backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by jtesoro.. on Oct 2 at 10:27 AM

New plan would reduce providers to "dumb pipes" telecoms say

Google over the last decade has established dominance of the personal computer-driven internet.  With the internet ecosystem expanding into the wireless and cell-phone markets in leaps and bounds, it was only natural that Google focus on the mobile side in order to gain control of new territories in its internet empire.

The first step was the official debut of its Android OS which officially launched with the release of T-Mobile's G1 smart phone last week.  While some phone companies loathed giving up proprietary control of their platform and potential ad-revenue, the allure of Google's free software and potential lucrative deals was too great, and many mobile carriers are giving in.

Now Google has outlined the next stage of its plan for the wireless future in a patent filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which outlines a plan for an "open" wireless world.  Under Google's vision, phones, laptops, and other wireless devices would not be stuck with one service or network.  Rather, they would be able to access any available network, selecting the one at the best price.  This, Google says, would foster creativity and would give the consumer more for their money.

Under its vision, users could also use low-cost or free networks.  Web surfing on the phone would be easy with access to Wi-Fi or WiMax networks, perhaps using the currently unavailable "white space" spectrum.

Google's plan comes much to the chagrin of mobile carriers in the U.S.  Under the current market, most telecoms operate tightly closed networks.  Customers leaving the network are dealt high fines, and returning customers are typically offered little incentive to stay.  When roaming outside a particular network's coverage, mobile carriers typically provide service through agreements with other networks, but using these competitors' networks when roaming costs an arm and a leg, so to speak.

This runs contrary to the world of personal computers, which can access any available network that they have permissions to, choosing from a broad selection of Wi-Fi, cable, or DSL connections in various locations.

Some carriers have begun to adopt parts of Google's plan.  Apple's iPhone, despite being locked to AT&T's network, allows consumers freedom when it comes to internet browsing, by allowing access to local Wi-Fi networks.  And Verizon recently announced that it would not penalize customers for breaking contract if they paid the full price of their cell phone.  Additionally, all four major mobile carriers in the U.S. have agreed to pro-rate any existing fines, making the cost of leaving the plan late less than breaking contract earlier.

However, the carriers are also far less open than they like to advertise.  Verizon Wireless' much bragged about Open Network Initiative is not open at all, but merely speeds certification into the wireless brand network. T-Mobile CEO Robert Dotson recently stated, "Even though on the outside (an open device network) looks enticing, there still needs to be a minimum level of control to safeguard security and privacy."

For now, Google is chained by the telecoms demands.  Its new first-gen Android smart phone will be locked to T-Mobile's network inside the U.S.  However, Google isn't giving up its dreams of wireless freedom.  It's investing in municipal Wi-Fi and is pushing for free access to "white space" spectrum, the part of the spectrum between TV channels.

Google may have a long hard road ahead, but the company seems determined to continue its mission of wireless freedom, no matter who opposes it.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hope it goes forward.
By Radnor on 9/29/2008 9:35:50 AM , Rating: 3
I really hope they can pull it. They are partially right, the infra-structure is already there.

They just need to capitalize. Of course this agenda will trash traditional telcos. Not that would be a bad thing i guess. Communication should be cheaper by now.




RE: Hope it goes forward.
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 9:53:52 AM , Rating: 5
Honestly most of Google's great ideas revolve around other people and companies doing things. They claim to have the answer to our power problems. But they fail to address the fundamental flaws of it (insanely high price of solar and wind + power grid that can't handle it). Instead they expect others to handle it and the insane costs that go along with it.

The same with this open networks idea. Why are companies going to invest in things they have to give away for free? I mean I have no problem signing a contract for a phone. I get it cheap and only commit 2 years to the service. If it doesn't work well, almost every provider has a clause in the contract that says you can get out within 30 days without penalty. So if you find a better deal when your contract is up, you can move to it, taking your number along (which was the main deterrent before).

I think the only real industry that has a true monopoly is the cable/internet industry. As there is almost no ability for better services to move into your area.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By therealnickdanger on 9/29/2008 10:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
Google excels at getting other companies to give stuff away for free so that they can reap the ad dollars. Do no evil.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By quiksilvr on 9/29/2008 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure Google shares the ad revenue with the companies.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Radnor on 9/29/2008 11:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly most of Google's great ideas revolve around other people and companies doing things. They claim to have the answer to our power problems. But they fail to address the fundamental flaws of it (insanely high price of solar and wind + power grid that can't handle it). Instead they expect others to handle it and the insane costs that go along with it.

