Google patent keeps airwaves competitive by selecting the cheapest

Google's persistent interest in ensuring that the US' 700MHz spectrum would give rise to a network open to any and all devices reinforced its belief that carriers can and should be nothing more than the proverbial "dumb pipes" -- leave the content and hardware to the people who know how to do it and don't necessarily have a vested interest in the carriers' bottom line. That attitude foretold that it had some interesting ideas up its sleeves (this is Google, after all), and while it's never been entirely clear what those ideas are, Android's "please use it, it's free" attitude certainly plays a role. Here's another piece of the puzzle: rather than be tied down to any one carrier, why not keep changing carriers in real time based on whomever's going to give you the best deal? A new patent filed by Mountain View's finest proposes exactly that, bringing together heterogeneous technologies -- "community-wide" networks like WiFi and WiMAX along with GSM, CDMA, and so on -- and an "auction system" that would let the user select (or allow the phone to automatically select) the best deal at the moment depending on their needs (available features or minimum speeds, time limits, and so on). It's an amazing idea that totally turns the contract concept on its head, and it's an idea that carriers would fight to the death. We're not seeing it happening, but hey, Google, we like the cut of your jib.

[Via textually.org and New Scientist]

[Flashpoint @ Sep 27th 2008 1:27PM]

Why doesn't the government develop its own internet/cellular infrastructure, chare us to use it and use that money to balance the budget?

[illicit @ Sep 27th 2008 1:33PM]

Because that is not the purpose of government. That and the government is so inefficient it would never be able to compete with major carriers.

[Juxtah @ Sep 27th 2008 1:42PM]

Because you'd be charged $1000 per minute?

[Dave Skaggs @ Sep 27th 2008 1:43PM]

You really want the government more involved in your life?

[Alikar @ Sep 27th 2008 1:46PM]

Because that is essentially socialism. The idea with capitalism is that the market will eventually give you the best deal. Unfortunately this will not happen with a lack of competition. Which is why you need some regulation to ensure that the free hand of the market is in fact free.

[Flashpoint @ Sep 27th 2008 1:47PM]

the purpose of government is WHATEVER THE DOMINANT POLITICAL THEORIES SAY IT IS.

I'm sick and tired of idiots running around saying government should be doing this - but not be doing this...

Government should not be involved in our personal lives, but, should be banning gay marriage, abortion , etc.

STUPID HIPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT.

The government should protect its people their property and tax them to pay for it. That's a given. Anything else it does or doesn't do should be decided by INTELLIGENT VOTERS. unfortunately, America doesn't have any of them.

These idiots think PALIN is brilliant. Guess they didn't see the Couric interview or DO ANY STUDYING AT ALL about her. Not even that fossil-with one foot in the grave -
John McChicken

[Bill @ Sep 27th 2008 1:55PM]

That's called communism....

[steven @ Sep 27th 2008 3:30PM]

This idiot FlashPoint thinks Big Ears Obama is BRILLIANT. What experience does he have? Oh yeah, he was a community organizer!

[asurroca @ Sep 27th 2008 4:01PM]

If they're illegally wiretapping us right now, imagine if they OWNED the infrastructure. Ouch.

[Nick Catalano @ Sep 28th 2008 4:13AM]

Now, now, lets not attack him without thinking over the idea

Power transmission and other utility lines are already quazi-state/corporate partnerships, because 'competition' is difficult to do when there is really only one right-of-way for utility usage.

In this case we are again faced with a limited resource (frequency) that is already held in a quazi-government/corporate manor.

You cannot have pure capitalism when it comes to a finite resource like frequency spectrum. You HAVE to have government intervention, otherwise people would just be broadcasting signals over each other.

So then the question becomes, what role should government play in all of this? Some may argue that the government should take a more active role in managing radio frequencies in a similar way that they manage roads. This isn't 'socialism', it is simply the government managing finite resources.

[jared @ Sep 27th 2008 1:30PM]

Because the government makes more from the lobbyists of those phone companies who currently run the cell infrastructure, and they would attempt to sue to prevent it from happening anyway.

