Verizon vs. Google. This could be interesting.

[soulfetcher13]

I was looking on Drudge this morning, like I always do and came across this. What do you all think.

New York Post

 

[Gunner]

Yeah they've been interested in this for a long time. They're also interested in the ISP biz. They'd love to have a hand in all communications from every person. It's their masterplan.

 

[sooper_droid12]

Google is just trying to take over the world, literally. I support anyone (including VZW) to do whatever they can to make sure Googs is investigated. No company should be allowed to whatever they want. If Microsoft can't, why should Google be allowed to get away with every acquisition? It's evil either way.

 

[AndroidsOfTara]

Google is just trying to take over the world, literally. I support anyone (including VZW) to do whatever they can to make sure Googs is investigated. No company should be allowed to whatever they want. If Microsoft can't, why should Google be allowed to get away with every acquisition? It's evil either way.

Please don't take this as an attack. I'm just curious...

If you dislike Google so much, why do you own an Android phone?

 

[Jayziac]

The U.S. wireless telecom market is really an oligopoly that keeps prices high (AT&T, Verizon, Tmobile, Sprint), any company looking to introduce more competitive products is a good thing, even if it's from another mega-corporation like Google. I would just as likely support Microsoft & Yahoo trying to take internet search shares away from Google. Competetition is good, Verizon is whining because they've enjoyed such fat profits for so long.

 

[Isthmus]

I think that the real issue here is not so much that google wants to compete with the mobile phone carriers, but that google is in the odd position of actually being able to change the nature of their industry, and do so in google's favor. IIRC this was a huge part of the argument being made against google early this year at the Mobile World Congress in Spain. The issue was that Apple had upended the market by teaching the mobile phone companies how to build a smartphone. They in turn had failed to anticipate the type of use that people would give the phones and the type of demands that use would put on their systems. Still the damage was contained because only a handfull of companies carried the Iphone and no other prroduct was a comparable. enter google with Android, and the new batch of very powerful android phones. All of a sudden, every carrier has access to a competing platform to the iphone. however, Google is offering services for free that these companies charge for (including telephony via google voice), and to boot the growth in popularity of android means that these companies will soon be experiencing the tremendous demands on their networks that those who carried the iphone were experiencing. The mobile companies are in the very expensive position of having to expand and modernize, but they don't want to do it if it means that Google gets to benefit for free at their expense. As a result they are dragging their feet and trying to work ways in which to either avoid modernization, slow it down, save some of their charge for services, and derive some sort of revenue out of google. The chants that google could not be allowed to take over their industry pretty much reflected this.

On the other hand, google is very much aware of this and realizes what is going on. It stands to reason that they would hedge their bets by creating some sort of independent google controlled service provider. I mean, If I were google, I'd have a huge incentive to perfect google voice, and then develop a 4g network that handled nothing but data. I could route my calls through that network, run my free services, and probably do it all cheaper than having to rely on profit and service sharing ventures with mobile carriers.

What I find interesting, is how mobile carriers expect to make their point. I mean yes google is expanding into their business, but lets face it, no one company dominates the business now, google only offers an operating system that is TODAY in fewer than 5% of all phones, and they offer no actual system access. As I see it, any complaints are being based on the expected growth of google android into the dominant platform, and how such dominance might possible put google in a position to dictate future terms to mobile carriers. While there is some well founded reasons for such concern, at this point, as I see it, it is all speculation. I don't see where they would have grounds to prevent google's acquisition of this company, based on current performance.

 

[vandyblackandgold]

Google is just trying to take over the world, literally. I support anyone (including VZW) to do whatever they can to make sure Googs is investigated. No company should be allowed to whatever they want. If Microsoft can't, why should Google be allowed to get away with every acquisition? It's evil either way.

what exactly has google done that warrants investigation? while i dont necessarily agree with what microsoft got slapped (even though i loathe microsoft), they at least were slipping in products on unsuspecting people who would in turn end up using their internet browser b/c they didnt know any better.

so again i ask, what is google doing that is so wrong? you have to actively seek out to use a google product...where is the crime in making products that work (with the exception of wave and buzz )

 

[riffdex]

Google is just trying to take over the world, literally. I support anyone (including VZW) to do whatever they can to make sure Googs is investigated. No company should be allowed to whatever they want. If Microsoft can't, why should Google be allowed to get away with every acquisition? It's evil either way.

Yeah, Google buying a company definitely means they are "doing whatever they want". Newsflash, every company is trying to take over the world. Verizon's just afraid of a little extra competition. I would rather have 5 companies trying to take over the world than just 4. (those numbers are just an arbitrary example, the point is competition is actually a good thing) I don't mind another company getting into the wireless market, especially one that in my experience provides very good services.