It is for a very simple reason. If the telcos refuse to do it, Google will. As i said, partially the infrastructure is there. Ever heard of internet through the power lines ? that is just a simple example of under used infrastructure.

The same with this open networks idea. Why are companies going to invest in things they have to give away for free? I mean I have no problem signing a contract for a phone. I get it cheap and only commit 2 years to the service. If it doesn't work well, almost every provider has a clause in the contract that says you can get out within 30 days without penalty. So if you find a better deal when your contract is up, you can move to it, taking your number along (which was the main deterrent before).


Well, telcos make a killing. Maybe it is time to reduce margins. And to end the market of absolutes behind it.

About the "green" power sources. They will be more than enough once they start working on the power grid. 9% efficiency from source to destination sucks. It is worse than the combustion engine. And that is a very inefficient example.

About Internet providers i agree. But this wifi option will touch them as well. So i really hope it goes forward.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
9% efficiency from source to destination sucks.


WTF are you talking about? Transmission loss in the power grid is about 7%. That means around 93% of the power generated gets to its destination.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Radnor on 9/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hope it goes forward.
By HinderedHindsight on 9/29/2008 12:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/oper...

Nuclear reactors can hit up to 98% according to NEI.

Now, whether you believe this info or not, that's up to you.

Personally I'm for a mixture of solutions to energy problems, including solar and wind.

I think something that gets lost in this debate is geographic and social viability. For example, you don't want to put a nuclear power plant where soil is fertile and farmland would be a better use of the land. In this case, wind turbines would be a solid solution as these areas usually don't require as much power, and wind turbines do not require as much continuous land as nuclear power plant does.

Power plants are better suited for areas with large bodies of water, preferably salt, since it is so abundant. Freshwater is better used for reservoirs, etc.

You both need to stop being so one sided about the nuclear debate.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By HinderedHindsight on 9/29/2008 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
As a side note, this is something that farmers (both corporate and individual farmers, the few that are left) could do to help create profits. Sublet portions of their farmland to energy companies to generate energy, or better yet, buy the turbines themselves, link to the power grid, and start trading energy.

Granted there is extra cost in laying cable to remote areas, etc, but I think something we've all learned in technology is that a decentralized, distributed approach may be more costly initially, but in the longer term, it is overall safer and provides backup methods which saves you the cost of lost productivity.

Talk about diversification.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about power plant up time or efficiency. We're talking about the efficiency of the power that's transmitted over the power line.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 6:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You both need to stop being so one sided about the nuclear debate.


There is no nuclear debate. There is a right side, and a side comprised of fear mongering knuckle dragging idiots living in caves.

Any questions ?


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By monitorjbl on 9/29/2008 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
I would imagine that it varies based on your distance from the power plant, but this ought to give you some idea. FIT was about right, it's around a 7% loss on average:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_transmiss...

Now, as far as your power plant's efficiency is concerned, I couldn't tell you; you'll need to do some research on your particular power company.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Jimbo1234 on 9/29/2008 2:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what the fuel is, most power plants use steam turbines to generate the electricity. The fuel is used to make steam. That means at best mid-40% efficieny. Look up the Rankine cycle in any thermodynamics text and see for yourself. Then there are the losses due to resistance in the transmission lines, and varying power factors of AC devices being used.

So I call B.S. on anyone claiming 90%+ efficiency on anything.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Solandri on 9/29/2008 2:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
Transmission efficiencies are generally 90%+. I thought that was the original context of the original claim?

If you're factoring in generation efficiencies, then yes fossil fuel and nuclear-based steam turbines are around 40%-60%. But solar is around 15%. Wind is probably down there as well depending on what you use as your baseline (as the windmill becomes more efficient at extracting energy from moving air, it creates a "bubble" of higher pressure air which nearby wind simply goes around). Hydro does the best because the water is forced through the turbine (and nowhere else), yielding about 80%-90% efficiency.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2008 6:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Numbers meet common sense.

Shouldn't the fact that a fuel rod provides power for years factor somewhat into your efficiency argument ??


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2008 1:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going off wikipedia's numbers. What numbers are you going off?


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By InvertMe on 9/29/2008 1:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FITCamaro on September 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM

I'm going off wikipedia's numbers.


Well there's your problem.


RE: Hope it goes forward.
By Solandri on 9/29/2008 2:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
In this case, the wiki is correct.