Perspective: Beyond Google's sweet spot

New advances in technology have flung open the doors to what was once the sacrosanct domain of the cellular operator, and nontraditional providers like Google are making their way inside, hoping for a piece of the action.

Who will emerge victorious in the race for consumer loyalty? Who will be first and best in delivering the next generation of communications--video, games, entertainment and other highly sought-after content?

There are those who believe that Google will be the victor. They see the company, with its huge consumer following and plans to offer free wireless service across the globe, as overtaking the cellular world.

I disagree.

Consumers will gravitate to providers who can address their always-on needs and quality expectations. And I don't think Google has enough depth in that game.

There's no doubt that Google's collaboration with EarthLink on Wi-Fi service for San Francisco is a smart business decision and a natural extension of Google's brand. But like anything free, this new service comes with a catch or two for consumers.

To deliver free service, providers like Google usually partner with advertisers and require users to view their ads. Also, service quality is generally lower and less secure with free Wi-Fi networks. In short, you get what you pay for--average service and the nuisance of combing through ads. I don't know about you, but I fast-forward through ads any chance I get.

Don't get me wrong. Free Wi-Fi is convenient. I often use it myself when I travel. But comparing Wi-Fi to third-generation, or 3G, cellular service is not like comparing apples to apples. This is where Google mania misses the point.

Wi-Fi is great for enterprises and municipal hot spots. It provides the voice and data services we've come to enjoy from our PCs without the pesky wires. But Wi-Fi signals travel only several hundred feet. So unless you have hot spots linked across your city, you will not get a constant connection as you travel. You will also have to sign on each time you change hot spots. And unlike 3G cellular, Wi-Fi is not built for full mobility.

3G is simply a better technology for the mass market. It offers ubiquitous coverage, traditional phone services and advanced Internet Protocol services like instant messaging, picture sharing, mobile video and interactive games. And it does so at greater distances, more securely and with higher quality. Unlike free Wi-Fi, there is no limit to whom or where you can call, e-mail or otherwise communicate with in the cellular world.

I don't know about you, but I fast-forward through ads any chance I get.

Wi-Fi, from traditional carriers or from content providers like Google, is a good complement to--not replacement for--cellular. Wi-Fi simply cannot accommodate growing consumer demand for ubiquitous, immediate device-agnostic content and services delivered in the most simple, entertaining and reliable way.

Consumers will gravitate to providers that can address their always-on needs and quality expectations. And I don't think Google has enough depth in that game. As appealing as "free" might be, it doesn't cut it if we can't get the content and services we want when we want them.

I'm not knocking the success of Google or other Internet content providers, but cellular providers are experts at providing the fundamental pathway for all content: the network. The caretakers of these networks (or so-called dumb pipes) are also the ones that ensure reliability and security.

The current Google Wi-Fi offer has other limitations as well. For one thing, the "free" phone service primarily works for PC-to-PC calls. Call your friend's cell phone or BlackBerry from your Google Wi-Fi connection, and it will cost you.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most PCs were not designed for phone calls. Most PC and laptop speakers, as well as microphones, do not provide the level of voice quality we've come to expect from our phone service. Moreover, laptops aren't the most convenient devices to carry around for making phone calls and connecting to the Web on the go.

3G cellular networks allow people to call any device, any number, from any location. And 3G cellular providers are in an ideal position to capture consumer loyalty and lead us into the next phase of communications because of a new technology called IP Multimedia Subsystem, or IMS.

IMS transforms the Internet from a static document storage and retrieval tool to a more interactive, entertaining and "live" environment with real-time services. IMS will allow people to take their Internet content, communications and applications wherever they go. And there will be no barriers, as they roam across wireless, wireline, cable, DSL and fiber networks.

Google's a strong brand, but I don't believe that it will win this race. A more likely scenario is that Google and other Internet providers will use IMS to work with--not against--cellular providers. Remember that the cellular providers that built the network from the early days, when people used their cellular phone for emergency-only voice calls, are the experts at delivering highly reliable, secure mobile communications.

Biography
Richard Lowe is president of Mobility and Converged Core Networks at Nortel Networks.

More Perspectives

[mdjacobson]

What about WiMax

If Craig McCaw is betting correctly, and WiMax emerges as a real
player, then Google may be on the right path - provided that it
transitions to a WiMax world from WiFi. I don't imagine WiFi will be
anything other than a transitional technology, but all wireless
technologies are transitional right now. What will matter is how you
get - and transition - the users.

