Project Fi by Google - <AUTHOR> https://fi.google.com/about/ <comment><USER3> For those who don't want to read the FAQ or find the video incredibly unhelpful [1]:

a. It only supports the Nexus 6 out of the gate.

b. It automatically switches you to the "fastest" network available. Partners out of the gate are Sprint and T-mobile. Sounds like it prefers Wifi, then 4G LTE, and then degrades down to 3G or 2G.

c. Pricing is $20 for unlimited talk (domestic) and text (domestic and international) and wi-fi tethering. Data is $10 per Gig. (Plus taxes, etc.) No support for unlimited data. they also refund you all the unlimited data at the end of the month.

d. No annual contract required.

e. Supports calls over wi-fi.

Coverage map here: [https://fi.google.com/coverage](https://fi.google.com/coverage)

[1] Not even sure why they made a video, it doesn't explain a thing...

Edit: clarified domestic talk pricing, and refunding data.

<comment><USER4> What I don't get is, what's in this for Sprint and T-Mobile? Currently a user of their network is a customer they "own" \-- they deal with that customer directly. Now they have Google sitting between them and the user, which effectively commoditizes their service; Google could switch them out for another network down the road without the user ever knowing or caring. That's great for Google, and probably also great for the user, but not so great for the individual cell providers.

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...

<comment><USER5> Google is charging a significant markup over T-Mobile's existing rates ($30/month for 5Gb vs $70/month through Gooogle.) So Fi is really only interesting for people doing significant international roaming.

<comment><USER6> Where did you get your numbers?

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

<comment><USER7> [http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans](http://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans)

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.

<comment><USER8> No tethering with that plan.

<comment><USER7> If you install the T-mobile app which lets you know your monthly usage, it claims I have 100 megabytes of tethering data. I rather quickly uninstalled it since it's a pain, but some limited tethering does seem to work for me -- I've only used it occasionally to SSH/mosh, but after a while it does an http redirect to a "No tethering for you!" screen; I assume after that 100mb cap is reached (though I haven't checked)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
        > Pay one rate for data around the world
        >
        > In 120+ countries, data usage costs the same $10 per GB
        > as it does in the US (data speed is limited to 256kbps/3G).
        > Check email, get directions, and keep in touch with friends
        > and family when on your trip. Also, call around the world
        > for 20c per minute and send unlimited international texts.

This sounds incredible. Roaming cellular transmission costs are enormous. It's routine to pay several dollars per minute for voice and per megabyte for data. If the data roaming is really no-strings attached, this is a must-buy for me (if it ever becomes available in the UK).

<comment><USER10> FWIW, T-Mobile in the US already has the exact same offering [1]. Their plan has free texts and 2g data in 120+ countries. Calls cost 20 cents per minute.

[1] [http://www.t-mobile.com/optional- services/roaming.html](http://www.t-mobile.com/optional-services/roaming.html)

<comment><USER11> I am on T-Mobile and travelled outside the US late last year.

First off, I just want to say, the "free tier" of international data is extremely appreciated for two important reasons:

\- Overage is literally impossible (i.e. no "bill shock").

\- If you don't wish to pay, you get "something" for nothing.

So, now, the "bad." The reality is that T-Mobile's free tier is incredibly slow like "my 56K modem was faster than this" slow. A single modern web-site can literally take so long to load that my phone would fall asleep and then cut off the connection (meaning I'd have to start all over).

It is really only useful for push notifications and to check your email if you're really patient. Even for reading sites like Reddit, it would drive you up the wall. Looking at images (e.g. imgur) is a no-go and YouTube is definitely not even plausible.

Now, if you pay, you get more data per dollar than you do on most other big US networks and you legitimately get 4G speeds in many places (at least I certainly did). So if you pay you wouldn't even know you were abroad. And when you run out of paid data, you drop down to the slow speed again rather than being cut off (which is nice, so you feel safe to use 100% of your paid data with no risk).

So, to me, T-Mobile's free tier doesn't really change the formula for international travel. It just solves overage/bill shock and gives you some basic notifications and maybe email. Those aren't things to be sniffed at, they're legitimately nice, but people should manage their expectations.

PS - Protip: Restart your phone every single time you change countries. My phone got "confused" and would refuse to connect until I restarted. We did a cruise so a new country was daily, and I missed a day of data because I thought that country simply wasn't supported (rather than it being a phone problem).

<comment><USER12> Absolutely correct about restarting your phone. I even restart mine twice after I change SIM cards (not a T-Mobile guy).

What's your experience with Google Maps at the free 2G speeds? That would be my first question when it comes to travel.

<comment><USER13> Fun thing to keep in mind when traveling in mainland China: maps for use outside China are shifted by a few hundred meters, presumably in a lame attempt to confuse an invading army.

[https://polastre.com/2013/02/what-the- map/](https://polastre.com/2013/02/what-the-map/)

<comment><USER14> I have not run into this issue in China, perhaps this has changed since.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "We refund the data you don't use" is basically a way of saying "you pay by the megabyte for the data you do use" \-- which is actually really great, I've been frustrated that everyone's settled on "all-you-can-eat" data as the standard, it doesn't align incentives well at all.

And they really are refunding it: if you use 1.2GB per month, it doesn't matter whether you sign up for 2, 5, or 10GB, your bill comes out exactly the same.

<comment><USER16> This plan actually makes no sense. Overage charges are the same rate ($10 / GB), so why am I buying a "plan" at all? Why don't they just charge $10 * x gigs / month instead of all this buying / refunding business?

<comment><USER17> Or better yet: why aren't they offering an unlimited data plan like what T-Mobile and Sprint (Google Fi's "partners") already offer? Why aren't they even at least going with T-Mobile's approach of "throttle the connection once you go past your data cap, but don't charge overages"?

It's like they're taking the best things of both carriers - their unlimited data plans - and pretending those things don't exist, that they're some figment of consumers' imaginations, and instead just taking the AT&T/Verizon approach, but using a soft and squishy dildo instead of a spiked rusty iron dildo to screw us with.

<comment><USER18> Unlimited data plans are actually bad. The incentives are all wrong. Consumers and websites have no incentive to fix any problem that causes them to use unnecessary data, clogging the network. Carriers actually have a perverse incentive to _discourage_ use of the network, because increased use doesn't increase revenue, it just causes more congestion. This leads to stupidity like extra charges for tethering, blocking of VPNs, "traffic shaping" to kill "bandwidth hogs" like BitTorrent and Netflix, prohibitions on running servers, service termination for "excessive" use, cooperation with the MPAA to identify and stop BitTorrent users, etc.

With pay per gigabyte, incentives are aligned. Consumers and websites have an incentive to conserve data. Carriers have an incentive to encourage use and increase speeds. There's no reason to block servers or VPNs or tethering. There's no reason to throttle BitTorrent or Netflix or terminate anyone's service for "excessive" usage. In fact, with pay-per-GB carriers should _encourage_ BitTorrent use and fight for consumers against the MPAA!

Historically unlimited data has been better for consumers because carriers have charged ridiculous prices for overages (e.g. per-KB prices that add up to hundreds of dollars per GB), and consumers don't have a good way of knowing how much bandwidth they're using when they use different services, so they can't predict their bills. If these two problems can be fixed, pay-per-GB is the best way forward. I'm glad Google realizes this.

<comment><USER17> > Consumers and websites have no incentive to fix any problem that causes them > to use unnecessary data, clogging the network.