 

[IOWA]

I'm supporting google on this one. More wireless competition is better for consumers. Vzw needs to adapt, or die.

 

[johnlgalt]

Interesting. However, this article rebuts Verizon's thinking by saying that the AdMob acquisition was in direct retaliation at Apple (and this one is a long doozy of an article, so grab a cup of coffee or whatever...):

Apple?s Spat With Google Is Getting Personal - NYTimes.com

It goes in depth at machinations in both companies and how this is really beginning to take on epic proportions.

The enemy of mine enemy is my friend. Seems like Apple and M$ may have a good reason to join forces, if everyone is that scared of Google....

 

[trife]

googles money is in search. if PC's are being phased out for handheld devices you can't blame google for wanting to evolve with it. else they lose half of their userbase and someone like MSFT/Verizon will get all their customers.

 

[Knitewulf]

If Google made a phone company I would join them so fast it wouldn't be funny. Call me crazy, but I like the "No bullshit" front Google puts out, While Verizon is pretty much all bullshit. Can't complain for now though. They are better than AT&T.

 

[riffdex]

If Google made a phone company I would join them so fast it wouldn't be funny. Call me crazy, but I like the "No bullshit" front Google puts out, While Verizon is pretty much all bullshit. Can't complain for now though. They are better than AT&T.

I really agree with this sentiment. You can always make the argument that Google is encompassing a lot of the markets sectors, and seem to be taking control of everything. But Google typically provides very good services, and I really wouldn't mind them providing more competition in the wireless market. Until then, Verizon is treating me fine (better than at&t for sure).

 

[Phateless]

Realistically, charging for packages of minutes is a scam in the first place, and long obsolete. Every network offers flat-rate, unlimited data plans, which take up a lot more bandwidth than voice does. You can see the unlimited voice plans getting cheaper every day.

It's only a matter of time before wireless becomes completely commoditized and nobody pays for "voice" at all; we'll all buy data-only plans and run everything VOIP.

 

[Caloy]

I'm supporting google on this one. More wireless competition is better for consumers. Vzw needs to adapt, or die.

I agree with you 100%. The more competition, the better the rates/plans/deals will be. Can't wait to get unlimited everythign for $30...

 

[vandyblackandgold]

Realistically, charging for packages of minutes is a scam in the first place, and long obsolete. Every network offers flat-rate, unlimited data plans, which take up a lot more bandwidth than voice does. You can see the unlimited voice plans getting cheaper every day.

It's only a matter of time before wireless becomes completely commoditized and nobody pays for "voice" at all; we'll all buy data-only plans and run everything VOIP.

4g is exactly this. at least LTE is anyways, everything is handled and run over a complete data network, no more separate signals for voice and data....



i still wanna pose the question to some of the earlier post....

please tell me what google is doing illegally that warrants investigation? as stated by two other people, first googles business model is still primarly based on advertising and search and second, if a company like GE can invest and offer a plethora of services and products across various industries, why not google?

as mentioned before you compared google to microsoft and the trouble that microsoft got into years ago, but as i stated these are very different situations and microsoft got into trouble for a very specific reason.

i am all for google. they make products and services that work and that is what they exist for. they find an idea and they make it work or they try to make it better. it doesnt always work (refer to wave and buzz), but they have numerous things that just make sense and they are always looking to expand.

i am a big fan of apple as well (for various reasons) but what has apple brought to the table lately other than lawsuits? do they really expect me to drool over the fact that we are waiting with bated breath for the macbook revamp!? i mean seriously, you replaced core 2 duo processors with core i5 and core i7? wow game changing.....

but google makes an announcement and people go nuts because usually it is game changing.....wave, while not really taking off yet, is still revolutionary...google tv? sign me up....services and products that work, why is that illegal?

give me the day when everything in my house is google based. no one is forcing me, i am simply making a decision based on what is available on the market.....

rant off....

sorry...

 

[zep]

Please don't take this as an attack. I'm just curious...

If you dislike Google so much, why do you own an Android phone?

His/Her first sentence notwithstanding (I took it as a joke, but I could be wrong), I don't think that post is anti-google so much as it is anti-monopoly.

Of course Verizon's agenda is obviously far more pragmatic than it is moralistic....they're obviously just concerned that google would definitely eat into their market share, regardless of the two companies ability to hit at Apple from two sides.

