Google Prepares To Enter Wireless Market As an MVNO

jfruh writes Google is getting into the wireless connectivity business, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to use them as your wireless connectivity provider any time soon. The company isn't building its own cell network, but will rather be a "mobile virtual network operator" offering services over existing networks. Google says it won't be a full-service mobile network in competition with existing carriers; instead, the MVNO will offer a platform through which it can experiment with new services for Android smartphones.

Re:

[Higaran]

You pretty much need an account to something with any smart phone you'll get. It's not that big a deal, you can opt out of pretty much everything.

Open to All?

[macromorgan]

I wonder if this will be open to all handsets, or just exclusive to Android devices? I was thinking about doing some carrier hopping and would be interested to try them, provided something makes them stand apart from all other MVNOs.

Re:

[mlts]

How will this play to the mobile companies selling Android products? A MVNO is nice, but wouldn't that tick off the carriers, and carriers are the entities that sell Android devices?

Re: Open to All?

[IANAAC]

I imagine it would be no different than any other MVNO, in that they are usually restricted in some form by the bigger networks (throttling, etc.)

I doubt phones would be a problem, since most MVNOs now offer LTE (throttled).

Re: Open to All?

[GTRacer]

Unless I did something without realizing, Google Hangouts does WiFi calling, no root required.

Re:

[radl33t]

yep, I use it exclusively over 3g/4g and wifi.

Re:

[Noah Haders]

No reasonable carrier should care about the handsets you're using. Just stick the SIM into whatever you want, and off you go.

The logic goes, what will att's reaction be considering they spend their time hawking google's android phones but then goog comes in and undercuts them? I would be pretty po'd.

Can you actually buy it?

[jandrese]

It sounds like this is just something they're going to use for product testing. Or if you can buy it you'll find a bare bones service at a higher price point.

Re:

[rogoshen1]

will it work better than google voice? I heard about the forwarding for text and voice.. and thought to myself "hey, now i can get a burner phone and not even pretend to care what the number is" But alas, horrible call quality and every 5th text was silently dropped :(

Re:

[whoever57]

every 5th text was silently dropped :

Every 5th? Wow, that's good. With my T-Mobile service, most texts from AT&T are dropped. I suspect it is because my number was originally a Pacific Bell number and somewhere within AT&T is a database that still shows my number as one that is with AT&T.

Re:

[Xenx]

It's true, they might keep it internal for testing. However, if they do open it up for use I imagine it'll likely not be at a higher price point. If they open it up, they'd want people to actually use the service.

Re:

[phantomfive]

Remember when Apple pushed AT&T to make 'visual voice mail?' Soon other carriers were adding similar things. This is Google's attempt to push carriers to do what they want.

MVNOs..

[TechyImmigrant]

If it lets my phone work through cell towers from multiple carriers and doesn't suck like other MVNOs, sign me up.

Re:

[swb]

I don't know how an MVNO can be cheaper than a carrier except for cheapskates who want those weird, super low-end plans because they're always on wifi and only use their phone for emergency calls away from wifi. I can't see an MVNO ever able to buy airtime and sell it cheaper than carriers can directly without strange limits or associating with a sucky carrier with shitty coverage and slow data.

I'd like an MVNO that could associate with multiple carriers, let me rank those carriers by preference but overr

Re:MVNOs..

[Dorianny]

Reasons MVNO's can resell airtime at cheaper rates.

No phone subsidies.

No paying other carriers early termination fees

No data roaming agreements

No visual voice-mail and other "value added" services

No bloated management team endemic of large corporations

No huge debt incurred for acquiring wireless spectrum, upgrading infrastructure

MNVO's are not for everyone but for many people they are a great option for service.

Re:

[wendyo]

I use an MVNO, costs $30/month. Unlimited calls, texts, and 500MB of data. Their website and payment plan are wonky, but I hate AT&T and Verizon, and am wiling to put up with a little. To be fair, I've been screwed far worse by both AT&T and Verizon than by my MVNO.

Re:

[Noah Haders]

I'm on ROK mobile, uses att's network, $33/mo, unlimited talk/text, 5gb lte/ unlimited 3G. Pretty sweet deal.

Re:

[radl33t]

freedom pop gives better service for free if you live in a good coverage area.

Re:

[wbr1]

I don't know how an MVNO can be cheaper than a carrier except for cheapskates who want those weird, super low-end plans because they're always on wifi and only use their phone for emergency calls away from wifi. I can't see an MVNO ever able to buy airtime and sell it cheaper than carriers can directly without strange limits or associating with a sucky carrier with shitty coverage and slow data.

I'd like an MVNO that could associate with multiple carriers, let me rank those carriers by preference but override my preference if another carrier has a better signal by some threshold as well as provide VoIP service to my PC or any of the cheap SIP devices.

I use ting. My main contacts use hangouts or kik for messaging, so texting is low. I use my phone as a media player but store most of the music on the phone. 32 GB is plenty if managed correctly. Calling is low, as my main contacts use messaging more. I am at work or home mostly and wifi is automatic. When I travel on 2-3 weekends a month, hotel wifi is mostly free, and enough for phone data. Consequently, even though I browse quite a bit my data usage is typically under 1.5GB per month.
This is for

Re:

[hankwang]

"Our average ting bill is So with proper management"

Looks like slashcode ate the less-than sign and the rest of the paragraph...

Re:

[wbr1]

$54 per month.

Re:

[wbr1]

Ting now works on CDMA (sprint) and GSM (tmobile). If you have a phne with all the bands,it is as simple as buying another sim ($9) and popping it in.

Re:

[emil]

Ting actually roams on Verizon. If you want that, you will not be on GSM.

Google has jumped the shark.

[emil]

If they had any real intention of competing in this space, they would have bought Page Plus Cellular. Even a purchase of BYO Wireless [byowireless.com] would make more sense than another Sprint has-been

This is another round of Google Plus - great sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Too bad

[neminem]

I was just commenting to a friend just yesterday how much I hoped Google would decide to get into the phone carrier market as themselves, as it would really shake things up - if anyone could get mixed cell/satellite communication down to affordable prices and thus make internet finally *truly* available anywhere on the planet, it'd be Google. And I long for that day (i.e. the day where one doesn't have to pay cruise ships their hilarious gouging rate for basic connectivity, for instance.)

I suppose setting u

Re:

[neminem]

What I see in Google is the only company that pulls off ads and spying *without* being annoying or terrible. I hate companies that inject ads into things such that it gets in the way or makes it harder to do what you were doing. I hate companies that spy on you without your permission and then do sketchy things with the results. Google ads don't get in the way, they tell you straight-up that they're spying on you, and they don't generally do anything terribly sketchy with the results. Thus, they can spy on

Re:

[tlhIngan]

What I see in Google is the only company that pulls off ads and spying *without* being annoying or terrible. I hate companies that inject ads into things such that it gets in the way or makes it harder to do what you were doing. I hate companies that spy on you without your permission and then do sketchy things with the results. Google ads don't get in the way, they tell you straight-up that they're spying on you, and they don't generally do anything terribly sketchy with the results. Thus, they can spy on

Re:

[Chris Katko]

>Google [...] Ads injected into phone calls and/or even more blatant spying on our conversations?

I think you mispronounced "Samsung."