Who says that my usage of data is a "problem" needing "solved"? 10GB (the highest Google offers on its Fi page) can be burned through pretty quickly just by watching videos on a road trip or somesuch. I'd much rather pay $80 for an unlimited plan from Sprint or T-Mobile than pay $120 (or more) for Google Fi.

"Clogging the network" would be solved by carriers actually bothering to invest in their networks to handle the load. That would solve a multitude of other problems, too.

<comment><USER18> > "Clogging the network" would be solved by carriers actually bothering to > invest in their networks

This is exactly my point. With unlimited data plans, carriers have little incentive to upgrade their networks. It increases costs without directly increasing revenue. With pay-per-GB, the incentive is clear: upgrading the network increases usage which directly increases revenue.

<comment><USER19> The real incentive is improving speeds makes shared-bandwidth networks more cost effective. You can serve the same number of customers for less cost. Each connection receives its data quicker then disconnects so someone else can use the air space.

Time is the more important measure of cellular network usage than bytes. I think it would be more convenient for customers to be billed per minute. At $10/GB if my average speed is 5 Mbps that's $0.30 a minute. Or $30 to watch a full-length movie in HD. Makes me wish Netflix still had mail delivery.

<comment><USER18> > You can serve the same number of customers for less cost.

No, upgrading the network allows you to serve more customers at higher cost (the cost of the upgrades). If you have unlimited data plans, you can only recoup those upgrade costs by recruiting more customers because existing customers pay the same regardless of the speed. Recruiting more customers is also costly and affected by many more factors than just network quality. The connection between network upgrades and increased revenue is tenuous and indirect.

In contrast, with pay-per-GB, network upgrades increase usage and thus increase revenue from existing customers as well as new ones. The connection between network upgrades and increased revenue is direct and immediate.

I agree that $10/GB is far too expensive; I'm sure Google would love for it to be cheaper but the pricing isn't their choice to make. When carriers get some competition from Project Loon and/or Elon Musk's satellite thingy, hopefully prices will go down.

<comment><USER19> > No, upgrading the network allows you to serve more customers at higher cost > (the cost of the upgrades)

Upgrades are a one-time cost. You charge a higher rate for access to the faster network until the investment is paid off then you phase down to all customers. Then your operating cost is lower per subscriber in the long run.

<comment><USER18> These days, upgrades are a continuous cost. By the time you've paid off an upgrade it's time to upgrade again. Charging a higher rate costs you customers, and with fewer customers you don't even need the extra capacity you just bought. Also many customers are on contracts so you can't increase rates right away.

In contrast, with pay-per-GB, upgrades increase revenue automatically without losing customers. You don't have to increase your rates and you can probably even decrease them and still increase revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is insane. I can't think of an industry that google is not trying to compete in. Auto industry, space industry, internet of things industry (Nest), internet/media industry, cable/internet provider industry, automobile industry, robotics industry, software industry, smartphone industry, pc industry now the telecom industry. I'm starting to expect Google to launch an airline here pretty soon. How can they possibly compete in so many spaces and compete well? Isn't this how Microsoft started doing business and failed at? I just am at a lost of words at Google's diversification strategy. I don't want to be a hater, but do we really want a singular company being the market leader at everything if they do end up succeeding at everything?

<comment><USER21> This looks to me like a pure "commoditize your complements" play. All of Google's products require great mobile internet everywhere. By getting involved in that market, they can help make it much more competitive (at the moment, cell reception is expensive and shit).

It's like Google Code. Google didn't particularly want to be in that business, but Sourceforge was complete shit, and the open source ecosystem was key to their business. So they competed, seriously improved on the status quo, and when something better came along (github), they backed away, job done.

So leading this market doesn't matter to google. If they got completely outcompeted, I'd say they'd be delighted.

<comment><USER22> I agree, and I always figured that's why they built Chrome. They needed the other browsers to step up their game, especially js performance so they could offer the kinds of web applications they wanted to.

<comment><USER23> And then .. no one did and now we're all stuck with Chrome.

<comment><USER24> Quite the contrary. The other browsers _did_ greatly improve their game. However, Google got spoiled with their ability to add a new feature to the browser whenever a Google product would benefit.

The cynical take on this is that Google just wanted to increase lock-in to its own browser; however, I think it's more a case that Chrome is a runtime environment for Google products as much as it is a web browser.

<comment><USER25> Hmm, if this is true, then we should be able to expect similar changes in Chrome like the changes made in Acrobat Reader when Adobe thought they had complete lock-in in the PDF reader space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Who handles support for this? Is it Google, or one of the carriers that Google's using? Who do you talk to if the handoff between carriers doesn't quite work? I've skimmed the FAQ and I didn't see that listed in there.

For context, I use Google Voice, and while it's really nice in a lot of ways, it has some unfortunate bugs that have persisted for years that it seems impossible to get support for. I no longer unconditionally recommend it to people because while being able to take calls from my computer and get transcripts of voicemails is great, it also pseudo-randomly decides to only direct some calls to devices where I'm not present with no notification on devices that I'm using and also drops a small percentage of texts (my guess is around 1%). Most people I talk to are horrified by the idea of texts getting dropped, and I don't recommend GV to those folks, although it's fine if that's a tradeoff you're ok with.

I understand that it's a beta and that bugs are expected, but it's a problem when you run into a bug that interferes with your ability to use your phone and there's no way to get support for it.

Phone carriers aren't exactly known for their stellar customer service, but at least with them, if you call back enough times or escalate to higher level support, you'll eventually get a resolution. As far as I can tell, that's not true of Google's phone related products.

<comment><USER27> The typical MVNO model would be for Google to handle all the support. I agree that end-user support does not seem to be one of Google's strengths.

<comment><USER28> Their support for the Nexus line of phones has been outstanding. Anyone can phone and speak to real humans with good tech knowledge, arrange a free replacement for (first time) cracked screens, and get next day replacements.

I have no doubt that the support for this will be as good.

Now, their automated side of advertising is crappy unless you're a large spender, but then that's just economies of scale.

<comment><USER29> > Their support for the Nexus line of phones has been outstanding

That hasn't been my experience, particularly with this issue:

[https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=82949](https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=82949)

Basically you have to roll a dice whether you'll have sound in voice calls on a Nexus 4 running Lollipop. 500 comments, 1200 stars, and the issue is simply closed as "wrong forum" with no other comment than "contact customer support".

I mean, I'm glad that Google supports so many camera features, as that's clearly the most important function of a Nexus 4, but at the end of the day I still expect my phone to be able to, you know, make voice calls.

Related HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8898669](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8898669)

<comment><USER30> Android support != Nexus hardware support. It seems like you're much better off support-wise if your phone's screen is shattered than if you are having any sort of issue with the software...

<comment><USER31> Ironic given that Google is generally believed to be a software company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Republic Wireless has been doing hybrid wifi / cell calling for some time:

[https://republicwireless.com/](https://republicwireless.com/)

Their unlimited 3G plan is $25.

Republic Wireless is owned by Bandwidth.com which also manages Google Voice numbers:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth.com](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth.com)

<comment><USER27> So has T-Mobile. Any sufficiently fast wifi network becomes a mini network tower. It's a great idea.

<comment><USER33> To offload to wifi, the wifi doesn't even need to be fast. Voice traffic uses very little bandwidth. The connection simply must have low packet loss and as little latency as possible.

When in non-T-mobile coverage areas, I use my Verizon hotspot for wifi calling with my T-Mobile iPhone, even if the hotspot can only provide 2/3G.

<comment><USER27> True, that's what I meant by fast. I think it's only something like 30kbs, but it needs to have low packet loss and low jitter or the call will be garbled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Whoa, their international rates are crazy good. Same $10/gb across 120 countries.

