T-Mobile USA Targets Lower End of Smartphone Market

T-Mobile USA appears to be planning an aggressive targeting of lower-cost smartphones as a way of securing its customer base.

Chief Executive Philipp Humm said many of his smartphones will eventually be made up of Google-powered phones costing less than $100, half as much as the smartphones typically available at U.S. carriers. In October, to lower the cost of monthly bills, Mr. Humm introduced a limited data plan that costs $10.

With Verizon and AT&T staking out the high-end device segment, and T-Mobile USA the lower end, Sprint has to figure out where it wants to play.

T-Mobile Smartphones to Head Down Market - WSJ.com (subscription required)

Dave Michels responds:

Gary, 

This doesn't make any sense to me. Networks are like roads (not cars) and staking our "high" or "low" end doesn't work. Even expensive toll roads have junkers. 

T-mobile is clearly accommodating the low end with some of their devices (Optimus T) and new data plan, but they also have their "4G" with a large footprint and some very highend phones from HTC and Samsung. 

A good carrier will have good solutions for the high-end, low-end, and business sectors - not one target. 

To truly embrace the low-end, there is much more work to be done. Tmo is still requiring a 2 year contract with data (albeit $10 data) on their entry level smartphones. Two years on a sub $100 device is robbery and the run away success of the Apple Touch shows these smartphones can be very useful (games and other apps that don't require a connection) without a data plan (wifi only). 

I was thinking recently that the carriers are really over complicating things - so this headline caught my attention.' 


--Dave Michels


Good insight, as always. I think the point has to do with customer segmentation, not the actual networks or devices. Most observers would say Verizon Wireless always has tried to occupy the "high end" of the mobile market, while Cricket has tried to dominate the "local voice line substitution" market, for example. Virgin Mobile has targeted the "younger, hipper user." T-Mobile USA in recent years has targeted a younger demographic. 


It is true that the networks, per se, are not highly differentiated. But the customer segments can be. 

Conflicting Regulatory Silos Keep Popping Up

One of the problems everybody faces as we move increasingly to a world of IP-enabled communications, information and entertainment is that a growing clash is occurring, piecemeal, between historically-distinct regulatory silos. Whether we can stumble forward forever, without acknowledging the end of regulatory silos, as well as technology or industry silos, remains open to question.

The problem is simply that different sorts of activities and businesses are governed by distinctly-different frameworks. Magazines and newspapers, for example, operate under First Amendment "free speech" rules and have virtually no "common carrier" obligations.

TV and radio broadcasters operate under different rules, with more limited "free speech" rights (broadcasters do not enjoy unrestricted rights to transmit any sort of content). Cable TV regulation is more akin to broadcasting than telecom regulation, but there are some tax and local franchising rules that are more akin to common carrier businesses.

Telecom companies operate under the most-restrictive rules, with legal requirements to interconnect with other telecom service providers and deliver their traffic. Data services and content generally have been immune from these rules, though. That's why the Web, and Web content, have developed essentially as a zone of freedom.

Of course, in the U.S. market there is more talk about "network neutrality", a troublesome issue not because of the immediate implications some attribute to it, but because it is just one more examples of how the old "silos" of regulation are breaking down, and becoming intellecutually incoherent in a world where media, TV, radio, music, talk, testing, Web surfing and data communications all occur over one physical pipe.

Should that not require some harmonization or revamping of the fundamental regulatory regimes each of the media types up to this point has enjoyed? And here's the crux of the matter: how does one square first amendment, "zone of freedom" rules historically applied to newspapers, magazines, data services and the Web, with common carrier rules applied to telcos, or the quasi-regulated broadcasting industry?

The fact that delivery modes change does not alter the zone of freedom newspapers, magazines and other media, even "Web media" are supposed to have. And the U.S. courts have ruled that corporations do possess rights of free speech as well. So the issue is whether the zone of freedom is expanded or contracted as multiple media types are delivered over IP pipes.