[moneytorch]

laptops will not tie down WiFI VOIP users

New WiFi phones from D-Link are the reason
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/104/C8627/

http://www.moneytorch.com
Support the Cause

[Hep Cat]

Yeah, sure

You guys were saying the exact same thing about Metricom in
2000- about how a metropolitan area network wasn't needed,
because 3G was right around the corner with similar speeds.

Here we are, five years later, and WorldCom's lies, executive
incompetence, and terrible marketing killed Metricom, but 3G is
still "just around the corner" with speeds that still don't
approach what Metricom delivered in 2001.

How nice of C|Net to give Nortel all this free advertising and
bully pulpit - but I think I can count on the folks at Google to
get this one right.

Some other reasons?

3G has data user uptake in the low single-digits, while virtually
every laptop sold has 802.11.

802.11 uses free spectrum; cellular frequencies cost a bundle.

Verizon's slow warming to bluetooth means that most 3G data
users still have to rely on a PC card, complicated setup, or a
dongle to the phone. How nice. Wireless with wires.

Nortel hasn't convinced me, and the assorted baggage of using
3G for data means not many other people will be convinced,
either.

[hokiejm]

Believe an executive from Nortel?

While I do agree with some the points that the author is making, I think it's hard for me to trust someone's comments who is a direct threat to their business. Of course, Free Wifi is going to a concern to someone that's in the telecomm business. Where do their profits go?

Google has revolutionized so many mediums and cause many companies to rethink the game. I think that this is just another example of Google doing that. Sure, Google is making a ton of money, but not at the expense of annoying the general consumer public. Can anyone say that of someone like Microsoft?

[balltheory]

uneducated post

current indoor wifi networks, wimax, and yet-to-be-developed software will solve the problem 90% of the time. for the other times, you'll need your 3G connection. and goog or someone else doesn't need to own the pipe to provide their core search/content service. they just need users who are not 100% connected to carrier-controlled data connections--which will happen soon.

[whogrant]

Has some good points but is carrier-centric

I think this story has some good points - the key one being that were moving to an IP based communications world. The point it doesn't make is that once you have made that transition whose pipe you're on doesn't matter and users will always use the most appropriate connection that they have access to and can afford. So things like VoIP and IP based TV will be great levelers - there will no longer be a requirement to have a connection from a phone company to get connected. It'll just - perhaps - give you better coverage.

The issue with WiFi - which I agree with - is it was never designed to solve the problem of ubiquitous coverage. But I think WiMax (not mentioned in this article) will have a huge impact and I'm sure the likes of Google are fully planning to roll out their own WiMax networks as soon as the technology is there and clients technology is widely available (Intel will take care of that).

At that point (say five years - my guess) I think WiMax will soon begin to challenge current cellular networks especially in metropolitan areas where, lets face it, most of the country lives. And indeed in flat rural and suburban areas it will also excel and be cheap - it'll just take longer for companies to roll out coverage in those areas.

I'm actually hoping that WiMax will bring a very large number of smaller ISPs (like say Sonic.net in California) to provide more robust meshes of coverage and more competition. Instead of we have ridiculously centralized and monolithic carriers and get into situations where a single backhoe can take out all Sprint coverage in California. Duh! When there is a multiplicity of IP "dial tones" out there consumers will be able to jump around at will - maybe even to a local legacay WiFi network if necessary.

[evanxy]

fixed low cost metro networks

WiFi/VOIP metropolitan networks will pose a serious challenge to cellular operators (profitability), especially with the advent of dual mode GSM/Wifi handsets, which might try VOIP wifi first and then fallback to GSM. Not to mention business PABX'es which will try to exploit metro VOIP as first option.

Similarly with metropolitan wifi internet access.
Having said that, metro wifi networks will drive down the prices of 3G data access, and 3G will become an increasingly cost effective, with high quality and convenience. Whereas free wifi networks might be overloaded, and less inconvenient.

However fixed monthly low cost, high quality, 55Mbit metropolitan mesh networks (built on open standards, using relatively cheap equipment eg. PC components, and Linux), are surely gonna be disruptive to fixed line and cellular operators.

[mercola]

Never Mentioned WiMax

While the arguments presented make sense this article completely fails to address the issue of WiMax. Current WiFi will never work, but it is very clear that WiMax with ranges of 30 miles not a few hundred yards at best, will completley change the equation and Google will gain valuable experience that they can leverage when they upgrade their strategy with WiMax which IS a VERY serious contender to 3G. I have used 2.5G and 3G for nearly three years and it is a miserable failure when one seeks to utilize a VPN connection.

[raytown]

WI MAX!!!

Seriously, this guy has been living in a hole for the last 5 years, or he is complete moron! This guy is an exec for Nortel? Wow this really makes him look bad.