Even limited to 256k/3G, that is still insane. Coverage list here: [https://fi.google.com/about/rates/](https://fi.google.com/about/rates/)

That's enough of a perk that I'm considering moving to a Nexus 6.

<comment><USER35> Ouch. I didn't notice that it's limited to 256k/3G.

T-Mobile offers unlimited data internationally as part of their simple choice unlimited plan. It's limited to 256k speeds (Which in my experience, I have gotten basically exactly 256k when I've used it in the Netherlands and South Africa). You have the option of buying 4G speed bandwidth for a fairly reasonable price - though still a bit higher than the Google Fi data rates.

I didn't notice the rate limiting asterisk until your comment, and this kind of kills it for me. It was much more appealing when I thought I would be charged the same for data in the US and abroad.

<comment><USER36> > You have the option of buying 4G speed bandwidth for a fairly reasonable > price - though still a bit higher than the Google Fi data rates.

About 10-15x higher, it looks like. :/ Around $100-150/GB, depending on the pass length, e.g. 100MB usable in 24 hours for $15, or 500MB usable in 2 weeks for $50.

<comment><USER35> Ouch. I was completely misremembering the cost on the international data passes. I thought it was about $30/GB, but I have no idea where that came from.

I suppose it's still better than Google - the rate limited data is still free, as opposed to paying full price for it, and nothing forces you to buy the full throughput data passes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The body font ("RoboDraft", #757575) is somewhat unreadable (not enough contrast) on a Chrome/Windows 7 machine with a 1920x1200 display.

<comment><USER38> Same here, same browser and OS at 1600x900. It's somewhat easier to read on Firefox, but it could stand some better contrast there too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> For family plans T-Mobile's Simple Choice Plan beats Google Fi in most respects:

\- No contract

\- Unlimited domestic talk, intl talk from US to ~100 countries

\- Competitive intl talk

\- Unlimited domestic + intl text

\- 2.5GB 4G LTE data

\- Unlimited domestic + intl 2G data (128Kbps vs Google's 3G 256Kbps)

\- Use any GSM phone, not just Nexus 6

\- Phones purchased from T-Mobile come with Wi-Fi calling

Most of my family members portion is $30 / mo. Some higher bandwidth users pay $40 / mo for 4.5GB LTE and data rollover. Our family travels a lot in Asia, having unlimited data / text is really useful.

However Google Fi looks like it's really appealing for low usage, single individual plans.

<comment><USER15> Look at the name. I think their goal is that most of the time when you're out and about, you're connected to Wi-Fi. I think the cellular partners are a crutch to get them there. If they manage that, you'll wind up paying a lot less than with T-Mobile.

<comment><USER40> I usually don't have wifi while I am out and about, most stores at least require you to hit accept on their terms and conditions before you can actually connect. Maybe if they showed wifi hotspots on their coverage map I could get behind this idea.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, I don't know how they do this, but Google says they have pre-approved WiFi hotspots the phone will automatically connect to. From this, I wonder if security will be a concern for some of these hotspots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is doing the same things as Republic Wireless. Calls and texts over wifi to keep their carrier costs down. RW is cheaper at $10 a month without data and $25 for unlimited 3G.

With RW you need their customized android phone but they are cheap. $650 for the phone is steep (or a credit pull).

<comment><USER43> Do keep in mind they actively are against tethering, which stinks if your in a pinch and need internet for a laptop or w/e. Also afaik the phone you get from them can't really be used anywhere else. Other Sprint MVNO like ting won't accept RW phone. Maybe Spring themselves will but I'm currently in the process of moving and have a dud for a phone now.

<comment><USER42> Sell it on ebay to another RW person. I sold my two old ones when I moved to the Moto G and got some money for them. I was surprised because the Moto G is totally worth it and I would not have recommended those old models to anyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> ARGH.. Google Apps domains not supported. "For now, Project Fi is available only for accounts with an @gmail.com address"

<comment><USER45> I don't know why this becomes an issue with every single service Google _launches_. It's pretty clear Google's strategy is not to launch Apps support for any product that is either beta or immediately post-beta, and it wants to wait a bit until things get stable enough to use for enterprise.

<comment><USER46> It's frustrating because Google Apps has been the solution for bring-your-own- domain email, and many people use it as such. If I could use my own domain on a consumer Gmail account, I would.

Google acts like it's just for enterprise customers, but that's not how a whole lot of people use it.

<comment><USER47> I have joshhasacell@gmail for my devices, and then josh@josh[.mn] for my personal stuff.

This is exactly why I don't just phone@josh[.mn]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ah- The big thing about this from my perspective is that it abolishes roaming. One plan, and you pay the same whether you use it in your home country or anywhere else. I'm not aware that anybody else is offering that, especially not at that price.

As a German living in the UK i currently juggle two SIM cards, and whenever I fly back home I have to mess with the data flatrate there since it's worth activating the monthly flatrate plan even if I just use it for a day. And then I have to make sure that I don't forget to cancel the flatrate when I leave again. Not to mention that this means I have two phone numbers, and I'm not reachable on at least one of them all the time.

<comment><USER48> Roaming will hopefully soon be abolished throughout Europe ([http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-26866966](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26866966)). Although there have been talks that this might be delayed by a couple of years.

Then in the UK there's Three who basically abolished roaming in 18 countries (sadly not Germany for now). This includes unlimited (25gb) 4g, which is pretty awesome and better than the 256k Google is offering.

<comment><USER49> That article is a year+ old. It was predictably shot down. Remember that the EU parliament is pretty toothless.

[https://euobserver.com/news/128133](https://euobserver.com/news/128133) & [http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2015/04/14/european- government...](http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2015/04/14/european-governments- parliament-still-far-apart-on-net-neutrality/) have some of the current status of what's left of it. Currently it looks like there's a week or so of "roaming allowance" per year, and even this would only come into affect after a years- long transition period.

Telecoms are good at lobbying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I found the link to the coverage map in the FAQ: > [https://fi.google.com/coverage](https://fi.google.com/coverage)

Looks like it blankets most of Canada with 2G service. I guess through roaming agreements from Sprint/T-Mo. I wonder if they are selling to Canadian residents?

<comment><USER51> My first assumption was they don't cater to Canadians as usual, but after seeing the coverage map I was hopeful.

Attempted to request an invite but it doesn't allow Canadian postal codes (ie: V5H 2T3), only stuff like 90210.

Sigh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> On an unrelated note - very cool to see Polymer used in production by Google. I was afraid it was left to the wayside.

<comment><USER53> I noticed it with the paper dropdown. As long as they're dogfooding the platform I'm happy to develop on it!

Polymer actually has 0.8 coming up soon with some pretty significant changes; definitely not left to the wayside.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This will be awesome once Google makes a nexus that can actually fit in my pocket. I've only switched from nexus to iPhone a few months ago when I lost my nexus 5 and found that nexus 6 is gigantic. The iPhone is pretty but I miss the nexus.

</comment><comment><USER55> Compared to what I can get from Verizon (US), the international usage is amazing:

> Pay one rate for data around the world

> In 120+ countries, data usage costs the same $10 per GB as it does in the US > (data speed is limited to 256kbps/3G). Check email, get directions, and keep > in touch with friends and family when on your trip. Also, call around the > world for 20c per minute and send unlimited international texts.

</comment><comment><USER56> This is very interesting, I have over 10 years experience working in the mobile telecoms industry. Here are my theories on how this could change the market/analysis:

1\. This reduces the friction in switching networks, no 'SIM Card' Lock in. It's a pain to keep having to switch sim cards. Some people carry 2 phones here in Africa so they can take advantage of different deals by different carriers.

