The latest news out of the Wireless Broadband Alliance should then make everyone happy. They announced that they are starting trials on a technology that would allow for seamless network transfers between cellular and Wi-Fi. So when you’re browsing on your favorite Android handset, you’ll switch over to the faster Wi-Fi network if one is available. Once you leave that Wi-Fi area, you’ll get right back on your 3G or 4G connection. This might require an extended life battery, since Wi-Fi is a known battery killer, but that appears to be one of the few downsides.

In an email to Phone Scool, Chris Bruce, CEO of the Wireless Broadband Alliance, lays out the idea in non-technical terms.

“Operators who create data plans across network types (3G, Wi-Fi, WiMax, etc.) can use these specifications to make this process simple and secure across networks. Actual implementation will be by these operators, but WISPr 2.0 and WRIX together provide enablers for inter-standard roaming (between 3G – Wi-Fi / WiMax – Wi-Fi).”

Reading that out of context might incite some skepticism. After all, if the operators are implementing, who’s to say that the most popular ones will be on board? To everyone’s relief, three of the four major U.S. carriers have joined the WBA: T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon.

Testing begins now, and the WBA claims that it should take about six months. After that there’s really no telling how long it will take to 1) get the technology to operators, and 2) get the operators to implement it. When they do, though, it sounds like it should provide a better, easier browsing experience where Wi-Fi is available.

Seamless transition between 3G/4G and Wi-Fi makes mobile more attractive

Post from: Google And Blog

Today, however, AT&T finally realized its dream. They announced tiered data pricing that seem kind skimpy. That’s the idea, of course. They want to reduce data consumption and free up bandwidth for more users. Or, at the very least, collect fees from the heaviest data consumers that will keep its profit sheet sparkling. Pardon the cynicism, but this tiered pricing deal is a clear play by AT&T to charge more for the same service. The announcement will keep investors happy — investors love it when you can disguise a price hike — but unless other carriers act in unison, customers might turn away from AT&T.

The lowest tier is a joke, a bone to light users who probably don’t need a smartphone in the first place. It includes just 200MB, which is a jokingly small amount. In fact, the best use of this low tier plan is to use when you’re going on vacation or otherwise won’t be using your smartphone much in that given month. That’s the one plus: AT&T will allow you to migrate between the plans on a month-by-month basis. You have to choose beforehand, of course, but if you plan on not using data for a month, you can avoid the extra $10.

Next up is what AT&T is calling “DataPro,” but what is really a stripped down version of its previous plan. It covers just 2GB, again not much for heavy users, and costs just $5 less than the unlimited plan. Again, this is a clear marketing ploy. There’s a price reduction, which AT&T will tout and tout. But it’s just $5 per month — it’s more than the unlimited data plan the company sold with the original iPhone. You can add tethering for $20 per month, with which you will surely exceed the 2GB limit. For that, AT&T will just charge $10 for an additional gig. Of course, if you go over by even a meg you have to pay for that whole gig. But that’s the plan, really.

AT&T is pulling its usual justification for this. “Currently, 98 percent of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 2GB of data a month on average.” First, I’m not sure how many of AT&T’s 90-some-odd-million subscribers are on smartphones, so it’s tough to get a real gauge of two percent. The problem, however, does not lie in the sheer numbers. It lies in the nature of those who use more than 2GB. I use more than 2GB. I’m sure many readers of this site use 2GB. Why do we use more data than 98 percent of AT&T smartphone customers? Because we’re doing something productive with our smartphones.

People who use data heavily often innovate. Sure, there are some who eat up bandwidth watching web video, but that constitutes far less than the two percent figure AT&T quotes. Most people I know who consume more than 2G of data are busy creating something. Those two percent of customers, in other words, are creating value. AT&T, apparently, wants to charge more for this value creation. That’s my biggest problem with the price hike. They’re trying to demonize heavy users, when the heavy users are creating things. The other 98 percent are merely consuming.

Which, as I feel like I’ve said a thousand times, is the entire point. AT&T doesn’t care about your innovation. It cares about its profits and feeding its investors. That means consumption, and charging heavily for it. Sorry, Android users, but you’re better off bolting for another carrier. That is, until their investors decide that AT&T is right.

