For example: "Q: Does moving between networks affect my battery life? A: We like full batteries too. Our software is optimized to not put extra strain on your battery by only moving you between networks when absolutely necessary."

Just say "Yes", Google. Just say fucking "Yes". It's not that fucking hard to say fucking "Yes".

Another example: "Q: When will Project Fi support other smartphones? A: The Nexus 6 is the first smartphone that supports Project Fi's network of networks. During Project Fi's Early Access Program we plan to only support the Nexus 6."

That doesn't answer the question at all. The question asks "when", and Google just resorts to repeating the same exact information that prompted the question in the first place.

Google does understand the point of FAQs, right? To answer common questions about things? Or are they too busy half-assing their Fiber rollout and building self-driving cars to stop and notice how much they suck at giving straight answers to even the questions that they fucking wrote?

Do you really need a "yes" there? I think it is pretty normal to have a stupid PR response there -- of course the answer is "yes". There is no other way.

Also the answer could be no! Transferring to a better connection can let you run the radio at lower power.

- It is unlimited talk (domestic) and unlimited text (domestic and international). International talk costs extra.

What was said in your post was accurate, but the way it was worded could confuse people into believing that it is unlimited international talk.

The pricing is a little more nuanced than you said.

- It is $20 (talk/text) and then $10 per gig of data. However they refund you all unused data at the end of the month. So if you buy 1 gig of data for $10 and only use 0.5 gig, they credit back $5.

Which is an important distinction as that is their USP: cost savings by refunding unused data.

(never mind, someone else responded to this question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9422621)

Presumably Google is paying them something to compensate for that, but it still seems dumb -- accepting a little money today at the cost of cutting your own throat in the long term. But then there aren't many providers in the US that aren't dumb, so maybe the long-term threat has just been completely missed by them? Who knows...

Both Sprint and T-Mobile have to build physical infrasture, both to offer basic services (e.g. 3G, talk/text) but to also compete (4G, LTE, etc). Building infrastructure is really expensive. They need land, licences, power, and a network to connect that tower to (assuming it isn't just a relay).

So both networks have this HUGE sunk cost. In an ideal world they would be able to recruit enough users to consume each tower's capacity by 100% at peak. But because they're competing against other networks (with more users) and have to look competitive, they've over-built their network both in scope (e.g. servicing areas with few users) and capacity.

If Sprint and T-Mobile were confident that they could recruit enough users to fill their network they likely wouldn't agree to this deal. Just as AT&T and Verizon haven't. However the likely reality is that both Sprint and T-Mobile are well over capacity in certain areas and every penny that Google can bring in by stealing uses from the big two is just further helps Sprint and T-mobile, even if they just use it to further build out their respective networks.

Additionally: You could frame this as an "illusion of choice." You have Walmart/Target Cellular (Straight Talk/Brightspot) on the low end, T-Mobile themselves in the middle, and Google's Project Fi offering a niche service, but in reality they're all just T-Mobile aimed at a different user base. In all three cases T-Mobile grows, their network grows, and they could kick these brands off any time the contract is up for renew.

PS - T-Mobile actually host just under 30(!) different cellular providers in the US[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...

Meanwhile hardware and network owners madly fight to stay relevant, like the aggressive customization of Samsung's android Touchwiz or the various telecoms lobbying against net neutrality.

The era of multi-year contracts and heavy device subsidies has primarily helped those with large market share maintain it. T-mobile in particular has been pushing to change how the market works and bring an end to some of the ways that customers have been locked in to carriers. I wouldn't be to surprised to seem them support further commoditization.

Instead what's going to happen, T-Mobile and Sprint both agree to offer the same performance, or focus on different regions.

It's like selling slices of pizza on the street. If you're smart, you and your competitor agree to sell at $5/slice. If you drop to $4, sure you'll get more customers for a short period of time, but then your competitor drops to $4, and now you both just cut 20% off your revenue for no reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spe...

I could see how it could be an attractive revenue stream.

To Sprint and T-Mobile, Google is just another MVNO carrier.

Most MVNOs are just resellers of a single network. They may migrate users between networks as contracts expire, but dynamically balancing between multiple networks is less common. I'm sure many people have thought of this idea before (Apple included) but actually getting multiple carriers to agree to a deal is what's interesting about this.

It's also probable only recently feasible with a mass market phone that can handle all the difference frequencies (and potentially different network types) involved.

My other theory is that they are giving Google a taste of the business that will later lead to Google buying T-Mobile or Sprint outright.

For those in the know: how much would they get per subscriber, assuming $20 for the "basics" as they call it, and $10 per Gig for data?