2\. Due to Point 1, This will face push back from carriers

3\. Unless there is some incentive for them to get this carriers want to make switching costs as high as possible. To avoid churn.

If it succeeds:

4\. This changes the game in voice calling. Currently you sim is linked to a specific carrier, you only logon to their network all traffic (Local, International Voice, SMS, Data) is carried by them. What if you could route International calls traffic via X, and then local calls via Y?

5\. WhatsAPP is most likely the company that will get the largest payoff from this. They are a few years ahead of everyone else, and have just launched voice calling.

6\. Super-normal profits are over for operators

7\. Actual Network quality (vs marketing about network quality) will become more important.

8\. This will create an opportunity for players that are focused purely on network quality, and not marketing.

9\. Carriers spend tons on marketing, failed product launches etc. At times this outstrips their engineering spend. Some even believe this is not a core competency and outsource IT/Engineering. Any carrier that does the opposite, could disrupt the incumbents

10\. The base-stations (BSS/BSC) becomes more valuable, companies that own these have high value assets. They could then lease it out to other players. A few years back operators in Africa were selling off their base stations to American Towers [0] to fund their marketing budgets. At the time, i thought this was not a very good decision. Now i am convinced it was a terrible decision. The network of base stations is probably one of the most valuable assets a carrier has.

If i think of anything else, will post back here.

[0] [http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/global-country- sele...](http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/global-country- selector/index.htm)

<comment><USER56> 11\. There is a massive industry from manufacturing [1] to distributing sim cards and getting them into the hands of customers. I do not see a bright future for them.

[http://www.gemalto.com/techno/sim](http://www.gemalto.com/techno/sim)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This is great. I was hoping the data charges would be cheaper. The T-mobile $30 prepaid plan gives you unlimited data with the first 5 gigs at LTE speeds. You also get 100 minutes. This works incredibly well for me as I mostly use my phone for data. If I need to make a call, I'll use google hangouts over LTE.

<comment><USER58> $30 for 5 gigs? When did T-Mobile start offering this? Why am I then paying $50 for 2 gigs?

<comment><USER41> They've offered it for a while I think? It's a pre-paid, look in Other monthly plans. It's pretty hidden, I don't think they want everyone to know about it. Also can be Walmart only, but I think you can do it online just fine. [http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans](http://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Can someone explain why mobile data is now the expense driver for phone plans and why it's so expensive? It's obvious that data usage has skyrocketed now that smartphones have taken off, but is all that data usage draining mobile networks? Is there not enough capacity? Or is it just that it's so expensive to build? Is it such a massive barrier-to-entry that rates aren't really competitive?

<comment><USER60> I'm not terribly knowledgeable in this area, but I think part of it has to do with the availability of frequencies to do data communication over. They price data so people curb their data usage thus preventing crowding on the already limited bandwidth.

Of course, this could just be FUD I've been fed.

<comment><USER17> Except that Sprint and T-Mobile do offer unlimited data plans (without throttling) and T-Mobile simply throttles instead of charging overages for its non-unlimited plans. I've used both and have yet to encounter issues with congestion (though I don't live in a big city, so maybe it's different in that environment).

Non-unlimited plans with throttling instead of overage charges would probably be the best solution to overcrowding issues in the short-term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This is _almost_ cheap enough to pay for the new device I would need to use it. I could save ~$25 a month given my current usage patterns over the T-Mobile plan I have. I imagine users of Verizon or AT&T, which are quite a bit more expensive for the same amount of data, might consider this a huge bargain. Certainly being able to migrate across two decent networks makes it more likely to be competitive with the better/bigger networks of Verizon and AT&T.

I wonder, and can't seem to find in my cursory glance through the FAQ, how this handles regular numbers vs Google Voice numbers. I currently use two numbers on my phone. My Google Voice number (which is how I assume this thing does what it does), and the "native" cell number I've had for nearly 20 years. I know I could port the native number to Google Voice, but I currently use both numbers...so, that wouldn't really work, as I'd still need to be able to use my Google Voice number, too. It's a little clumsy on current Android phones (you choose which number to use for outgoing calls either at call-time or by-default), but it works. If this only works for Google Voice service, it might be a bit challenging to switch.

Also, they say this supports MMS. Does that mean sending MMS is _finally_ coming to Google Voice?

</comment><comment><USER62> Nowhere does the FAQ address this, but I'm assuming that my home and office wifi data use on my phone would continue to be unlimited? They're not going to somehow meter my home wifi use? My wife uses her phone all the time for home internet surfing and email.

</comment><comment><USER63> This (metered data) seems anti-thetical to google

Google wants you to use the internet as much as possible.

They want you to use google search, watch youtube videos, check gmail, write google documents.

Now you're discouraged from doing all those things due to metered data.

The Business Model of Google Fi seems extremely short sighted,

\-----

For context: I'm using metroPCS with a nexus 5. I get Unlimited 4G on T-Mobile's network for $60/month.

They Offer lower amounts of data (ex: 5 GB) for $50 per month but after 5 GB you just get 3G data.

<comment><USER64> From what I've been told, Sprint and T-Mobile charge MVNOs (networks using their infrastructure) by the byte. Google can't offer unlimited data without running their own network or taking big losses on customers that use a lot of data.

There are no data caps on Google Fiber, so they seem to realize that caps aren't effective for managing congestion. But for now they have to play along with the big networks' models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> So if I jump onto an unsecured hotspot, you're telling me 100% of my traffic is being routed through a Google proxy first? The same company that already has all of my email, docs, photos, and chats? I guess they already had my browsing history with Chrome, but wow... that's a lot.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's amazing that $10/GB is about 4 times amount local telecom providers charge for 3G in india.

<comment><USER45> The price is a little disappointing. I expected Google to compete on price as well, but it may not even be its fault if its partners don't want to undercut it on prices, and they just allow Google to compete on services.

<comment><USER67> Yeah, since Google is just buying service from the others, they probably don't have much room.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> > Coverage in 120+ countries

20USD is ridiculously expensive in some countries. I understand that this may be cheap in the US (is it?), but it's more than twice what I pay in latin america.

And the price goes up if you want data - which you will in 2015.

<comment><USER69> Well it's meant only for the American Market (no 4G elsewhere and calls very expensive). So that Americans traveling aboard don't have to pay insane amounts of money.

I for example have to get a new sim card each time I travel to a new country, it is a pain. With Google I can just keep their plan, and not worry about getting a local sim card. Most americans don't travel for an entire month, so we have to pay our monthly plan anyways. This just allows us to use our phone for free without paying extra in other countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Just want to hasle you guys with danish pricing

For about $28 a month i Get ALL this:

4 hours talk time 5GB 4g data Unlimited text

And these services are included FREE

HBO Nordic (Hbo NOW) Telmore Music (Think Spotify) TV2 Play (Think mini mini HULU) C More PLAY (More streaming) Mofibo (Netflix for ebooks) Min Bio (Netflix for kidshows) politiken (Newspaper) Ekstra Bladet Plus (Newspaper) Euroman (Magazine think GQ) Eurowoman (Magazine think ladies GQ) Gastro (Magazine) Rum (Magazine)

[https://www.telmore.dk/telmoreplay?icid=home- playlightpakke-...](https://www.telmore.dk/telmoreplay?icid=home- playlightpakke-laesmere)

<comment><USER36> If you never leave the country, mobile prices in Denmark are pretty good. But it's a small country so not very hard to cross a border, e.g. Malmö is only a 30-minute train ride from Copenhagen, so I find myself there often. And for that usage, the Danish providers' prices are quite bad. For example the one you linked, Telmore, charges a ridiculous 1,86 kr per _megabyte_ (i.e. €250/GB) for roaming data in Sweden. I would be very happy to have Google's $10/GB roaming prices, or even something close to it. Instead it seems the only solution in Denmark is to have a whole bag full of SIM cards (Danish, Swedish, German, ...), and swap them every time you cross a border.