AT&T might not be the best carrier for Android

Post from: Google And Blog

Customers might cringe when they hear this, and rightly so. When a company changes something like this, it tends to move the money model in their favor. Verizon, however, did note a few things that should leave customers at least a little optimistic about the pricing of LTE services. McAdam admitted that data transfer would cost one half, or possibly as low as one third, the amount it does now over the EVDO 3G network. He also noted that Verizon plans to migrate voice and messaging to LTE by 2012, which will save. Having everything running over data should make the network easier to manage for the carrier.

McAdam made another excellent point, one I’ve been driving home in a lot of my writing about data networks, particularly 4G ones. “I expect people will have four or five or perhaps even more devices they will connect to the network,” he said. If you have a tablet, a cell phone, and a laptop, for instance, you wouldn’t want to pay for three data plans. The buckets of pricing does make it easier for Verizon to provide price points and service levels that fit different users’ needs.

It probably won’t be perfect, and plenty of customers will inevitably complain about the limited nature of the data plans. Right now, though, I can see the potential for Verizon to create something that works for many users. They’re going to have to, if LTE services affect our lives to the level they have the potential to.

Will Verizon’s “buckets of data” LTE plan work?

Post from: Google And Blog

Each of the companies hosts its own Wi-Fi networks at various locations, including train stations. The problem of course, is that each offered Wi-Fi to only its own subscribers, so while you might have access to Cablevision Wi-Fi, if Comcast was the only available network you were a bit out of luck. With the combined agreement users get access to the internet regardless of the provider. All you need is an account with one of the three and you can access these hotspots, which exist in hundreds of locations in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.

Again, you’ll probably want to make sure there’s a power outlet nearby so you can charge up after Wi-Fi usage. If you have that, well, then have at it. You’ll be watching high-res steaming video like you can’t really experience on a 3G connection. That, I think, is worth the battery life trade-off.

Cablevision, Time Warner, Comcast Wi-Fi agreements a boon for metro-area Android users

Post from: Google And Blog

I believe the creation of a defacto branded Google Phone with the Nexus One was a misstep both for Android & Google itself.

I have been an early supporter of Android as the young upstart open mobile platform versus the Apple iPhone with Android being backed by major mobile players in the Open Handset Alliance, principally Google.

I just want to be sure this leader of the mobile rebel alliance does not become Darth Vader or to another extreme an Edsel.

First, I understand Google is in it to make money by providing a “free” service in order to make money in the back end with advertising, so yes a Trojan horse approach while circumspect to it evolving into the Borg.

Google has tried to avert the Borg feeling with its “Don’t Be Evil” credo which every person I met from Google seems to embody, be it Romain Guy & Jean-Baptiste Quero of the Android team to the head of webspam, Matt Cutts.

So the Google Phone announcement was perhaps a premature disrobing of a wolf in sheep’s clothing to both the handset makers & mobile service providers that are the vast majority of the Open Handset Alliance itself.

*** Chris DiBona, the open source manager at Google, stated what may have been the true purpose of Google publicly forcing a phone out under their brand as a play for more developers, “This is going to sound really cynical, but the only thing that really matters is how many of these we ship – how many Android phones. There is a linear relationship between the number of phones you ship and the number of developers.” ***

The key growth statement from the Google Android Press Gathering last week was the fact a year ago Android was one phone on one network in one country & one language but fast forward to today, its 20 phones on 59 carriers in 48 countries & 19 languages.

While the Nexus One is a great phone that can make plausible arguments at being better than the iPhone I would not say it was revolutionary nor what I would consider worth the moniker of a Google SuperPhone.

A true SuperPhone would have NO dependence on ANY mobile service provider – That solution may reside in white spaces with VoIp service as I touched upon at SES Chicago in a WebProNews interview from early December 2009.

Not only that but the blowback in supporting a branded GooglePhone gets confusing and frustrating since Google is the one directly selling it online while its actually made by HTC and serviced predominantly by T-Mobile.

Perhaps Google thought what it called the Superphone wouldn’t need much support.

Then compounding the support issues are the double termination fees, buggy 3G service & $174 worth of parts in the Nexus One which together builds into the animosity against both the Google brand & the growth of Android.

I almost wish the genie was put back in the lamp with the Nexus One simply being the HTC Passion, but it seems Google wanted to prempt both CES & the next iPhone launch to get public attention toward Android.

I agree the public should be aware of Android but not sure Android is truly ready for the GENERAL public yet.

So even with this misstep, I agree with TechCrunch that Android can maintain a path toward becoming the defacto standard for mobile phones in the near future – Enter the Borg

The GooglePhone Nexus One Was a Google Android Misstep

Post from: Google And Blog