Is Google out of its league in telco?
Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal writes an excellent op-ed piece challenging Google's efforts to take on AT&T and Verizon in the mobile world. Google, of course, wants to open up the mobile Internet so that it can farm it as it does the PC Internet: advertising everywhere.
But as Jenkins notes, Google may be at a technology, political, and infrastructure disadvantage in going up against the telcos:
When they're done [rolling out fiber optic networks], the telcos will have not just the preferred platform for delivering high-def, on-demand and interactive services. They'll have several advantages over their would-be rivals, whether Google or Microsoft or the cable companies. One is their history as phone companies, in the form of systems for billing and tracking individual customers in their usage.
A second is their choice of technology: Unlike cable or satellite, true Internet TV means delivering individualized TV streams to each user on demand, rather than broadcasting the entire spectrum of channels to the user's set-top box.
Why is this important? In the normal course of service, they will be able to track which stream the user is watching and when (and, of course, users will no longer be bound by program schedules). Not only will the telcos be better able to implement the necessary network "intelligence" to help you sort out the digital cornucopia. Information about what you watch is also information about what advertising you're likely to respond to, what products and services you might be interested in buying. (That's Google's business model, of course.)
Notice that? The telcos will be able to out-Google Google in the home and given that they also own the wireless channels, they should be able to package advertising for mobile phones based on what you watch at home. Did you pause to watch the sale of that figurine on the Home Shopping Network? Why not just buy it as you walk past the figurine store at the mall?
Futuristic, yes. But it's not hard to see that Google may struggle in markets where the networks aren't open. The PC is a relatively open platform in that it is a gateway to a wide open network, the Internet.
But television/cable still relies on closed networks, as does mobile. Google's model doesn't work well in this world. Perhaps it will need to buy its own networks. Or perhaps it will find a way to morph the model to fit the closed networks.
Either way, Google has a real fight on its hands.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I don't know how this will play out!
Would I keep my home Internet connection if I had reasonable Internet access on my phone, that can tether (wired/less) my PC? Phones will morph into the Intel MIDish devices that do both and will become something I would actually buy. . . and use to buy other stuff?
so as for the network infrastructure: token-ring was a better technology than ethernet, but ethernet was cheap and met the need reasonably enough. Think closed networks of the telcos are better? Wanna make a bet? Current phone hardware is good enough . . the reason I don't buy them is the software sucks. Give me Linux on a mobile Internet device and my life will change in fundamental ways.
point is the wireless networks and phone software SUCK today!!! Google is going to fix that with the help of a lot of companies that see a lot of opportunities. The telcos don't want to become a dumb pipe (just providing access) so they keep everyone else out. How long do you think that will last now?
1. phones will change to meet the demand of having open access
2. How I access the Internet could change (drop my home Internet connection)
3. GPS that I can access and use on my phone!!
4. I can start using a mobile device in a sane way! Like THe default menu item WON'T be the phone companies stupid online store.
5. Google could rip the top off the phone networks!!!
** and so do a lot of companies that would like to reach all the users of phones and MIDs!! Think opening the phone networks isn't one of the best business models this side of the Pacos?! **
But as Jenkins notes, Google may be at a technology, political, and infrastructure disadvantage in going up against the telcos:
When they're done [rolling out fiber optic networks], the telcos will have not just the preferred platform for delivering high-def, on-demand and interactive services. They'll have several advantages over their would-be rivals, whether Google or Microsoft or the cable companies. One is their history as phone companies, in the form of systems for billing and tracking individual customers in their usage.
A second is their choice of technology: Unlike cable or satellite, true Internet TV means delivering individualized TV streams to each user on demand, rather than broadcasting the entire spectrum of channels to the user's set-top box.
** the telcos suck, they will still suck and many of their customers will still hate them! ** Again whats better for more businesses? hint: opening the Internet to wireless phones/network access without stupid rules like not being able to run skype or only buying from one over-priced store . . duh. I wouldn't care if I had to wear tin foil over my face to access the wireless Internet like google wants. I will be all over it!!! and the telcos know it!
Why is this important? In the normal course of service, they will be able to track which stream the user is watching and when (and, of course, users will no longer be bound by program schedules). Not only will the telcos be better able to implement the necessary network "intelligence" to help you sort out the digital cornucopia. Information about what you watch is also information about what advertising you're likely to respond to, what products and services you might be interested in buying. (That's Google's business model, of course.)
Interesting you bring up TV. Yep I will be running android on my set top box too, even if it takes me a week to download the shows I want to watch. Anything but be a customer of a telco/cable jerks.
Notice that? The telcos will be able to out-Google Google in the home and given that they also own the wireless channels, they should be able to package advertising for mobile phones based on what you watch at home. Did you pause to watch the sale of that figurine on the Home Shopping Network? Why not just buy it as you walk past the figurine store at the mall?
telcos able to out google google . . whatever that means . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are funny too.
Futuristic, yes. But it's not hard to see that Google may struggle in markets where the networks aren't open. The PC is a relatively open platform in that it is a gateway to a wide open network, the Internet.
If google wins, we all win. WHat do you think will happen? I think there will be so much opportunity in wireless ubiquitous Internet . . it blows my mind. I bet the telcos are wondering what to do with all the smelly bricks around their office!!
But television/cable still relies on closed networks, as does mobile. Google's model doesn't work well in this world. Perhaps it will need to buy its own networks. Or perhaps it will find a way to morph the model to fit the closed networks.
Either way, Google has a real fight on its hands.
Google isn't going to try to compete on closed networks, the idea sucks, the telcos suck and they are trying to keep out way too many business opportunities for way to many other businesses. What google is doing now is WHY google is worth 700+ bucks a share. whadda ya think bro?