<comment><USER70> You Could Choose 3 with 3 Like Home. The plan "FIN TIL DE FLESTE" is unlimited calls, text, Free roaming in 19-20 countries incl. sweeden and 5gb data. its 25USD or 170kr a month and it includes free call roaming, which google fi dosen't. Same plan on google fi is 70USD. [https://www.3.dk/abonnementer/mobil/](https://www.3.dk/abonnementer/mobil/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Why is it that companies these days are so incredibly bad at simply saying what it is they're trying to sell you?

<comment><USER72> Lmn4d3 stand incorporated.

"do you sell lemonade?"

"what we offer is a new way to experience the quenching of thirst"

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Something that isn't clear: is it possible to attach to non-public wi-fi access points? Also: do they charge the same rate per gig for wi-fi data as for LTE data? If so, this seems like a real ripoff.

</comment><comment><USER64> I wonder how integrated this will be with Google Voice. For instance, will the voice/SMS component have the same spam filtering and Gmail integration that GVoice users get?

</comment><comment><USER74> With Cricket Wireless ([https://www.cricketwireless.com/cell-phone- plans](https://www.cricketwireless.com/cell-phone-plans)), I can use the vastly superior AT&T network and spend $60/month for 10GB of data, plus unlimited voice and text.

This would cost $120/month on Project Fi, and I'd be forced to use T-Mobile and Sprint, both of which have inferior coverage in the US.

<comment><USER75> Do you use 10GB of data a month?

<comment><USER76> Cricket is still cheaper on their lowest plan $40 for unlimited talk and text and 2.5GB. Fi would be $45. Auto-pay on Cricket brings it down to $35

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I'm currently on Republic Wireless. The base rate (call/text only) is $10 vs $20 for Google. RW has a $25/mn 3G plan and a $40/mn LTE plan (5GB). Google Fi has the advantage of always having LTE speeds.

RW is able to have cheaper rates because they are doing WiFi calling, which is exactly what Google is doing; no doubt leveraging their Google Voice/Hangouts infrastructure to handle WiFi calling.

</comment><comment><USER78> I want this as my travel phone. And I love that there's no contract. Not sure how I feel about Google pulling a man-in-the-middle on all of my internet traffic, texts and calls. Kinda scary that they automatically pipe all wifi through their VPN, but I guess they have 90% of that data already and Google are probably safer than the random coffee shop wifi people are used to connecting to.

<comment><USER79> I suspect part of the motivation for the automatic VPN on public WiFi comes from Republic Wireless's troubles with firewalls that interfere with standard VoIP protocols.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> "Request Invite" \--> 404.

Good start.

EDIT: Only if the window is sized small enough to trigger the mobile layout for the navbar. Kind of funny in view of Mobilegeddon.

<comment><USER81> 404 on Nexus 7 portrait, works in landscape. Weird.

<comment><USER47> I don't even know how.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Two observations:

1) Terrible name, really awful. Fi? I guess if it's "project" maybe this wasn't public-brand ready?

2) Why wouldn't someone choose the t-mobile unlimited plan vs this one?

3) For the refund policy, why wouldn't everyone sign up for the lowest plan? The presentation is confusing, just say 1gb min and $10 for each gig after that.

<comment><USER17> > Why wouldn't someone choose the t-mobile unlimited plan vs this one?

The "compelling" feature is the support for multiple carriers (T-Mobile and Sprint) without having to do some zany dual-SIM setup or somesuch.

To me, though, that's barely any consolation for the lack of an unlimited plan, which is a deal-breaker, and which is why - no matter how "good" Verizon and AT&T (for example) advertise themselves to be - I'll never switch back to them until they provide an unlimited data plan. T-Mobile's unlimited plan (and even its non-unlimited plans) are a _way_ better deal, since you're never charged overages (unlike with Sprint's non-unlimited plans, all of AT&T and Verizon's plans, and - now - Google Fi).

<comment><USER82> Agreed. Most of my usage is in cities where both Sprint and T-mobile have great coverage. Lack of unlimited is a deal-breaker (or at least higher data tiers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Sucks that it only works for Nexus 6 and only for US phone numbers.

<comment><USER84> It only works for Google phones? There isn't an antitrust issue there?

<comment><USER85> It only works specifically with the Nexus 6 (not other Google phones), apparently for technical reasons involving network-switching capabilities. Possibly that's BS, but assuming it's legit I'd imagine they'll try to get the technology into other makers' phones in the future.

Though even if they didn't, Google doesn't have a monopoly position in phone hardware so it's not clear antitrust would come into play.

<comment><USER86> First of all WiFi calling is still a specialty thing requiring custom firmware (see: you cannot BYOD on Republic Wireless)

Second of all the N6 is one of the few phones with dual GSM and CDMA radios, and T-Mobile/Sprint are GSM/CDMA, respectively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> No mention of family plan or data sharing. If I have 3 lines that use 10gb between them, will this still be cheaper?

<comment><USER88> "No, we only support individual accounts during Project Fi's Early Access Program. If multiple people on your current wireless plan are interested in joining our early access program, each user is required to have a Project Fi account."

[https://fi.google.com/about/faq/#plan-and- pricing-8](https://fi.google.com/about/faq/#plan-and-pricing-8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> What I'm curious about is the privacy policy. With the automatic VPN usage on wifi and the potential network architecture of the MVNO, Google could be in the path of all your cell phone data traffic. The opportunity to learn more about you for advertising purposes is very very high.

<comment><USER90> Whilst I am sure current networks providers are keen to exploit your "private" communications, the thought of Google gaining even more power and insight into your lives is scary.

If you are using Google services and an Android phone, there is almost nothing left they don't have control over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> it's not explicitly spelled out that I can see, but data used over wifi doesn't count towards the cellular network data usage at $10/gb right?

</comment><comment><USER92> Does anyone know if they are data-mining the phone calls?

<comment><USER93> The possibility of doing that is already there on Android. Try calling a number that has a public profile (like a restaurant), and you'll see how their avatar appears as a contact. That particular request is perfectly mineable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> "Once you get an invitation, you'll also need a Nexus 6—the first smartphone to work with our network of networks. You can buy one from Project Fi when you sign up or bring one you already use."

=> seriously. its a "Device lockin" instead of "network lockin"

<comment><USER95> I think that's a hardware issue, not an attempt to lock you in. (I assume) you need something special in order to seamlessly switch between networks/wifi. That or it's their own way to filter out demand while they start slow and test it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> I already have metropcs, its $40/mo for unlimited everything. My plan covers unlimited up to 3g, for 4g or LTE I get 2gb/mo. If I wanted unlimited though, its only $60/mo. How is $100 for 10GB even comparable? Metropcs also has no contract required.

</comment><comment><USER97> The only unique feature I see is WiFi<->mobile handoff, aka fixed/mobile integration.

Apart from that, I get the same service from Google Voice and T-Mobile, except I get supposedly un-capped, un-throttled data (I haven't tried to test this) from T-Mo.

<comment><USER98> Republic Wireless does the handoff and is slightly cheaper. With Google you buy a Nexus 6 ~$650, RW needs a Moto X ~$300, so I guess it is a cheaper out of pocket cost.

