The question is: would Google be a good consumer infrastructure company? Their first foray into that arena was their Google Fiber experiment which has been delayed. I know that Google always seems like they're on our side over infrastructure things - but that might simply be because they aren't building that infrastructure.

It's possible that Google would bring excellence to consumer infrastructure as well. However, they haven't run an ISP, cable company, wireless company, home broadband, or other regulated consumer infrastructure project. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be up to the challenge, it's more a question of why you believe they'd do better? They talk a nice game of unlimited, high-speed broadband, but that's easy when you're not the one paying to provide it.

Google also had the option to purchase the open-access 700MHz spectrum and once the reserve price was met, decided that they didn't want to be in the consumer-facing communications infrastructure game. If they didn't want to become a wireless company a couple years ago, what would have changed to make them want to become one now?

Google has a strong staff and it would, at the very least, be interesting to see how they would fare as a company. Would they decide to forgo the profits one receives for pushing things like Blockbuster Mobile onto their smartphones? Would they push faster technology faster? Would they decide that limits were wrong to put on users? Would they decide to forgo subsidised phones and offer much lower priced plans?

I realize Google is averse to endeavors that might necessitate a customer service department... but in my opinion if Google bought it and invested a few billion into infrastructure improvements and discounting, it could potentially offer some incredible products with bundled 4G, etc.

Google is one of the few companies that could really benefit from doing analytics on all the call and internet traffic data, and I don't predict a future world in which people happily pay $30/month for each connected device they own.

Google has the chance to define how the game is played and leap ahead of the competition (mostly Apple) by creating a product and service mix that Apple's carrier parters will refuse to match.

> Google also had the option to purchase the open-access 700MHz spectrum and once the reserve price was met, decided that they didn't want to be in the consumer-facing communications infrastructure game. If they didn't want to become a wireless company a couple years ago, what would have changed to make them want to become one now?

I think Google just entered the auction to ensure open-access. It was quite a clever move.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMbsPSv2vatAVvbz_8n0xU3M...

T-Mo probably has the worst coverage though.

Compared to AT&T the coverage is absolutely fantastic. I've had more bars in more places than AT&T, and I have never had issues getting a 3G data connection.

Experiences with wireless carriers in the United States seem heavily dependent on location and personal travel routes, which is why anecdotal evidence about coverage is generally not very useful. Comparing their coverage maps, it looks clear that AT&T technically has more network coverage:

AT&T: http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice

T-Mobile: http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/pcc.aspx

If I lived in an urban area (where T-Mobile is likely to have already deployed both standard 3G and HSDPA+ coverage, and AT&T's network has a higher than average proportion of heavy iPhone users), my experiences with either carrier are likely to be different than if I lived and stayed in the suburbs or rural areas (where T-Mobile is more likely to either have EDGE coverage or nothing at all).

I travel around ND,SD, and MN - T-Mobile is the worst here. It has no coverage once you leave a city and sometimes not even in them. AT&T and Verizon were amazing compared to T-Mobile. Sprint does ok in parts, but has some big dead spots.

So what? I'm on AT&T and have a 3G connection everywhere but inside concrete bunkers in my city. But that says nothing about coverage. You can say coverage is about HAVING "bars"; better coverage refers to having more area with bars. Coverage of an entire carrier can't be determined by a single case.

Additionally, measuring "bars" is useless to the measurement of coverage (1) because the bars on one phone could mean something totally different than the bars on another phone (see iPhone reception miscalculation) and (2) because how many bars you have, or signal strength or reception, is determined in part by how close you are to the signal source. So what if you have perfect reception if you live right next to a cell tower?

I completely agree

In and around Houston, Sprint is considered pretty good and T-Mobile is pretty much universally panned as being awful. Also, T-Mobile's frequency bands don't penetrate buildings very well.

It pretty much depends on where you are in the US. The only carrier whose service is close to universally lauded everywhere is Verizon.

Yeah, I've used T-Mobile since they were VoiceStream. Before that I used Sprint and I switched because they were such a hassle. Hard to imagine a worse outcome for T-Mobile.

I used Arial before they were acquired by VoiceStream. In my opinion, it's been downhill ever since.

Any chance there's any substance to that hope re: Google?

Regardless, as a happy T-Mobile customer, me too.