This is likely difficult to calculate, given they are using both T-Mobile _and_ Sprint, and they refund unused data. But I'd be curious nevertheless...

This plan enables people to be 'more online' while mobile, even in other countries.

Google has always been trying to lower the barriers to the internet (slow javascript -> Chrome (v8 engine), the internet baloons in africa, and now a global cellular/mobile internet service at decent rates).

T-Mobile site says 1 GB of 4G data with unlimited talk and text for $50 a month.

5 gigs of 4G data is $70

http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html

If you scroll down, there's:

$30 per month — Unlimited web and text with 100 minutes talk 100 minutes talk | Unlimited text | First 5GB at up to 4G speeds

I'm considering switch from that plan to Google Fi for Canada data.

There are some cheaper pay-as-you-go plans, but those are actually Walmart's plans using T-Mobile's towers—similar to what Google is doing here.

* T-Mobile customer service is inconsistent in messaging on the phone, via Facebook, stores

* As a H1B visa holder I am, according to TMO, not able to get a postpaid plan

* Prepaid plan does not work outside of the US

* Prepaid plan has issues receiving short codes from Uber/Bank of America and possibly others - I've spent 8+ hours trying to get it resolved and just ended up giving up.

* I currently use Cricket, due to the 20GB max, but the network is so incredibly slow that it's almost pointless. In NYC I often get at most 100kb/s downstream, when on LTE; that's just no good.

* Spam calls to my Cricket number, and they are unable to do anything about the multiple calls I receive a day

* I use Google Voice already, and it's incredible - except for international texting which they have crappy support for.

* Google Voice has issues with short codes, kinda like TMO prepaid.

Assuming the latter two has been solved with Project Fi + I can get proper network speeds + they filter out spam + automatic transcripts of voicemails (latter two being Google Voice features), then I'm a fan. Can't wait to get it for my Nexus 6.

-citation: I confounded and run a U.S. MVNO.

What? I'm on a TN and I have a postpaid plan and device payment plan. Your visa status doesn't really affect your phone plan eligibility.

However, H1B holders are people having recently arrived to the US, and therefore with 0 credit history. This is what impacts the capability to get a postpaid plan, but after a few months to build it up there should be no problem.

Personally, I find it ridiculous. Having money in the bank as well as a good salary, and not being able to sign up for a 30$ monthly plan; or applying for a credit card and getting either rejected or one with a 200$ credit limit.

AT&T will let you sign up for a post-paid without a credit history. I didn't want to provide a SSN (even though I have one), so they let me pay an $800 deposit fee - was worth it to avoid the personal information exposure.

The credit card thing is strange - I got a $20,000 one with wells fargo the month after I moved down to the united states in 1996 - on a $50,000 salary working desktop support. I was quite honestly a little shocked - but just went with it.

Well, if history proves anything is that most of their investors will prefer an immediate cash-in that will raise the results and the stock price, over the long-term sustainability of the company.

Let ye olde business do the infrastructure, and Google - data mining.

Edit: Looks like the Sony Z3C is a (and the only?) contender!

---

But, I've also given up on that front. The last phone that was (barely) usable one-handed for me was the original Moto X. At this point, there is literally not a single phone on the market that (that I can find):

* Runs a recent version of Android (or iOS)

* Is <= 5" tall

* Has a recent/"fast" CPU/GPU

So, fuck it, time to give in and go with a phablet.

Increasing height to 5.1 inches (well, 130mm), gsmarena.com shows almost a dozen phones that suit your wishes.

(Personally, I'm still not happy about having to give up on having a hardware QWERTY keyboards on my phone :/ )

EDIT: maybe you could try drawing a screen with a 5.44" height and 4.7" diagonal. Euclid will not be your friend.

Probably that Nexus 5 reboot people are talking about.

I don't see their offering as competitive at all.

edit: just saw the "plus taxes and fees" of which there is none for me. So, I pay even less now.

PS - The difference is that with the value plan, phones are no longer "free." You have to have a separate credit line (called: "AT&T Next"). So a phone might be $30/month for 30 months.

All I am saying is, AT&T's offer no longer does, so it is close to what Google/T-Mobile are doing.

Depending on your plan they might be doing the same for you now too?

Month 1: Get 10 Use 5 = 5 rolled over.

Month 2: Get 10 Rollover 5 Use 5 (of the 10) Lose 5 (already rolled over) = 5 rolled over.

Month 3: Get 10 Rollover 5 Use 5 (of the 10) Lose 5 (already rolled over) = 5 rolled over.