<comment><USER79> RW also has the Moto G and Moto E for $150 and $100, and even cheaper plans if you don't want cellular data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> This seems insanely expensive to me! Three offers a sim-only deal that works with all phones with unlimited data for just £17 ($25), and roaming in Europe will be free after December 2015! Are mobile plans significantly more expensive in the US?

</comment><comment><USER100> Is this a dual-MVNO? They talk about switching between two different LTE providers.

<comment><USER101> It switches between T-Mobile and Sprint.

<comment><USER102> sounds like its excellent for Coachella.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> Interesting - I like the data roaming, but the pricing isn't very good compared to what I pay here in Italy, which is under 20 euros for 2 GB a month on the provider's network, 400 minutes and 100 sms's.

</comment><comment><USER104> In my experience, video chat through Google hangout uses about 1G/hour. $10/G translates to $10/hour. This is a significant cost for a remote worker using video chat as a routine meeting venue.

<comment><USER105> 1 Gigabyte per hour? Are you really chatting at 22 Mbit/s? That's like half Bluray quality.

<comment><USER104> I am just reporting a ballpark figure from the data usage i get when actually using hangout for meetings on 4G on my phone.

That said at 3600s per hour 1GB/h would be 2.2Mb/s, which does not seem outrageous for a 8 people meeting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Can anyone explain why the data charges are set up how they are? Why have you choose a "plan" in increments of $10 and then refund/charge you (per MB?) for going under/over your "plan"? Why not just charge you for usage at the end of the month? It comes out the same, and one is weird and the other is very simple.

Republic's Maestro seems to be similar: "Get paid back" for data you don't use. Why? It just makes me keep rereading looking for the catch.

</comment><comment><USER107> What are the pro/cons of wifi versus 3G/4G ? I guess Wifi is a simpler hardware standard ?

Or does 3g/4g enable more distance and mobility and allow towers to "connect" more terminals at the same time?

I'm puzzled by wireless data layers as google had some wimax project in mind, but I've no clue how those technologies work. I can understand wired networks, but wireless seems like a mystery to me (I also wish there would be more open standards for long distance data channels).

</comment><comment><USER108> Looks great for international travelers, but this would more than double my $30 monthly unlimited data plan from T-Mobile. I used 5.2GB last month, so that would cost me $73.

<comment><USER62> You must have a grandfathered plan.

I had a grandfathered plan with unlimited data, until I gave it up in exchange for Canada service.

<comment><USER108> Nope, just signed up last month. It's still available[0].

[0] [http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-monthly-plans](http://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-monthly-plans)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Without unlimited data, this is useless to me. If T-Mobile and Sprint can pull off unlimited data plans, then so should Google ( _especially_ if Google Fi uses - you guessed it - both Sprint and T-Mobile as its partner carriers). The _least_ they can do is offer a "you get so-and-so gigabytes of 4G data before we throttle you down to 2G, and we won't charge you anything extra" like what T-Mobile does for its non-unlimited plans.

<comment><USER109> I'm pretty sure the accountants and engineers at Google got together and figured out that "unlimited data" plans are going to go bye-bye. For everyone. All providers.

As people use more and more data, it just won't make economic sense to offer your customers unlimited data.

If Google had offered unlimited data, and then later canceled it, everyone would be bitching about them killing the competition, anti-competitive behavior, etc.

<comment><USER17> > As people use more and more data, it just won't make economic sense to offer > your customers unlimited data.

It makes perfect economic sense. Users who expect to need a lot of data (e.g. anyone who watches or wants to watch HD videos over a cellular connection, which is a lot of people) would be better served by T-Mobile's or Sprint's unlimited (non-throttled) data plans (which run for somewhere between $70 and $90 per month, IIRC), and everyone else would be better served by T-Mobile's throttled data plans, since you'll never be charged overages.

At least AT&T and Verizon can claim that they have a stronger network with better coverage than T-Mobile or Sprint (which is why a lot of people go with them and are willing to be screwed over by them). Google Fi can't even offer that if it's going to be using Sprint and T-Mobile as its backends; combine this with the lack of unlimited data plans _and_ only supporting the Nexus 6 with zero indication of when other phones will be supported (if ever), Google Fi's dead in the water.

In other words:

> I'm pretty sure the accountants and engineers at Google got together and > figured out that "unlimited data" plans are going to go bye-bye. For > everyone. All providers.

Then I'm pretty sure all the accountants and engineers at Google are incompetent.

<comment><USER109> I'm not sure you're getting me. I'm saying that eventually T-Mobile and Sprint will not be able to offer $70 or $90 a month for unlimited data. Or if they do, it will be so throttled as to be completely meaningless.

I'm predicting that as more people use more of their data, the network will not grow fast enough to support the total bandwidth. The fact that they can currently offer "unlimited" is a temporary condition, based on the distribution of network users' bandwidth. As consumption grows, it gets to the point where they can't actually offer it any more.

That's my prediction, and I bet Google made the same prediction.

Instead, you're acting like I don't understand that people WANT unlimited data, especially at the prices it's being offered at today.

<comment><USER17> And I'm saying that getting rid of unlimited data doesn't solve the problem of network congestion. Actually putting work into the network _does_ solve the problem of network congestion.

Don't punish users because you're too lazy to provide them with a network that's actually designed to handle current/future data demand.

<comment><USER109> And I'm predicting that it will be economically impossible to handle future data demand, if you allow "unlimited data."

Even with the best intentions. You would need to be subsidized by the government to provide it.

Since so few people TODAY currently make use of their unlimited data, the network can afford to offer those terms. And they found that by offering those terms, they attracted a disproportionate number of customers. In short, it was popular and profitable.

But at some point, the aggregate network demand will exceed even the THEORETICAL network capacity, if you offer your customers unlimited data, and demand goes up the way I think it will.

Or in essence, you will need to limit bandwidth to the point that calling it "unlimited" is just ridiculous.

<comment><USER17> > But at some point, the aggregate network demand will exceed even the > THEORETICAL network capacity, if you offer your customers unlimited data, > and demand goes up the way I think it will.

At which point you build out the network so that it can handle the increased demand. The problem of congestion doesn't magically go away if you ditch unlimited plans for pay-per-gigabyte plans.

Even barring that, the wired broadband world already addresses this by making _speed_ the useful commodity instead of _quantity_ , and there's very little reason why the wireless world couldn't do the same. "Our networks are getting congested, so we're going to switch to a new model where you can pay cheap rates for 2G speed or pay more for 4G speed or pay something in between for 3G speed or pay top-dollar for our newfangled 5G" is a much better answer than "our networks are getting congested, so we're going to just cap users' usage of it and hope the problem goes away".

That, in short, is what Google Fi _should_ be doing. That would be an actually-compelling reason to switch to it instead of T-Mobile.

Until then, T-Mobile will continue to get my business, and T-Mobile will therefore be at least that much more incentivized to provide unlimited data plans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> One day it would be nice to not have large chunks of the country not covered by good cell service. Since this service can make calls over WiFi that would remedy some of the situations I have been in where I had WiFi at a campground or similar but cell was spotty or non existent. Granted making a call over the WiFi provided at some camps might not be all the possible.

edit, another area I found little to no cell service was the turnpikes through Virgina and West Virgina.

</comment><comment><USER111> I'm hoping that their Wifi <\--> 4G handoff for calls works better than the T-Mobile handoff. I've noticed that on our enterprise network the extra time it takes to authenticate causes the call to drop. I do understand that the problem has to do with the software implementation and not android, but I'm assuming systems like that are reasonably similar or are provided by some outside vendor?