So it is that some consumer and public advocacy groups are urging the Federal Communications Commission to declare that "short code" text messages deserve the same nondiscriminatory treatment by telephone carriers as email and voice messages.

So are "short codes" advertising, a direct response mechanism, or are they "speech." And whose "speech" rights are supposed to be protected? Those of the speaker, as the early founders seemed to think, or the rights of the "listener," as jurists increasingly have argued over the past 50 years or so?

The issue is more complicated than sometimes positioned. Text messaging services might include a "zone of freedom" in terms of what is said. But note that the freedom is for the speaker. But who is the "speaker" whenever we are looking at media?

The Washington Post might not accept advertising from its competitor, the Wall Street Journal. Verizon Wireless might not accept ads from Sprint or T-Mobile. Cable companies don't take ads from telephone companies marketing competing services. In those cases, rights of speech are exercised by a "speaker." A TV, cable or radio network has the right not to allow speech (advertising also is speech) to be paid for and transmitted.

The fundamental problem is that as IP pipes carry virtually all communications, information and entertainment, we are going to see more disjointed efforts to regulate "unlike" things in "like" ways. That will be the corollary to regulating "like" things in "unlike" ways.

Good Reason to Buy a Wi-Fi-Equipped Smart Phone

On Dec. 11, JetBlue Airways Corp. will begin a trial of free in-flight e-mail and messaging using in-cabin Wi-Fi. If passengers respond positively, the airline said it could install the service across its entire fleet, according to Citigroup analyst Jim Suva.

The in-flight Wi-Fi service will be welcomed by many notebook PC users and owners of Wi-Fi-equipped BlackBerrys or iPhones, since some people travel with a BlackBerry, iPhone or some other smart phone and leave their notebooks at home. That's not me, but other people do it. The relevant BlackBerry devices include the 8210, 8820 and 8320 Curve. You are out of luck if you have service from at&t, though, as at&t blocks Wi-Fi usage on its Curve. T-Mobile supports Wi-Fi on the Curve.

Of course, there apparently is just one single aircraft involved in the JetBlue test. But if it proves popular, and one suspects it will, we can hope other carriers eventually will move to equip their cabins for Wi-Fi.

Of course, the danger is that people will start using VoIP over Wi-Fi, even if cabins aren't equipped for mobile phone use, an idea that many of us absolutely detest. As annoying as mobile phone etiquette now is, it will be unbearable when you can't escape the audio pollution created by your seat mates.

Will Google Bid?

The deadline for filing an application for the 700-MHz auction is Dec. 3. The actual auction starts Jan. 24; the names of the bidders will be disclosed on Jan. 14.

Prediction: Google will submit a bid of $4.6 billion. But maybe no more than that, and the winning bid will certainly be higher. Now that Verizon has agreed to open up its mobile network to any compliant device or software, and having already gotten working agreements with Sprint, T-Mobile and Clearwire, Google might not need to secure spectrum simply to ensure that its open approach to the mobile Web has a place to develop.

Vodafone Blocks T-Mobile iPhone Sales

Vodafone has obtained a restraining order in Germany against T-Mobile's exclusive deal to sell iPhones.

Europe has fair-competition laws that are designed to allow consumers choice. So Vodafone might be hoping its lawsuit will help it get its own rights to sell the iPhone. It wouldn't be the first time an iPhone deal has run into complications. In France, Apple has to supply unlocked iPhones, despite Apple's objections, because of a French law requiring carriers to offer unlocked as well as locked phones.

Another Ridiculous Patent Suit

Technology Patents, a Maryland entity having its principal place of business in Potomac, Md, (address P.O. Box 61220, Potomac, MD 20859, http://www.arismardirossian.com/), has filed a patent infringement suit claiming that 131 carriers, handset suppliers and application providers have infringed a patent covering global transmission of text or short message service (SMS) communications.

