aren't technical in nature. The issue is also not that the wholesale market is dysfunctional or nonexistent.
The issue is that an individual wants predictability in billing for usage, without negotiating prices each day. This objective is most easily achieved through serially monogamous relationships with operators or MVNOs.
The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
There's a caveat that data roaming is pretty restricted. My wife visited Bozeman, MT, and was limited to, I think, 10 megs of data, which went very quickly. On the other hand, in the UK T-mobile had unlimited but somewhat slow data at no extra cost.
There's a caveat that data roaming is pretty restricted. My wife visited Bozeman, MT, and was limited to, I think, 10 megs of data, which went very quickly. On the other hand, in the UK T-mobile had unlimited but somewhat slow data at no extra cost.
Yes. But a more competitive wholesale market (which is what the article is suggesting) wouldn't necessarily fix that limitation (on your wife's retail contract).
I stopped reading when the author referenced the energy market as an example to aspire to.
Well, there goes net neutrality. Thanks Wired.
Recently, they also recommended using a product that is no longer being maintained because security by obscurity: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/truecrypt/
They don't seem to get it anymore.
Recently, they also recommended using a product that is no longer being maintained because security by obscurity: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/truecrypt/
They don't seem to get it anymore.
I just read the article you linked… in what way were they recommending using truecrypt? Pretty straightforward article as far as I could tell, I don't even recall a positive recommendation of anything other than bitlocker and time machine.
Hmm, that's not the one I read. The one I read was more recent than May. I must have mislinked. My mistake.
> Well, there goes net neutrality
I think you've mixed up Google and Apple the wireless device makers with Google and Apple the providers of web-based services. The article it talking about the former, not the later.
I think you've mixed up Google and Apple the wireless device makers with Google and Apple the providers of web-based services. The article it talking about the former, not the later.
The interests of one and the interests of the other do not need to conflict. It's in shareholders interest to not have such conflict.
I always did think it a bit odd that I can't just create an "Open Cell Tower" the way I might make an open wifi access point. This is true even if I have the resources and property rights to build such a thing - say, to make sure cell service works for everyone on my private island venue. Instead I have to contract with each cell service provider visitors might use.
That seems wrong. Independent organizations should be able to contribute the the cell infrastructure, be they companies that need service or local governments just wanting to make cell phones work without giving a handout to one particular carrier.
That seems wrong. Independent organizations should be able to contribute the the cell infrastructure, be they companies that need service or local governments just wanting to make cell phones work without giving a handout to one particular carrier.
[deleted]
Can someone with knowledge please explain why an entity can't create an "Open Cell Tower" as YokoZar says?
(Genuine question)
(Genuine question)
Radio spectrum is "owned" by the federal government and leased or sold to private entities at auction. While you can use ISM/UNII bands ("free"/open) spectrum (and there are GSM base stations that run in 900Mhz), you have to deal with interference from every other device in the band. Cell systems are designed to generally not interfere with each other through RF planning and synchronization of TX/RX timeslots. They don't work well in the face of outside noise.
Now, in areas where cell providers don't see ROI on a physical build they will sublease spectrum to a local operator in exchange for roaming rights (sometimes transparently--you might not see "roaming" on your phone). Verizon and AT&T do this in chunks of the midwest.
Now, in areas where cell providers don't see ROI on a physical build they will sublease spectrum to a local operator in exchange for roaming rights (sometimes transparently--you might not see "roaming" on your phone). Verizon and AT&T do this in chunks of the midwest.
Isn't it illegal for a company to make phones and sell service? Didn't they break up AT&T for this.
AT&T was a legal monopoly that did not allow competition in service or allow any one else's devices on its network.
So it forced you to use both its service and phones. Or go without.
So it forced you to use both its service and phones. Or go without.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Would it be great if we could choose a wireless network to join the same way we choose a WiFi network to join? Absolutely.
But that's not going to happen without the consent of carriers. It's not a technology problem that can be solved by an outside entity.