</comment><comment><USER112> Im guessing this doesn't piggy back on tmobile music streaming?

I'm currently paying $32 for 5GB on tmobile, google wants $50 for the same network.

<comment><USER17> To clarify: Google wants $50 for the same network while replacing T-Mobile's throttling scheme with a more traditional "we'll charge you more" scheme.

T-Mobile's the better deal here by a long shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Reading through the comments here it seems pretty sad that between international differences and baroque pricing schemes, nobody knows with certainty how much they are paying for their connectivity, or whether $10/GB is a good price or not. You would think considering the size of this market there would be some mechanism to establish a fair price by now.

</comment><comment><USER113> I often have to manually disconnect from a slow wifi connection and switch to 4G. Project Fi doing it automatically looks great!

Those tariffs seem pretty steep though - I'm getting 3GB of 4G data for £15 a month [1]. Is $50/mo normal in the states?

[1]: [https://giffgaff.com/goodybags-4g](https://giffgaff.com/goodybags-4g)

</comment><comment><USER114> Two things I notice looking at the coverage map.[0]

1\. Wow, it's available in Canada right off the bat. This must be a first for Google.

2\. Does nobody in Montana own a cell phone? Alberta is probably equally empty as Montana, and yet almost their entire provice has coverage.

[0] [https://fi.google.com/coverage](https://fi.google.com/coverage)

<comment><USER115> Does all that region above Edmonton really have 2g coverage? How? Why?

<comment><USER116> Oil sands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> I knew when before I watched the video that it would be fluffy and meaningless. I was right. What's with tech videos lately?

</comment><comment><USER118> With the per GB charging, is that only data usage routed through cell towers or do they charge for roaming wifi usage as well?

<comment><USER119> This is absolutely a question that should be in their FAQ. Was wondering the same thing. Sadly the FAQ is full of marketing/PR non-anwsers...

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> When I bought my Nexus 6 from T-Mobile, one of the things the CSRs told me was that it would soon be supporting Wifi calling similar to how the other carrier branded phones did. They were just waiting on an update to Android.

Now this comes out, and I wonder if the update is still happening or if Google's answer will be to switch to Fi instead.

</comment><comment><USER121> With my family we have 5 phones, 3 iPads and 1 hotspot. 2 of the phones are unlimited data with international voice / text and free 3G international data. Other stuff is on 5Gb data. Cost around $300 per month (t-mobile). The Google math does not seem to work for me. Now I will say t-mobiles coverage could be better.

</comment><comment><USER122> This reminds me of Anqor: [http://www.anqor.com/](http://www.anqor.com/)

They are basically emulating SIM cards from a database to give you the best rates for where you are.

Is Google doing something similar, or are they just big enough to make good deals with telcos internationally?

</comment><comment><USER123> Hacker News is great. Saw the video and got nothing, came here and got the facts. Side note: Google has been taken over by marketers, the engineers who built this must be cringing. Certainly not a startup way to do this, feels a bit like Wave ie massive ambition, not useful out of the box to anybody.

</comment><comment><USER124> Funnily this is quite similar to the main plot of the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service"

</comment><comment><USER125> My current AT&T plan gives me unlimited calling and text along with 15GB of data per month for $90. Fi would definitely be expensive for me for the same data usage. I've signed up for an invite nonetheless (I have a Nexus 6) and interested to see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER126> So this only works with a Nexus6, but does anyone know of a comparable plan that is month to month that supports international roaming? I've got an unlocked Blu Android phone I was hoping to use overseas for traveling through Asia. Is t-mobile the only one?

</comment><comment><USER127> International rates are way too high, 12c for landline minute or 31 for cellphone in Serbia is ripoff.

They are doing Republic Wireless by Google. This is not bad and might make more competition. Maybe not many users will use it, but there will be perception of one more option.

</comment><comment><USER128> It is a great move by Google because unlike most other Google products, internet is a necessity.

</comment><comment><USER129> Unfortunately they haven't launched family plans yet, so I would be paying more than I do with T-mobile for virtually the same plan (in addition to Sprint coverage, which isn't all that useful in my area). Hopefully it comes soon.

<comment><USER130> Agreed, These offerings are competitive if you have a Nexus 6 (or want to buy one) and don't have a family plan.

Rates on T-Mobile can get down to $25/2.5Gb of data/month

</comment></comment><comment><USER131> They are basically adding a wireless network as an paid add-on to hangouts. I love it.

</comment><comment><USER132> Video borrows a lot from Apple's "Designed by Apple in California": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyQfye4vAQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyQfye4vAQ8)

</comment><comment><USER133> This does look promising but it is in no way cheaper than existing options. I am currently using a family plan from AT&T to get 1GB (10GB shared among 10 to be precise) + unlimited calls+text for $27.17 per month.

<comment><USER111> Are you on a single plan with 9 other people? If so, that really isn't a fair comparison. A single line on T-Mobile is a fair comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER134> It surprises me every time how expensive data is in the US. I get unlimited text, 300 minutes and 6GB of data(4G) for about $40 a month.

I make a lot of my calls through Facetime now, so I don't need unlimited minutes.

</comment><comment><USER135> This is too little too late. AT&T nearly matches this with a much better network. The international stuff is interesting but not that interesting with the current plans available from carriers.

</comment><comment><USER136> Unfortunately I think I'll need to stick with buying my phones for half the cost and sticking with a 2 year contract with a company like Verizon.

I can't justify switching and needing to buy a $650 phone.

<comment><USER13> But you spend way more than that over the course of the contract.

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> Everything about this sounds better than my current plan with Verizon except the coverage. Looking at their coverage map in central Virginia scares me because of the large areas of no coverage.

</comment><comment><USER138> It's a shame this is probably never going to come to the iPhone...

</comment><comment><USER139> Besides home where I amazingly get "4G" where I travel is 2G so yeah - <USER2> irony is I'm typing this while using a Verizon LTE Mifi hostpot from said "2G" location.

</comment><comment><USER140> Their roaming cost for data, is actually less then I would pay for data with a Canadian company. If it wasn't for the voice (and only 3g), I would totally sign up.

</comment><comment><USER141> this is excellent, someone well funded to take on the cellular companies that have been asleep at the wheel with pricing, customer service and innovation for years.

</comment><comment><USER142> The company who figures out how to make mobile data cheap will absolutely crush the competition.

Let's hope that's Google's intent with this project.

</comment><comment><USER143> Is it something similar like..

When one of my friend calls from UAE ( to India) using internet, I got call from a local indian number.

Not sure what system is that.

</comment><comment><USER144> Couldn't the separation of talk/text and data be eliminated? Is there a difference anymore or is it just marketing?

</comment><comment><USER145> Why does Google keeps over-engineering every single product except the one thing they are making money of: Google Search?!?

</comment><comment><USER146> I would love this... if it wasn't by google. I'd rather not have them digging through yet more personal data :(

</comment><comment><USER147> $47.04 per month ( plus taxes and fees ) for 2 years, assuming you don't already have their phone. Not bad.

</comment><comment><USER148> I'm getting one, to use in China, without censorship. The problem is, I will stuck with an Android phone :(

</comment><comment><USER149> the only question is that, it's unavailable and you need an invite and then wait, this becomes the norm these days, you can announce something for sale at the first sight, then let the potential customer to wait, don't feel too good about this kind of sales/marketing method myself.

</comment><comment><USER150> It's cool but I ran the numbers and staying with our carrier seems like it's cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER151> Does anyone else find it hilarious you can't sign up with your Google Apps email address?

