Google has filed a patent application for a technology that would let wireless devices instantly search for and acquire the least cost wireless service available to them at any given time. The Google scenario would play out like this – 1) a wireless phone, laptop, or some other device would sniff out all available wireless transmission services, announce its requirements, and request the best offer; 2) wireless service providers would then “bid” to fulfill the request; 3) the device would then select a winning “bidder” and initiate a wireless session. This process could be done automatically and would be seamless to the user, or the user could monitor and manage the process in real time. The patent application is entitled Flexible Communication Systems and Methods. The patent application abstract is as follows, “A method of initiating a telecommunication session for a communication device include submitting to one or more telecommunication carriers a proposal for a telecommunication session, receiving from at least one of the one or more of telecommunication carriers a bid to carry the telecommunications session, and automatically selecting one of the telecommunications carriers from the carriers submitting a bid, and initiating the telecommunication session through the selected telecommunication carrier.”

It’s an interesting approach, and one that could potentially turn the current wireless service business model on its head. Talk about an evolving competitive landscape. But its chances of becoming reality (at least in its current form) are slim to none. For it to become reality, existing wireless carriers would have to endorse it and risk their growing lucrative business model of wireless subscriptions. A model that currently generates billions in revenue for them. I would gently characterize the chances of them doing that as “zero.” But I’m sure Google knows that. This move probably has more to do with feeding the debate for “open networks” than hoping to capitalize on a patented technology or process. It’s similar to the strategy they pursued by participating in the recent 700 MHz spectrum auction.

Read more about Google's telecom ambitions.

The Google phone, or G1, is here and it’s certain to have the industry buzzing for the next few days and weeks. The $179 mobile Internet device (MID) goes on sale through T-mobile October 22nd, and aims to improve on the mobile Internet groundwork laid by Apple’s iPhone. It’s interesting how both these devices hang on to the term "phone," when the reality is the phone portion takes a back seat to the MID functionality that dominates them. Using the term phone is a great exercise in consumer relativity – everyone understands and relates to the term phone, but few people buy either device because it’s a phone. They will buy the G1 because it puts the Internet in their pocket, and Google is the defacto Internet guide. The G1 has all the standard smartphone features including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity, a 3 megapixel camera, QWERTY keyboard, touchscreen, GPS, email compatibility, and mobile browser functionality.

The G1 aims to beat the iPhone with openness – meaning one goal of Android’s open source mobile operating system is to unleash uncontrolled development. Google hopes to beat the iPhone Apps store by unleashing developers around the globe to do with Android whatever they please, unlike the very controlled Apple iPhone operating ecosystem. Google also hopes to meet Apple head on with Amazon’s help, by preloading Amazon’s music service to the G1. Amazon’s approach to music is analogous to Android’s approach to an operating system – openness. Amazon’s music service is virtually DRM free, giving users many more options with their music library than iTunes does. This approach allows consumers to take their Amazon downloaded tracks and play them on multiple devices, including an iPod.

T-mobile obviously wants to leverage the G1 in much the same way AT&T has done with the iPhone. They’ve announced some very aggressive data pricing plans, starting at just $25/month, and $35/month for unlimited data service. Combined with a T-mobile voice plan, customers can get a voice plan with unlimited data for $55/month, compared with $70/month for a comparable iPhone plan. "The idea is driving mass adoption of the mobile Web in the U.S.," Tom Harlin, T-Mobile USA's senior manager for public relations told Light Reading's Unstrung. The iPhone kicked off bringing the mobile Internet experience to the mainstream, and the G1 hopes to carry the torch even further. Now only if T-mobile can get their 3G network working beyond just a handful of markets.

The much anticipated Google phone is scheduled to make its debut September 23rd on the T-Mobile network. The phone will be co-branded with Google, HTC (phone manufacturer), and T-Mobile. It will be interesting to see how all of these brands get represented. The phone will have a retail price of $199. The Wall Street Journal quotes T-Mobile officials as saying the phone will include “aggressively priced” data plans. It will be the first phone to run Android, an operating system developed by Google and its partners. Google hopes that other carriers, including Sprint, will follow T-Mobile’s lead with Android powered phones of their own. Verizon Wireless is being somewhat coy about their Android plans, and AT&T has its wagon hitched to the iPhone for now.