They do this now with local municipalities and win all the time.

[StatiK EffecK @ Sep 27th 2008 1:48PM]

I love how Google is always fighting on the people's side, not the corporation/carrier side. I have long been annoyed at cell phone companies who lock down their hardware and pretend that its cool to buy their stupid little content - ringtones, songs, tv, news, whatever.

[Mark @ Sep 27th 2008 1:50PM]

I love the concept, but Google needs to put it's money where it's mouth is. Infrastructure is not cheap to build, expand, and maintain; that's why carriers resort to such shenanigans to try to get their money back. If Google was serious they wouldn't have let Verizon outbid them for the 700MHz spectrum. They want someone else to build it, then they can take a free ride on it.

[Valicore @ Sep 27th 2008 3:27PM]

Google only wanted to stay in the game to the point of making the other bidders agree to an open network policy. What would Google want with the 700mhz band anyway? They're an international company that doesn't want to get into using equipment that will only work in the US. And Google does plenty of infrastructure building, you just don´t know about it. One thing that is public is that they own a huge network of formerly dark fiber that is being activated as a backbone for the Clearwire Alliance WiMAX Initiative..

[Flashpoint @ Sep 27th 2008 1:50PM]

Alikar

There is no invisible hand. Their is no FREE MARKET.

If you've been paying attention in the US or in Europe, you've got unconstitutional, unelected people FIXING PRICES and debasing currency.

You've got an American financial system that tried deregulation and created the worst economic failure in the history of HISTORY.

If this was a FREE MARKET, right now, I could sell peanuts to Iran, North Korea or Cuba.

FREE MARKET MY ASS !

[debugy2k @ Sep 27th 2008 1:51PM]

This would be interesting...

[Flashpoint @ Sep 27th 2008 1:53PM]

I agree Jared. However, imagine a government which actually asked the people to VOTE on the possibility creating its own nationwide network and then taxing them to keep it online and maintained.


OH MY GOD... that actually sounds like DEMOCRACY.

[Vik @ Sep 27th 2008 2:03PM]

Flashpoint, I agree with you about democracy and us not having a free market, but I don't want the gov't anywhere near the nationalizing of a wireless network. They already have no regard for personal privacy. And they suck at managing pretty much everything they get their hands on, like healthcare and education. They need to stay the hell away from it. I'm in favor of democracy, so I wouldn't have any problem with a stupid idea like this being presented and voted down when people weigh the pro's and con's.

[TareX @ Sep 27th 2008 2:36PM]

So how will that work without being subscribed to ALL 4 major networks for Google to choose me the cheapest bid? Will they allow it?

[mian @ Sep 27th 2008 3:08PM]

I've never liked contracts myself, and have often been without one but a lot of people would miss them if they were gone.

Americans especially seem to love using credit instead of cash--which is basically how the contract works right now. Users spread the cost of their hardware over the life of their contract instead of shelling out the full monty up front. In exchange, they give up their freedom to leave the carrier, and they usually buy more minutes than they're actually using.

Some Sony and Wii users complain about the Xbox Live subscription cost, but it basically functions the same way. Microsoft took a loss on their console, knowing a significant percentage of people would want the Live Gold functionality and be happy to pay the cost of an extra game a year for it. Over the life of that users' subscription, the hardware loss is wiped out, some profit is accumulated and they can keep all their licensing fees as gravy.

If Sony and Nintendo charged for their services, and depended on them for revenue as heavily as MS does, NWFC and PSN might not suck as bad (this, from a Wii owner).

If Google rid of contracts, there would be loads of benefits. But there would costs as well, and not one iota fewer internet complainers.

[Shiladitya @ Sep 27th 2008 3:13PM]

I'm sure with all the realtime intelligence needed to switch voice and data over multiple networks and pipes in the nanoseconds that it takes to dial a call / connect to the internet -- I hope Google also has a solution for all the hardware needed to do this up its sleeve!