Technology Patents alleges that all of the defendants, which include T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo! (among the 131 defendants), have caused international text or SMS messages to be sent to and from Maryland, thereby resulting in infringement of the asserted patents in Maryland.

TPLLC has asked for a permanent injunction against the defendants, enjoining them from providing international messaging operations and capabilities in the U.S. market.

My views on this, as previously mentioned, are that there is way too much use of "patents" as a business weapon or means of extortion, and too little use of patents as a genuine way to spur the formation of intellectual capital. We aren't talking about one or two "infringers." We are talking virtually the entire global telecommunications industry here. Can that possibly be the case? Or is this yet another example of "prior art" that should never have been given patent status in the first place?

It's crap.

Watch T-Mobile

T-Mobile is going to be the first U.S. wireless provider to offer Android-powered phones next year. It is going to be first because it already has been working to develop such phones with Google and because it has powerful incentives to do something really dramatic to close the gap between itself and the other three major mobile providers. Put simply, it has got to take more chances and gamble more.

And oddly enough for the carrier with the least broadband capability (T-Mobile hasn't yet deployed its third generation network and the others have, T-Mobile might be launching a major push for Web-centric services. If the big opportunity not yet dominated by anybody else is the mobile Web, it's a major chance for T-Mobile to establish a new position for itself in the marketplace.

Once positioned at the "more minutes, less money" end of the spectrum, T-Mobile over the past several years has gotten more traction as a provider of "trendy" devices with an image to match. Pushing hard on the Android front is just another step in that direction.

T-Mobile also has been innovative on the services and packaging front. Its "myFaves" program allows unlimited calling to any other five numbers: not numbers supplied by T-Mobile--any other numbers.

T-Mobile also has been first to offer "HotSpot at Home," a dual-mode service allowing unlimited calling from the home Wi-Fi zone or any T-Mobile HotSpot. And though I continue to think the problem with dual-mode services is handset limitations, "HotSpot at Home" supports the BlackBerry Curve, one of the few devices I actually would consider using. So call T-Mobile remarkably prescient or lucky.

T-Mobile also worked closely with HTC, we are told, on the "Shadow," a "slide-out keypad" device with the "no keys" look that is becoming more popular.

The point is that T-Mobile is powerfully motivated to push the innovation envelope because it simply has to. That's going to be good for users. Watch T-Mobile.

All Carriers Cave on Early Termination Fees

Users hate early termination fees that come with their mobile service contracts. Now, in part because of pressure from lawsuits filed challening the practice, all four major U.S. wireless carriers are softening the blow.

Verizon Wireless was the first to prorate early termiantion fees last year. at&t Wireless did so in October. T-Mobile and Sprint now also say they will start prorating their early termination fees in the first half of next year.

The fees aren't gone. But the amount will decrease the closer you get to contract end date. Sprint also says it will allow allow users to change plans without renewing the contract, something Verizon started doing in October.

All the moves are user friendly. Look for more signs of "friendliness" as use of unlocked phones starts to spread, open source Android phones start to make their appearance and, just maybe, a new carrier decides to push the envelope even more.

Google Issues: att and Verizon

Google hopes to do to the mobile market what it has helped do to the traditional Internet: bring people closer to content. At an important level, that means Web apps surfing on a mobile should have a consistent, if not identical experience, as the same operation on a notebook or desktop PC.

In that regard, Google is engaged in a genuine coopetition: it needs legacy carriers as partners even as it competes with them. And every potential partner knows that what is good for Google might not be good for anybody else.

Google already has jumpstarted its effort in a big way, picking up China Telecom, NTT and KDDI, plus Sprint and T-Mobile in the U.S. market, T-Mobile Deutschland, Telefonica in Spain and Telecom Italia right at the gate. That gives Google carrier agreements Apple and Microsoft never got that fast. And Google's operating system and platform now are global from the get-go.

That means the carrier blockade is broken. Verizon and at&t might or might not join up with the Android effort. But they no longer can stop it.