It’s already clear that the Google phone won’t reach the mania achieved by the iPhone and 3G iPhone launches. Some will interpret that lack of comparable buzz as evidence of a failed launch. But I think such analysis misses the point. Google is less interested in selling handsets, and more interested in pushing a mobile operating system “open source” movement. Conceivably, success at such a movement draws more people to the mobile web – and more people on the mobile web leads to more demand for search. Google doesn’t care whether consumers access that search through Android, Symbian, or other mobile operating platforms. What matters most is more demand for search, and Google wins in that environment regardless. The mobile web is the next frontier for Google's growth. Android is simply a means to a bigger end. Google co-founder Larry Page’s quote in a recent CNET post confirms this approach, "As people get better phones, they do 20 times more searches."

T-Mobile will be the first carrier in the U.S. to launch Google’s highly anticipated Android phone. Android is the open source mobile operating system being developed by Google and its partners, who together form the Open Handset Alliance. According to the New York Times, the new Google phone may be available in October. The phone will be manufactured by HTC, and is often referred to as the “Dream.” Google can’t wait to get Android going because it believes its long term future resides in mobile computing. The New York Times article quotes Google CEO Eric Schmidt as saying, “We can make more money on mobile than we do on the desktop, eventually.”

A first to market launch of Android could also help T-Mobile. They have been somewhat behind the wireless innovation curve, arriving late to both the 3G and smartphone parties. A successful Google phone launch, and the buzz it will create, could help T-Mobile’s competitive posturing with AT&T and the iPhone and Verizon’s continuing wireless gains. T-Mobile will have to leverage any potential Android buzz effectively, because they won’t have the limelight to themselves for long. Sprint is expected to follow with an Android launch sometime in 2009. Both T-Mobile and Sprint could use a boost from Android. Their competitors, AT&T and Verizon, seem to be hitting on all cylinders when it comes to wireless. Maybe Android can help them catch up.

MetroPCS has opened their network, allowing new customers to bring their own compatible CDMA device. MetroFlash, as it’s branded, removes the requirement of a new handset purchase for new MetroPCS customers. It follows a trend of “openness” now being experimented within the wireless industry. Both Verizon Wireless and AT&T have made similar claims for openness. It’s open for debate as to how all of these carriers actually define open. Some would argue these claims are more of a marketing ploy than a true open strategy. Google has had significant influence on the openness issue, both through their Android initiative, and through their lobbying efforts surrounding the recent 700 MHz auction. As the mobile web experience matures, openness will become more paramount. Consumers will want to connect to the mobile web, regardless of the device they happen to be using at any given time. These initial open initiatives are probably a leading indicator of the future of wireless. Wireless carriers will need a well defined "open" strategy to remain competitive in the wireless web world. It’s not going to happen overnight, but the genie may be working her way towards the bottle opening on this one.

Google’s mobile operating system has been delayed. Android’s much anticipated launch, originally scheduled for a midyear, has been delayed until the fourth quarter. Realistically, we won’t be seeing Android until 2009. It’s a somewhat more costly delay than normal for Google. Development projects of this scale always have delays, but Google’s competitors are seizing on the Android void. Apple’s 3G iPhone will now have a sizeable lead in the marketplace and RIM’s BlackBerry will as well. According to the Wall Street Journal, the delays are being caused by customization and translation challenges from carriers like Sprint and China Mobile. The Wall Street Journal even speculates that Sprint may forgo a 3G version of Android, and wait until a 4G WiMAX version is ready. Whatever the cause, we’ll have to wait to see what the competitive impact of Android and its burgeoning ecosystem will be.

Update - May 7, 2008: It's official. Sprint and Clearwire announced the formation of the "new" Clearwire, as discussed below in the original May 6th post.

A mega deal which involves Sprint, Clearwire, Intel, Google, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Brighthouse Networks is on the verge of being announced according to the Wall Street Journal (subs. req.). The deal will merge Sprint and Clearwire's WiMAX assets into a company valued at $12 billion. The company will retain the Clearwire brand and will be led by Clearwire's CEO Ben Wolff. The cable company investments totaled over $1.5 billion, led by Comcast who ponied up over $1 billion. The deal has been rumored for months. It is expected to be announced as early as Wednesday.

It appears as if WiMAX will now have the foothold it needs to become a 4G wireless force in the North American market. Cable companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Brighthouse will now have access to a legitimate broadband wireless network and begin the long process of integrating wireless opportunities into their core business. The deal will allow cable companies to sell broadband wireless under their own brand. It's somewhat surprising that cable companies and Sprint are partnering for another wireless venture, given the failure of their previous joint effort, Pivot Wireless. Perhaps Pivot's demise was intentional to make way for Clearwire. It's not clear what this development means for cable's AWS spectrum holdings. Regardless, this new WiMAX momentum will provide interesting competitive observations. Sprint will conceivably gain a considerable 4G lead over their main competitors, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, who have all tagged LTE as their 4G technology of choice. It will be at least a couple years before we see them bring something to market though. It's some welcomed news for Sprint, which has seen nothing but rumors focused on their troubles swirling for the past few weeks.

