Google does not acquire wireless Internet network provider ICOA | Hacker News Reader

Google does not acquire wireless Internet network provider ICOA

thenextweb.com

70 pointsderpenxyne24 comments

More recent updates have Google claiming this hasn't happened

http://allthingsd.com/20121126/google-sources-say-company-di...

(well played mods on the updated title ;-)

It looks like your standard penny stock "pump and dump" except this is not a penny stock since it was trading at .0001 - 1/100 of a cent - this morning

http://www.google.com/finance?cid=9420828

According to that chart it traded as high as .0004 today; so TechCrunch and Hacker News helped contribute to a 400% profit for some pump-n-dump scam. Volume peaked at about 500M shares, maybe 800M total, or about $320,000 transacted.

It really is awful how tech blogs like TechCrunch breathlessly run with any rumor without trying to check it first. Kara Swisher (of AllThingsD) has a rather tart riposte to TechCrunch on Twitter. 'hey TC, it was not a PR agency that was "dead wrong," it was your "process" journalism (aka doing no actual reporting)'. https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/273106406536802304

TechCrunch is saying the same: http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/26/icoa-corp-ceo-this-is-not-t...

Shoots. I just wrote a whole article on the topic for SeekingAlpha, which I'll have to pull back. Internet, be more reliable!

What is it with Google and unauthorized Press Releases? For a company this big it's strange that they would misinform the public twice within a 6 month period.

Somebody writing a fake press release on PRWeb != Google misinforming the public.

Could Google be attempting to do what Republic Wireless[1] are doing? I always loved the idea of Republic, but they only ever had one (crappy) handset available, and I'm on a $30 a month plan with T-Mobile that largely fills my needs.

But it seems like an area that's ripe for a larger player to come in and do it better- I very much hope that Google intends to be that player. They've been frustrated by the existing players in wireless enough times (Google Voice, Verizon's treatment of the Galaxy Nexus)...

[1] http://www.republicwireless.com/

For lack of a better answer: probably not.

Republic is a subsidiary of Bandwidth.com which is where Google Voice gets their minutes from (along with Skype and most of the rest of the SIP world). There are a number of problems with Republic's plan, but the primary one is one that Google should have a much easier time solving.

When Republic was launching, the critical necessity for their launch was the receipt of their Cyanogen modded handsets. These devices are different in a couple ways:

1) They will always auto-hop onto WiFi 2) They will always try to route via SIP first

The practical problem is that SIP over GSM/3G is not very good sounding even when you use G.729 (when you're coming over the top). Google has a chance to beat this part as they can make a much tighter integration (one wonders what could be tighter than the built-in SIP stack, but I digress).

COULD google come in and have a grand time in the wireless market? Yes. Will they risk alienating their carrier partners (their top distribution channel)? Probably not.

To my mind, this is just another Google infrastructure play that makes sense for a whole variety of reasons, but I don't think it will serve as the basis for GoogleMobile. For one thing, this wifi network simply isn't large enough to support a carrier, imho.

Wi-Fi based infrastructure is (1) dirt cheap, and (2) offers order-of-magnitude better performance than 3G/4G so this is definitely a place where it's cost effective to provide a better services than other providers and thus promote their brand image.

It could also mean there is extremely stiff competition -- economic, political, or otherwise -- from telco consumer service companies.

If Google can pull of a broad-sweeping, workable switch from the likes of 3G/4G to local WiFi then that would be extremely impressive in every regard (social, technological, economical) and it would effectively sidestep consumer telco service companies.

In order to achieve a better world of digital wireless the marriage between smartphones and telcos needs to end.

They would need to make Wi-Fi connections seamless from one hotspot to another, so you don't have to choose another hotspot every 100 meters to make your phone useful. The day we'll be able to do that will be the day Wi-fi will truly start to disrupt the paid 3G/4G wireless model.

AP-to-AP roaming is already a necessity in any large enterprise deployments. There are some proprietary solutions and I believe there was at least some work on standardizing a solution that would work across vendors (although I'm not sure where things ended up).

What's the reason for using 3G/4G then? What are the downsides of Wi-Fi in comparison?

From my experience, to get the best performance on WiFi you need direct visibility of the point you're trying to reach. The signal weakens very fast and can't get very far if there are walls, buildings or other obstacles between points.

3G/4G/HDSPA/WHATEVER can penetrate easier and use less towers to transmit.

Disclosure: I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

Does anyone know how using empty/unused TV spectrum plays into this? Seems like you would have far better success since they would be able to penetrate walls and other obstacles better than regular Wi-Fi signals can.

I know there was some research being done at Microsoft at using this as sort of a long-range wi-fi network but short of an installation at their corporate campus, I haven't heard any news about it lately.

1: http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ 2: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/knows/

3G/4G access is licensed and regulated so you know there won't be interference.

Nothing stops other people from setting up hotspots that interfere with your hotspot.

3G/4G offers better range and official coverage for moving platforms (cars, trains, etc.) Although the hardware is expensive "carrier grade" stuff, generally this infrastructure has weak points and fails in a disaster. Wi-Fi hardware is mass produced and much cheaper as a result.

Wi-Fi can only cover densely populated areas (airports, coffeeshops, etc.) but if you want to use your tablet when you're driving you should lose your license.

I think smartphones would never have taken off if Apple hadn't strong-armed carriers into offering unlimited data contracts. Metered billing at any price that would be "reasonable" to the carriers would have been way too high for mass adoption.

Range, for one. I also imagine that switching networks is considerably more painful- you can switch from cell to cell and not even notice, but switching between wireless networks can take up to 10 seconds, in my experience.

Wouldn't a lower range simply result in switching happening more often? The amount of time it takes for the actual switching to occur is an attribute of the protocol, not the frequency/nature of the signal.

WiFi saturates quickly. Throw a few dozen users in the same airport lounge and watch as everybody throws their phones against the wall in frustration.

Handoff between hotspots is also pretty crappy. I can walk and talk from one end of the terminal to the other on 3G/4G. On WiFi if I'm not sitting still I'm going to lose my connection fairly soon.

WiFi really is only good for one thing in a public space context: someone sitting down.

Unencrypted management packets...

General Security.

Makes sense. It's sad how we need an advertising company to revolutionize the isp industry. They are perfectly content to sit on their laurels and do nothing but receive their profits with the minimum amount of work.

I remember reading a while ago that Google was working on something that was "like wifi, but better". I wonder if this is related?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com