Of course, Google will proceed on multiple fronts. It won't get where it wants by forcing everybody to use Android. So it will work with carriers when it can, or work around them if it has to. From a stategic perspective, Google wants its apps and experiences on every device, if possible, with or without Android.

Which means some accommodation with at&t and Verizon is possible, indeed likely, at some point. If Android gets traction at Sprint and T-Mobile, not to mention elsewhere, neither of the two largest providers will want to be frozen out of the action.

And that will be true even if Google ultimately emerges as part of a bidding group, perhaps even a winning group, in the 700 MHz spectrum. There are lots of stakeholders who gain if a robust mobile Web experience can be created. Not the least of which are firmware, chip and software providers from the legacy PC space (Microsoft being the salient exception, as it already is a major and growing mobile OS and application provider.

We should preclude nothing at this point, in terms of Google becoming an owner, at least in part, of a major broadband network; producing its own branded devices; getting "top of the deck" exposure on other devices and operating systems or other as-yet-to-be-developed ways.

Google is determined to be a force in mobile and it has lots of ways to proceed, simultaneously. If its gets what it wants, it won't need its own network, devices or apps. Others will do those things. If Google doesn't get what it wants from others, then it will have to consider creating those capabilities itself. Either way, Google in the game for good.

The only unfolding issue is how a complex set of relationships unfolds. Those who want Google to disrupt less will find that their own actions can help tip Google one way or the other. The same holds true for those who might want Google to disrupt more. If they are willing to commit their own capital, they can nudge Google in that direction.

And keep in mind: major technological innovations tend to achieve less in the near term than most think, but far more in the long term than observers expect.

Google Says "No Phone" Right Now

Andy Rubin, Google Director of Mobile Platforms says Google is not announcing today a Gphone. Google has announced the Open Handset Alliance and Android.

Android is an open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. It includes an operating system, user-interface and applications.

The Open Handset Alliance consists of more than 30 technology and mobile leaders including Motorola, Qualcomm, HTC, Sprint and T-Mobile.

The phones will also be available through the world’s largest mobile operator, China Telecom, with 332 million subscribers in China, and the leading carriers in Japan, NTT DoCoMo and KDDI, as well as T-Mobile in Germany, Telecom Italia in Italy and Telefónica in Spain.

"We recognize that many among the multitude of mobile users around the world do not and may never have an Android-based phone," says Rubin. So Google will work to ensure that its services are independent of device or even platform. "For this reason, Android will complement, but not replace, our longstanding mobile strategy of developing useful and compelling mobile services and driving adoption of these products through partnerships with handset manufacturers and mobile operators around the world."

The software developer kit is expected in about a week. Phones built on Android will be available in the second half of 2008.

Google Launches Mobile Assault

Count Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile amongst its carrier partners. Count Samsung and Motorola among its handset partners. Don't look for Symbian or Nokia support, as Google will launch a rival operating system based on Linux, integrating Gmail, mapping and optimized search.

The phones are expected to come on the market around the middle of 2008 and will feature Google software as the anchor around which third party apps also will be added.

About 25 alliance partners already are working with Google.

at&t seems to have some barriers to working with Google as a result of its Apple deal, while Verizon might still be worried about facing Google as a rival network operator. Still, Google's new push will help create a new category of mobile devices not optimized around voice, email or music, but around Web applications.

T-Mobile Goes Down

It wasn't your imagination: if you use T-Mobile data services, you had no connectivity for as much as four hours on Tuesday. Personally, I thought it was the coverage inside the convention center I am working inside of. Nope. There was an outage. I thought it was the BlackBerry server at one point. But no.