Google has petitioned the FCC regarding Verizon’s win of the 700 Mhz C block spectrum. Google pushed hard for, and won, an “open” mandate for the winner of the 700 Mhz C block. The mandate basically says that the winner of the spectrum must provide open access and allow devices from any source to access the broadband wireless network utilizing that spectrum. Google sees this open access mandate as a gateway for its upcoming wireless Android platform, which will potentially drive millions of users towards their products and solutions. Google believes those same potential users may not be able to easily reach and use Google’s wireless focused products without that open access provision. The competitive implications are numerous because most wireless Internet access is now controlled by wireless carriers through restrictions and “walled garden” approaches. Opening it up, would allow competitors to build relationships with wireless subscribers and perhaps create the “dumb pipe” scenario for wireless broadband, where wireless carriers simply provide a pipe to the Internet, and don’t create any additional value/revenue for them. It’s the same issue currently being debated by wireline broadband carriers – should I just provide the pipe, or should I try to build more value around that access for which I can create incremental revenue.

Of course we know that Verizon and other communications conglomerates are quite crafty. According to Google, Verizon interprets the open access rules a little differently, and don’t intend on providing open access on its own handsets. Google also contends that the open access provision, while being offered through non-Verizon handsets, will be offered at presumably much higher access costs to the consumer, thus discouraging its use. Google is asking the FCC to deny Verizon’s winning bid for the C-block spectrum, which Verizon won for $4.7 billion, unless they take a more broad approach to the open access mandate. This will be one to watch, because its outcome will have profound implications on the wireless competitive landscape.

Read more insight on this issue at the IP Democracy blog.

CTIA and the wireless service providers they represent, weighed in on the wireless white space spectrum debate, and their view is squarely counter to Google’s. CTIA says wireless white space spectrum should be auctioned and licensed, not designated as unlicensed as Google advocates. Google made a lot of noise earlier this week with an ex-parte letter to the FCC, urging that white space spectrum should be unlicensed and used for wireless broadband applications. Wireless white space is spectrum allocated to television channels between 2 and 51. It’s great spectrum for broadband wireless and will come into serious play after the 2009 digital TV transition (although some of it is free now, depending on geography).

CTIA argues that licensing the spectrum is the surest way to reduce interference potential. That argument does have some validity. But it also doesn’t hurt that CTIA’s largest members are probably in the best position to win that extremely valuable spectrum at auction. If it goes unlicensed, interference issues aside, it could empower a variety of competitors for the likes of Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint, among others. Depending on your perspective, that could be good or bad. CTIA would fall in the “bad” category and hence will push hard for some form of licensing.

Google’s influence in wireless continues, with its focus shifting away from the 700 MHz auction to the so called wireless “white space” initiative. Wireless white space is the “empty spaces” in television spectrum used by channels 2 through 51. After the 2009 digital TV transition, this spectrum will be freed up and Google would like it to be used as unlicensed spectrum for broadband wireless. Google claims that gigabit per second speeds could be achieved wirelessly, and they would like to be very active participants in making that happen. They view white space wireless as "Wi-Fi 2.0," allowing a variety of wireless devices to access a ubiquitous broadband wireless network. In an FCC ex-parte letter, Google even suggests funding the research and development and technical support costs for bringing such a solution to market.

Google has already demonstrated their influence in wireless policy. They were very active, and may hold much of the responsibility, for ensuring the recently auctioned 700 MHz C-block spectrum had an “open access” provision tied to it. They did not win the spectrum (and probably had no intention of doing so), but their influence into the rulemaking and commitment to meeting the FCC’s minimum bid requirement ensured open access was mandated for that portion of the spectrum. They are now working to influence the white space initiative, and the FCC has no choice but to listen, and probably act. There are considerable issues to be worked out including, potential interference and equipment development issues, before white space is a reality. There are heavyweight opponents to white space wireless as well, including the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and even the NFL, who fear it would interfere with their game referee’s wireless mic systems. Google’s desire is to see as much open broadband wireless connectivity as possible, so their forthcoming Android platform for wireless devices can be widely deployed. They are pushing for open access and unlicensed requirements so Android can interact with wireless networks without being tied to a specific wireless carrier. If their foray into the 700 MHz debate is any indication, Google may see their desires come true with the white space initiative. The competitive implications for these moves are wide and deep, and could significantly alter the wireless landscape as we know it.