 

[zep]

i still wanna pose the question to some of the earlier post....

please tell me what google is doing illegally that warrants investigation? as stated by two other people, first googles business model is still primarly based on advertising and search and second, if a company like GE can invest and offer a plethora of services and products across various industries, why not google?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I think this might be what you're asking about?

Google's AdMob Deal Criticized - BusinessWeek

Although again, Verizon's protestations have less to do with the size of google's presence in the ad market, and more to do with their concerns over what google plans to do next.

To answer your point about conglomerates like GE: While it is true that they have their hands in a lot of cookie jars, they don't "control" any of said cookie jars to the point where they have the ability to hinder competition (some may disagree with this but in the end it is a subjective definition).

 

[Phateless]

I love google, and I depended on a lot of features long before I got my android phone. Gmail, calendar, docs, all things I use daily and indispensably.

 

[IOWA]

And about the internet explorer thing, why should microsoft have to inncorporate other companies browsers into windows? It is their software, and people use it by choice. If mozilla wanted to, they could create their own os to compete.

 

[vandyblackandgold]

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I think this might be what you're asking about?

Google's AdMob Deal Criticized - BusinessWeek

Although again, Verizon's protestations have less to do with the size of google's presence in the ad market, and more to do with their concerns over what google plans to do next.

To answer your point about conglomerates like GE: While it is true that they have their hands in a lot of cookie jars, they don't "control" any of said cookie jars to the point where they have the ability to hinder competition (some may disagree with this but in the end it is a subjective definition).

i see where your going with it. good article, nice to see some stats thrown together. i had forgotten about the AdMob deal. I guess ultimately is the thing that bothers me is why google? the article specifically states that a deal with AdMob would give them a 30%-40% market share of mobile advertising. Dont get me wrong, I understand that one company controlling 40% of a particular market is a lot, however, it takes 50% + 1 to make up a majority. so as long as we continue to preach and practice free enterprise, how can we legitimately blur the lines of what it actually takes to dominate something. so google gets punished because they do it better than everyone else? we this sort of mentality, then we need microsoft to break up into about 8 different companies because the windows OS "dominates" the market. i'm not harping or trying to be sarcastically mean or anything, i seriously asking.

And about the internet explorer thing, why should microsoft have to inncorporate other companies browsers into windows? It is their software, and people use it by choice. If mozilla wanted to, they could create their own os to compete.

i remember when this went down, and it has bugged me since day one. this is exactly the type of thing i am referring to above. i will never be able to understand how the FCC could actually make that ruling!? while i dont like microsoft, i couldnt help but feel bad for them when this happened. at the time, it was just like, they were doing things better than everyone else and got smacked in the face for it. anyways, i could argue all day about this, but I am with you IOWA...we preach free enterprise and why certain things should or should not happen accordingly (not looking to start a political argument, i know where that forum is ), but we are so quick to blur the lines for the pettiest argument of the day.

 

[IOWA]

i see where your going with it. good article, nice to see some stats thrown together. i had forgotten about the AdMob deal. I guess ultimately is the thing that bothers me is why google? the article specifically states that a deal with AdMob would give them a 30%-40% market share of mobile advertising. Dont get me wrong, I understand that one company controlling 40% of a particular market is a lot, however, it takes 50% + 1 to make up a majority. so as long as we continue to preach and practice free enterprise, how can we legitimately blur the lines of what it actually takes to dominate something. so google gets punished because they do it better than everyone else? we this sort of mentality, then we need microsoft to break up into about 8 different companies because the windows OS "dominates" the market. i'm not harping or trying to be sarcastically mean or anything, i seriously asking.



i remember when this went down, and it has bugged me since day one. this is exactly the type of thing i am referring to above. i will never be able to understand how the FCC could actually make that ruling!? while i dont like microsoft, i couldnt help but feel bad for them when this happened. at the time, it was just like, they were doing things better than everyone else and got smacked in the face for it. anyways, i could argue all day about this, but I am with you IOWA...we preach free enterprise and why certain things should or should not happen accordingly (not looking to start a political argument, i know where that forum is ), but we are so quick to blur the lines for the pettiest argument of the day.

And everyone's argument was no-one could create an OS to compete with Windows... WRONG! They said the same thing about iPhone OS, and look at Android, and even though I think chromium is going to be crap, Ubuntu's got alot of potential.

 

[Jayziac]

I think there were legal details that affected the rulings. Details such as MS undercutting their OEM prices to manufacturers so they would adopt windows just to drive out a competitor OS manufacturer. Free enterprises work in theory, but in practice it's hard to maintain because everyone, especially the bigger more established companies try to use all their resources to keep things in their favor.