The latest outage just illustrates an important element of digital life: you really can't trust any service or application to remain "always available." Everything is going to crash, or be unusable, for some amount of time. So one either gets used to the idea of periodic outages, or if that isn't satisfactory, you are going to have to back up all your mission critical services, devices, data or applications. Personally, I don't worry too much about application diversity, though most of us have some of that. I do make sure broadband and mobile access, as well as computing devices, are redundant.

att Tilt: A Small Reason Sprint is in Trouble

A decade ago, Nextel was the star of the U.S. mobile industry, with way-above-average revenues per subscriber based on its business user base. Today, Sprint Nextel is struggling to find its way. We point out the introduction by at&t of the new Tilt phone as an example of why Sprint Nextel is faltering. It isn't the technical performance of the phone, though it is among the "smartest" of smart phones available, or the form factor or the industrial design, though some will appreciate it.

Of course, it hasn't helped that Sprint still is struggling to get the separate Nextel and Sprint networks and technologies to mesh. But it might be argued that Nextel's market success now is a large reason for Sprint's undoing. The reason is simply that the gravitation pull of Nextel's business customer base might have defocused Sprint on the consumer-lead dynamic of the mobile phone market.

As with so many other elements of technology adoption these days, innovation is seeping into the market, and into the fabric of business life, from the consumer segment. And one might argue that Verizon, at&t (Cingular)and T-Mobile have done a better job, of late, of tapping into that dynamic.

As phones and mobiles increasingly have become fashion items, Verizon and at&t have seemed better able to capture the spirit. Perhaps in some largely unconscious fashion Sprint executives relied too heavily on the "pin drop" quality of the network, rather than offering fashion-forward devices.

That isn't to ignore technical parameters of the user experience. But most users realize that every network has some limitations, largely negating the "our network is better" positioning. Sprint has had to integrate two completely different air interfaces, to be sure. You might think "data network" when you think of Sprint. You aren't nearly as likely to think "cool phones." And that increasingly is what is driving the market these days.

The Tilt is the first at&t-enabled Windows Mobile 6 smart phone, and features a slide-out QWERTY keypad design, a 3-megapixel camera, 3G data speeds from AT&T's UMTS/HSDPA network and global connectivity.

Designed by HTC, the AT&T Tilt features a 2.8-inch color screen that slides back to reveal a full QWERTY keyboard, then tilts up to position the screen perfectly for reading and creating e-mail, browsing, watching videos or playing games.

The Tilt supports Bluetooth 2.0, which allows for up to six Bluetooth devices to be wirelessly connected simultaneously to the device and also supports Bluetooth Stereo.

The Tilt also features the latest version of TeleNav GPS Navigator and address sharing, which allows users to share their current locations or the location of their favorite businesses with other mobile users. Business users also can use TeleNav Track, a mobile workforce management solution that includes GPS-enabled tracking, timesheets, wireless forms, navigation, job dispatching and bar code scanning.

The Tilt also operates in Japan and Korea, as well as in 135 countries using the GSM air interface.

Wi-Fi is built in. The Tilt also comes with the highest-resolution camera available on any at&t mobile phone (3 megapixels). The device also accommodates 4GB MicroSD flash memory cards and is capable of supporting up to 32GB MicroSD cards to expand storage for pictures, video, music and more.

The at&t version of the Tilt also will be the first Windows Mobile device in North America to include BlackBerry Connect version 4.0 software, which provides BlackBerry email service, security and device management for IT administrators and the benefit for users of wireless synchronization of email, calendar, contacts, task list and memo pad information.

BlackBerry Connect v4.0 supports push email for Microsoft Exchange, IBM Lotus Domino and Novell GroupWise through the BlackBerry Enterprise Server and personal email through the BlackBerry Internet Service.

Customers can also use the AT&T Tilt to access their personal email. Better than most devices, the Tilt bridges the business-focused BlackBerry segment with the media player personal device.

And that's the issue: people buy devices. The network and the plan just follow along.

Now This is a Smart Move

T-Mobile has rolled out the BlackBerry Curve 83200 with Wi-Fi support, so the device can be used with T-Mobile's Hotspot@Home system or on public hotspots. As part of that plan, the Curve can be used for unlimited calling from the home or public Wi-Fi zones. That costs an extra $10 a month.

