Does Google Want To Dumb Down Operators?

'No', says Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google. The question was raised during Eric's keynote at Mobile World Congress. What does Google want, we will get into that later. Let's see what it means by 'dumbing down operators'?

Background: Eric said during his keynote, 'Mobile first'. Traditional IT companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google are now interacting with mobile operators more than ever before. The reason; today computing is going mobile and it heavily depends on connectivity. Look at the mobile devices surrounding you everywhere and you will find devices ready for content consumption -- books, maps, music. vidoe, game and much more. Connectivity is the door to the content.

Mobile operators control the flow of information over the mobile networks. These mobile operators are the ones who lay and maintain the 'railroad' tacks on which Google and the likes run their traffic. It is the sole prerogative of an operator to allow the amount of traffic, it deems fit. An operator can completely deny one kind of traffic on its network. Think of Skype. You can't Skype on mobile networks. Operators consider it as stealing talk time. Eric responded by saying, do you consider SMS as stealing talk time?  Google knows an operator can always change tracks and deprive Google or anyone from reaching it target audience.

Operators detest services like Skype and they do not allow such services on their networks.  Yesterday Verizon signed a deal with Skype to eventually allow Skype on their wireless network. Companies like Skype can't sit back and watch as more and more people migrate from desktop to mobile devices. Who is in control here? Operators.

The cloud model which Google is heavily promoting depends on this railroad system. Google doesn't want someone else to control their traffic. Google wants to be in control.

Look back at history. Google was dependent on IE or Firefox for reaching its customers. A simple tweak in IE makes Live (and now Bing) the default search engine and Google washes out of the picture. Do you think Google would ever trust Microsoft's IE for the sustainment of its empire?

Mozilla was a good partner, but how long could you rent a gun to shoot? The browser is only the application through which you access Google services. What if the operating system underneath comes bundled with another browser? What if the hardware comes pre-installed with a particular OS? Google's empire was floating on a sinkable boat. Microsoft wouldn't hesitate to put a hole in that boat.

Google depends on hardware, OS, browser and connectivity. None were in Google's control. What do you see emerging? Google Chrome, Chrome OS, Nexus One and now networking. Google has started taking control. It's time to get on its own warship.
 
Coming back to the point of dumb operators:. As Eric explained that Google doesn't want operators to discriminate between users. What does this mean? In this case we need to understand what is at stake and who is putting it at stake.

Let's consider YouTube. They have HD quality video content. Bandwidth to YouTube is what gasoline is to Humvees. Similar is the case of many other bandwidth hungry applications. Operators are not comfortable with a minority of users consuming majority of their resources.

Consider the infamous AT&T case in the USA. The company has been accused of bad performance on high-consumption devices like the iPhone. On the contrary, the company is signing deals after deals for new smart-phones. How is the company going to handle the heavy traffic when it is allowing more SUVs on its already jammed roads? 
 
During Eric's keynote address, a Google employee showed some cool mobile apps he was working on. He showed a cool app using Google translation and speech to text search. Services like these demand heavy data usage. It is only the beginning. Future devices will have more such services.
 
The traditional model that most operators have been following has to change. But why should operators invest in upgrading services when they don't get any share in the revenue? 
 
Eric said, "In the first place, I feel very, very strongly that we depend on the successful businesses of the operators globally, and I disagree that we're trying to turn the operators into 'dumb pipes'. On the contrary, we need advanced networks that deal with, for instance, security, that deal with dynamic signaling, that can deal with load balancing."

Where is the Google model for sharing revenue with wireless partners? Considering Google's history it is unlikely that the company will ride the 'rented' bandwidth for long. Google has already started building its own network. According to a recent Google blog, "We're planning to build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the United States. We'll deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We plan to offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people."
 
One can easily see the evolution. From search to browser to cloud to content to OS to hardware. The only missing link here is the network. 
 
Google may or may not want to dumb down the operators, but they definitely don't want a slip road which also allows data. Google wants a data super-highway.