Month 4: Get 10 Rollover 5 Use 5 (of the 10) Lose 5 (already rolled over) = 5 rolled over.

By Month 5, you would think you would have 30 (10 + 5 rolled over from each month) but you only get 15.

I think AT&T only rolls over data to the next month, so you aren't actually accruing anything. Unlike T-Mobile, who I believe roll over data for up to 12 months.

I could see coverage being an issue if you're in the country but that's not going to be an issue for too much longer.

Anecdotal i gues, but if you look around its quite easy to find new flagship phones for very cheap, especially right around when the new iphones come out and people are clamoring to trade up

Moto G is my personal preference though I bump into the limitations of that a lot.

1. They have been claiming they are building new towers for the last THREE years. 2. No coverage AT ALL in any bart tunnel 3. No coverage fully across the bay bridge 4. Spotty coverage in SOMA 5. Google hangouts is utterly useless on mobile 6. three huge dead zones on 880 between Oakland and Menlo park, no coverage across dumbarton, etc.

I wish companies would stop partnering with them for services like this.

I carry a verizon MIFI with me everywhere for work (ops) and I turn it on every time I get on bart - when I am in the car and when I am sitting around in any restaurant / coffee shop / bar for any time because the network sucks so bad.

When your in Alameda and Sprint sucks, Google puts you on T-Mobile's network, and you get better data + coverage.

When you head to the rural Midwest, and T-Mobile has EDGE or no service at all, Google can put you back on Sprint LTE and it's at least better than EDGE on T-Mobile.

If this works the way they describe, then you win in both situations -- you get the best of either network, wherever you happen to be.

I would really prefer a much lower base rate with zero talk/text and reasonable "overage" charges. Even at the old system of $.30/minute and $.25/message, It would probably come out cheaper for me. The overage charges will also encourage me to use more data instead of talk/text, and isn't that what Google wants me to do anyway?

(My mother is with a South Korean MVNO and pays a $0 base rate, with "overage" charges at $.0018 per second of outgoing calls and $.02 per outgoing text. Crazy, huh? Pay-as-you-go data is more expensive with her carrier, but she doesn't need much data.)

All in all, apart from easy international roaming, I don't see anything special in this offer. It's the same old American carrier racket, only more expensive. I expected more from Google.

Compare the size of South Korea, and the size of the US, that's why it's easier to blanket South Korea with data networks.

Google is offering ways to more seamlessly switch WiFi networks and make using a public trusted WiFi instantly.

The fact is that in the US there are a lot of coverage gaps and places where a specific type of service has very bad coverage (2G or 3G). Without cell data Google Maps won't work (1 year ago, might be better now).

We don't know if it will be useful yet, it might be great, it might be nothing special.

They are also offering financing on a Nexus 6, I haven't done the math to see if that's worth it (doubt it), but they'll probably be making a good amount of money off of that.

Most importantly it will put pressure on Verizon and ATT to lower prices and improve the value of the service, just like Google Fiber does it areas it is available in.

FreedomPop provides 500mb a month free data and you can pre-pay monthly for more data with lower overage costs. You do get sprint only.

Republic Wireless already does the Wifi calling and switching and unlimited data.

Ptel sells prepaid data at a flat $.10/megabye (atleast $10 / 60 days) and there are others in that range.

There really isn't anything new here.

If they can create a global network of networks where I can bring my own device, I'd be interested. The are other resellers that offer

At the very least, I would have expected their plans to encourage people to prefer data to talk/text.

I used 15GB last month, so I'd pay more than double what I pay now for "unlimited" data.

It'll be interesting to see what type of impact this has on battery life / reliability.

> refunding data

I'm surprised they didn't go with data roll over or just lower price per GB. Refunds add a layer of guilt / buyers remorse to the process. I suspect a lot of customers will cross a 1GB boundary and feel obligated to use less data to lower their bill.

if you don't know what i'm talking about, android got a SIP client working pretty fast from the comunity, and the best provider was using gizmo5. which google bought one year before launching the nexus one. Then on year after launching nexus one, they pulled an apple on it and shut down the service.

then they launched google voice. which was a we-own-all-your-data-in-the-cloud version of gizmo5, but it was nice because they gave me lots of free stuff that almost never worked (phone dialer integration, sms, etc). until the clients they released became a piece of garbage (the last build is still from 2012, then they started to force the features trhu google plus and more recently via hangouts)

Gizmo5 was just SIP.

Watched the video via reddit...NICE smooth style...still not idea wtf they're on about though. Oh well...hn comments will know. Sure enough...top comment is a comment expecting people to arrive here confused. So much for clear google marketing.