The in-home router T-Mobile sells is optimized for voice and costs about $50 but there is a rebate, we understand.

Dual-mode service with limited or unappealing handsets is a main reason why femtocells, which place no restrictions on end user handset choice beyond the limitations of handsets any given carrier will support, have seemed to me a wiser choice for fixed-mobile consumer applications. Giving Curve Wi-Fi is smart.

Sprint Launches Airave Femtocell Service

I happen to live in one of the neighborhoods in Denver where Sprint is rolling out its new Airave femtocell network, and i do have mobile service with Sprint (I also use Verizon, T-Mobile and at&t). That doesn't necessarily mean I am going to test it or use it, but I can. The service also is available in some parts of Indianapolis.

Make no mistake: this is a landline replacement service. In my case the incremental cost of the femtocell service, offset by the abandonment of my landline, would save $20 a month or so. That might be an interesting number for lots of consumers.

It makes possible unlimited incoming, outgoing, and long distance calls using any handset Sprint sells and supports. As I have argued before, handset freedom will be vitally important in the fixed-mobile convergence space. Dual-mode phones don't make as much sense to me, for precisely that reason.

Airave vastly improves indoor mobile coverage (something desperately needed in my neigborhood. All you have to do is watch all my neighbors out on their front porches talking on their mobiles.

Airave costs $15 per month for individuals and $30 per month for families, above the existing wireless plan any user has.

The Airave base station costs $49.99. Sprint plans to make the AIRAVE available later this year to customers in the remainder of Denver and Indianapolis, along with Nashville, and to customers nationwide in 2008.

The Samsung-built Airave base station covers approximately 5,000 square feet. Up to three Sprint subscribers can use the AIRAVE simultaneously as long as they are registered with the device.

Airave is Sprint's answer to T-Mobile's HotSpot@Home service. So watch the deployment numbers, when they ultimately are available.

GooglePhone: Big Issues

Speculation about a new Google Phone continues to mount. Add the Boston Globe to the Wall Street Journal as entities that have "uncovered" the prototype. Google executive Rich Miner, a co-founder of mobile software company Android (which was bought by Google two years ago), has not confirmed that he is working on a phone, but he is reported to have shown the alleged prototype to "a handful of Boston entrepreneurs and venture capitalists."

Dan Roth, president of VoiceSignal, and Mike Phillips, founder of speech-recognition firm Vlingo Inc., both are suggested as also working with Google on the device. Google's phone supposedly allows horizontal scrolling and has three-dimensional, animated buttons on the screen as well as a small QWERTY keyboard.

This will be interesting. Most tier one service providers will say Google is the competitor they worry about most, and wireless is the service now keeping the global industry moving forward.

We can safely dismiss the notion that Google will build handsets. We cannot discount Google becoming a service provider, though, as it just might bid for 700 MHz spectrum. In the meantime, it continues to work to seed existing networks with its software, so one cannot discount an "iPhone" deal with at least one wireless carrier.

But that's where matters get sticky. T-Mobile has the most to gain, but the worst network for browsing. Verizon has the network, but probably not the willingness. at&t is busy with iPhone and might not want the distraction. Sprint has the network and a long history of working with partners. The network access platform (CDMA) probably isn't the most important issue, but is a potential negative.

Then there's the issue of how coherent the value proposition is. BlackBerry is mobile email. iPhone is a fashion statement right now. It isn't clear what it will become as adoption broadens, though if it winds up being mobile Internet then Google has to take it on. Mobile search doesn't quite have the ring of something lots of end users will understand. The "Internet in your pocket" probably does, but iPhone is already there.

More important initially is the choice of network partner. "The Internet in your pocket when near a Wi-Fi access point" doesn't cut it, at least for me. That would have as little appeal as a mobile phone that only worked within range of a Wi-Fi access point. A small number of people might put up with the convenience, but it is hard to see lots of people doing so.