[Phil @ Sep 27th 2008 7:56PM]

I heard from a different blog site that the government denied a part of technology that this patent would use, or something like that. Pretty much said it's not gonna happen. Hopefully I'm wrong, cuz MAN i'd be on board!!!

p.s. what ever happened with www.grandcentral.com ??????????

[PhoenixAvatar @ Sep 27th 2008 8:01PM]

This is how the power system works now. There's generators, transmission line operators and local utilities. Generators make the power, utilities get it to transmission lines (if the generators don't have a direct hookup) and the locals get it from the lines to the people. Add up the prices and that's how much your electricity costs at that moment. In most of the US, companies called RTOs (for example, PJM, which does just south of NY to VA and west to Illinios) are companies whose job it is to keep track of those offers and match up the cheapest ones that get electricity where it's needed and most importantly, tell generators and transmission lines what to do to ensure that power is getting where it's needed. It's the failure of an RTO that caused the 2002 blackout, but it was the success of PJM that kept it from spreading further.

[john @ Sep 27th 2008 8:30PM]

While I love this idea, I'd settle for a version of the G1 that:

1) has quadband GSM and quadband UMTS (ie. euro, asian, "NAM", and T-Mobile-USA)
2) has 2 SIM cards
3) allows you to pick, statically or dynamically, which SIM card to use for outgoing voice (perhaps even assign it on a phone number by phone number basis in a contact's entry)
4) allows you to pick, statically or dynamically, which SIM card to use for outgoing SMS/MMS
5) allows you to simultaneously receive voice calls on both SIM cards
6) allows you to simultaneously receive SMS/MMS on both SIM cards
7) allows you to pick which SIM card to use for starting individual data sessions (Nokia's S60 devices already allow you to pick which access point (T-Mobile Internet, T-Zones, local Wifi, etc.), this would just extent that to either associating a SIM card with a given access point, or picking them on the fly)

Then you could pick the best of any particular carrier for whichever services you're using. Want data from AT&T and voice from T-Mobile Pay-Per-Day? No problem. Or maybe some phone calls on AT&T pay-per-day, and some on T-Mobile pay-per-day ($2/day for unlimited mobile to mobile on both networks).

In terms of carrier interactions, that'd just about make the G1 perfect.

[sepirioth @ Sep 27th 2008 10:02PM]

I dont understand why this should not be possible? All it really will be is a new company that makes deals with other major cariers. As long as said new company has a good system in place I think this will be a great idea. Shoudl in theory work for data as well.

[idriss @ Sep 28th 2008 7:03AM]

i think there was an article about a similar topic like this in SciAm not too long ago (not really about google, it was about having everyone just share like a community signal). at this point, a large percentage of people rely on cell phones and/or computers and we use these devices to stay connected. our taxes should be going toward a WiFi/WiMax/Whatever-kinda-wireless-data network that everyone can use for internet or telephony purposes. it's 2008. all the individual should have to worry about is their own hardware and security. is this a dumb idea? if not, why is it not yet happening?

[idriss @ Sep 28th 2008 7:11AM]

i think there was an article about a similar topic like this in SciAm not too long ago (not really about google, it was about having everyone just share like a community signal). at this point, a large percentage of people rely on cell phones and/or computers and we use these devices to stay connected. our taxes should be going toward a WiFi/WiMax/Whatever-kinda-wireless-data network that everyone can use for internet or telephony purposes. it's 2008. all the individual should have to worry about is their own hardware and security. is this a dumb idea? if not, why is it not yet happening?

i may sound hippie-dippie but what makes the internet and cell phones so great is the access it gives us to a vast amount of knowledge and the ability to stay in contact with one another. knowledge is so powerful and important, and communication can move mountains. everyone should be able to experience what the internet has to offer.

[sorry if this posted twice... posting on engadget is so difficult for me, lol]

[Penny Pincher @ Sep 28th 2008 12:58PM]

I'm betting on the same kind of competition you see at the gas pump.

[xenophod @ Sep 29th 2008 9:37AM]

No one got the Animal Crossing reference?

"I like the cut of your jib."