T-Mobile has lots of reasons for considering such a partnership. But that's the worst possible network for mobile browsing. As much as people complain about the bandwidth used to support the iPhone, they should have to use the T-Mobile data network before complaining. Negative user experience is about the only way to describe it.

Of course, Google could be angling for applications requiring low bandwidth, such as location-based and contextual information, not mobile search, or transaction capabilities based on such location-based capabilities. That wouldn't take much bandwidth. But that also wouldn't be the "Internet in your pocket."

Assuming the bandwidth issue can be finessed, the task of creating a new category remains. People understand the "email in your pocket" and "music in your pocket" positions. Mobile browsing, mobile payments, mobile advertising and location-aware services do not provide similar positions in the end user mind.

I suppose Google could attack the iPhone segment (similar features, much less price) but even there the message does not immediately seem clear.

Apple also had an advantage: it is well known for user interface innovation industrial design and ease of use. Apple also has a fanatical user base and was able to build off the wild success of the iPod. Google will not have those advantages.

And this is said by someone whose day begins and ends with Google, and for whom search is something that happens throughout the day. But the way I use Google (research) would not translate to the mobile environment. Mobile search would be a different use case and some new behaviors Google would have to stimulate and help create. Of course, BlackBerry and iPhone had to do so as well. I just can't tell you off hand what a Google Phone does for me, the way I can describe the BlackBerry and iPhone.

Separately, Google has filed a patent application covering an electronic on-line payment system it refers to as GPay. Using GPay, a server receives a text message from a payer containing a payment request for a specific amount. The server parses the text message to find out what value the payer account should be debited for, and
credits the payee account.

Of course, one way or the other, Google is going to be a presence in wireless. If Google wants a share of the mobile advertising market, and it clearly does, it needs control over more elements of the value chain.

Also, with wireless increasingly ubiquitous, and fourth generation wireless coming, Google has to get into position to extend beyond the PC experience. So Google seems to be working on an operating system and at least one handset.

It had made wireless enabling technology acquisitions, including Reqwireless (mobile apps: browser, email), Skia (graphics software), Android (OS)and Dodgeball (mobile social networking).

Google is developing mobile versions of existing apps such as its Calendar and AdSense apps. it is developing text message services such as real-time flight information, local search and payments.

Google might bid in the upcoming 700 MHz auction. it also is sealing deals with hardware makers to pre-install Google services on Samsung, Apple iPhone and LG devices and working with China Mobile and at&t--through the iPhone--to optimize the services for handset use.

Google also is supporting the Windows Mobile operating system. Google also is talking about a mobile virtual network in the U.K. market. And of course it has been experimenting with Wi-Fi networks, and is working with Sprint on that firm's WiMAX handsets.

What does WiMAX Displace?

To the extent that mobile phone penetration is nearing saturation, while broadband access to businesses and homes also is close to saturaturated, at least as a technology supporting personal computers, one has to ask what customer demand WiMAX will cannibalize. Well, I suppose some people might argue WiMAX creates a new market, but the issue still is to envision what that new market is.

So far, it appears most observers other than Intel Corp. think WiMAX will supplant some other form of access.

Intel clearly sees WiMAX as a technology that changes demand for lap-top PCs. As Internet access has changed requirements for desktop machines, so Intel believes WiMAX will create new demand for mobile machines that are always connected.

But most service providers seem to view WiMAX as a technology that extends or replaces some other existing end user value or network. Sprint sees WiMAX as a technology that changes the mobile phone market by extending beyond third generation platforms, first augmenting and then replacing earlier generations of technology.

T-Mobile might view WiMAX as a technology that potentially displaces Wi-Fi hotspots. Cable and telephone companies see it as a threat to cable modem, fiber-to-home and Digital Subscriber Line services.

I wouldn't be so sure WiMAX ultimately will have most impact as a PC-affecting technology.

It seems to me more likely it will have much more significance as a mobile phone and mobile handheld device platform. There are all sorts of reasons why users aren't going to take advantage of mobile WiMAX from their PCs, including ambient light and furniture. Everybody can reach for and use a mobile in a pocket or purse.

GooglePhone? GPhone?

Since late 2006, there has been speculation that Google is prototyping a Google mobile phone, optimized to run Google apps, enable communications between Gtalk users and operate as a standard mobile phone as well. The speculation then was that a launch could occur in 2008.

The rumors are out again, suggesting a device that could sell in the $100 range, not to compete with the iPhone but rather low-cost PCs and other Web-capable devices. The device supposedly is powered by Linux, includes global positioning satellite capabilities, and of course will be optimzied to run Google Maps and other Google software.

Google is said to be showing the prototype to cell phone manufacturers and network operators as it continues to hone the technical specifications that will allow the phone to offer a better mobile Web browsing experience than current products, even the Wall Street Journal has reported.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the apparently-serious talk that Google might try an ad-support model. Maybe someday. That strikes me as requiring too great a change in end user behavior. People don't mind paying something for calling. A more logical approach is a simple flat fee plan for data network usage, including IP-to-IP calls using the data plan, and some for-fee charge for calls that have to terminate on existing mobile and wired networks.

There is a rumor about T-Mobile being a network partner, but that is curious since T-Mobile's data network would provide a horrible end user experience. Perhaps T-Mobile is thinking about a dual-mode approach with connectivity at T-Mobile Hotspots. Despite that, T-Mobile has the most to gain, as it needs to do something to break out of its fourth-place spot in the U.S. mobile market.

Such a GPhone or Google Phone would aim for the "Internet in your pocket" segment of the market, with a heavy emphasis on how it can be a platform for contextual advertising based on user location, not just past behavior. There's always some risk when a supplier tries to create a new segment in the device category. But Apple has done it with the iPod and now with the iPhone.

The Google Phone would have to pioneer another new segment in the handset category as well. That's always challenging. But mobile search is a big deal for Google, providing huge incentives to prime the market.

This image, by the way, is just one conception of what such a device might look like.

T-Mobile Prepping FMC Service?

T-Mobile, which has launched a dual-mode (GSM plus Wi-Fi) Hotspot@Home service, looks like it is getting ready to integrate landline service as well. T-Mobile is working with Linksys on a router that integrates home phone lines into the service along with providing VoIP service over cell phones, according to documents with the Federal Communications Commission.

In June, T-Mobile launched its Hotspot@Home service, which allows T-Mobile cell phone subscribers to transfer calls seamlessly between the T-Mobile cellular network and a Wi-Fi hot spot in the home.

My issue with the implementation is that it only supports two phones: the Samsung t409 and the Nokia 6086. So far, no tier one provider has found its dual-mode service very attractive to users when device limitations are that stringent.

The new router, not yet available but already bearing the model appellation WRTU54G, also has two slots that support two GSM SIM cards, allowing users to add up to two additional mobiles.

If T-Mobile wants to unify the access to VoIP and other IP-based communication services, over Wi-Fi in the home, wired connection in the home, at a T-Mobile Hotspot or on the GSM network, that might be more interesting. But there still is the handset issue. Given a choice between the tri-mode feature (even with seamless VoIP across all devices)and relatively unrestricted handset choice, I think handset choice wins, just about every time.

T-Mobile and Verizon Might Get Slammed Today

According to an unscientific poll of people in line in New York to get their hands on an iPhone, 40 percent currently are at&t subscribers. That means 60 percent of the buyers will be switching carriers to join at&t. It appears T-Mobile is the largest loser, but Verizon stands to lose nearly as much. About 25 percent of the people in line are T-Mobile customers, just about 23 percent Verizon Wireless. Sprint users number about 10 percent, according to CNBC. One wonders what sort of win-back offers are ready to roll. And, in this case, whether anybody would even consider a win-back offer.