<comment><USER152> Not really, it is a beta product and they don't ship beta products to apps customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER153> > <paper-button>

It's nice to see Google finally dogfooding Polymer in their own products

</comment><comment><USER154> Already have enough internet access, I'd pay for a way to get away from it.

</comment><comment><USER155> Has the nexus 6 aged well? early reviews made it sound pretty flawed.

<comment><USER156> I have one and I'm quite happy with it. The screen is almost too large to use but I'd still give it 4.5/5.

The best thing about it is the fact that it comes with no bloatware. My S3 had 2 or 3 bloatware apps that would crash on startup every single time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER157> This can be used against the net neutrality in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER158> This is sweet. My brother and I were thinking about wild ideas like this. We couldn't be more happy to see someone as awesome as google doing this.

</comment><comment><USER159> Well I bought some stock in a company that is supporting this fi. Hopefully I'll make enough to buy a Nexus 6. ;)

</comment><comment><USER159> Well I bought some stock in a company that is supporting this Fi. Hopefully I'll make enough to buy a Nexus6 ;)

</comment><comment><USER160> I would be interested in a beta invite, but it might just close it three to five years anyway.

<comment><USER161> Scrolled to the bottom to check if someone had a made this comment. Was not disappointed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER162> Please, for the love of God and all that is holy:

Bring this to Canada.

</comment><comment><USER163> The Circle.

</comment><comment><USER164> asdasdasd

</comment><comment><USER165> In their FAQ they haven't addressed the security issues when connecting to public WiFi hotspots. The user's traffic would be flowing unencrypted, easily accessible to strangers. I wonder if they'll be providing free VPN service when connected to public WiFi.

<comment><USER15> "Know your data is safe

Your data is secured through encryption when we connect you to open Wi-Fi hotspots. It's like your data has a private tunnel to drive through."

So that's a yes

ETA: Of course this does mean _Google_ has the plaintext, but then, your ISP always has the plaintext unless you're bringing your own encryption, so this is really no different.

<comment><USER166> Google is also in a much better position to make use of that data & metadata than the typical ISP.

<comment><USER167> At the same time they're not going to invite shoddy monitoring/injection services like many ISPs have done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER168> "Project Fi has partnered with Sprint and T-Mobile, two of the leading carriers in the US, to launch our service."

Lolz. That's some definition of leading I haven't heard before.

<comment><USER17> They're both in the top 5 (3rd and 4th, respectively; 5th is US Cellular). There are dozens of much smaller wireless carriers out there (usually with regional coverage at best excluding roaming).</comment></comment>


Programmer, interrupted (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/190891/programmer_interrupted.php <comment><USER2> FYI the original article has much better readability, formatting, and references: [http://blog.ninlabs.com/2013/01/programmer- interrupted/](http://blog.ninlabs.com/2013/01/programmer-interrupted/)

<comment><USER3> Can mods change links to this?

<comment><USER4> Seconded, this is way, way easier to read and actually has references in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I write down my thoughts so if I get interrupted I can resume from where I was. Then, I try to encourage people I deal with to use the issue tracker as much as possible.

"Hey, how is this task going?" -> go to JIRA

"Hey, are you blocked?" -> go to JIRA

"Who is working on this?" -> go to JIRA

Then I check JIRA when I have the time.

<comment><USER6> I hate jira, but I agree with your point. I always have notes that i can reference.

More to reference = less time to get back up to speed

<comment><USER7> Could be worse - you could be using Rally.

<comment><USER8> Or a giant board of post-it notes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some days I can barely even get started working, because I am already anticipating interruption. Wearing headphones doesn't help. I think it should be a clear social signal, but other people do not. In fact, they talk to me as if I can hear them (I cannot) and have to repeat whatever their introduction sentence was when I finally take them off. Why is this normal?

<comment><USER10> One way to do this would be to buy (e.g) a bunch of white caps and tell your coworkers to wear them when they need to concentrate, and to not disturb others when they are wearing them. I know of at least one company that does this and it works well for them. You can also do this with headphones, just tell your coworkers politely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This phenomenon is not constrained to programming. It's sometimes referred to as flow[0] and has been documented as taking somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes[1] to regain after an interruption.

Programmers may be more sensitized to its disruption than most due to the nature of the work, but the net effect is the same. If a person is required to concentrate in order to perform their job, interruptions will cause performance to degrade.

0 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29)

1 - [http://grahamchastney.com/2011/10/axiom-interruptions- cost-2...](http://grahamchastney.com/2011/10/axiom-interruptions- cost-20-minutes/)

</comment><comment><USER12> I found this help explain to others how programming work. [http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt- interrupt-...](http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a- programmer/)

</comment><comment><USER4> The article makes some good points, and nobody likes constant interruptions and context switching. Especially in particularly complex parts of the coding process. I also agree that it often takes ~10 minutes after a significant distraction to get back into things.

I think non-programmers could definitely benefit from this article. But I also think it's a two way street and there are certain steps you can take to minimize the damage done. Some things I at least try to do:

\- This may not go over well at everyone's companies, but just being honest with your coworkers sometimes. Send a message or email indicating you need to put your head down for a while to address priority tasks, and that you'll be logging out of Slack/IRC/whatever and can be contacted by email if anything urgent comes up. A healthy work environment should allow for it.

\- If headphones on is a 'signal' to others not to bother you, just politely mention it to them if they keep interrupting you during. Invite them to email you with any non-critical issues and you'll get back to them when your higher priority work is done.

\- Getting knocked out of the "zone" and it taking 15 minutes to get back... this definitely happens. But most meetings are scheduled. If your coworkers know your signal not to be bothered unless it's important, you can then work around the scheduled meetings. Do the less complicated coding tasks if possible leading up to the meeting so you don't need so long to get back in the zone after. If that isn't happening, at least keep a text editor open and jot down some notes to remind you of where your thought process was. A checklist is even better.

\- Use bookmarks. A lot of editors / IDEs have them, and if you bookmark all the areas of interest, if you do actually have come back and 'get back in the zone' without notes, you can at least hop around the pertinent areas quickly to regain context.

Anyway, just some thoughts on what's helped me at least reduce that issue. I'm not sure it can completely go away.

<comment><USER13> While interruptions are bad for your own productivity, they may really boost the productivity of the person doing the interrupting. I'd rather have a junior dev interrupt me when he needs a quick answer to a question instead of spending an hour googling and copy-pasting a dangerous hack from Stack Overflow. What's the point of sitting in an office when you don't collaborate?

The trick I use to reduce the effect of interruptions is to not respond right away if I'm in the middle of something. I just say "I'm in the middle of something, let me just finish this!" and then I get back once I'm at a point where my "mental load" is reduced.

<comment><USER14> I think I have to reluctantly agree. Collaboration is a huge part of a developer's professional life.

<comment><USER15> More than many want to admit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I see so much of this arguing against being interrupted, or context switching. I suffer from it, most of us do, but I think everyone's trying to solve the wrong problem.

The problem isn't that we get interrupted and our concentration suffers, it's that we keep trying not to be interrupted. Good developers are people who knit things together. The myth of the savant coder who just cranks out beautiful amazing stuff has to die. What makes a great developer are soft skills, and gluing together other code, not cranking on something for hours alone. Just like every other industry, you have to deal with other human beings, email, and the rest of life. We don't NEED to be cranking out code for hours on end, we need to integrate and interact with other people.

<comment><USER17> I think there is a time and a place for both modes (and it also depends on personality). What's wrong with private exploration / development after a period of research on the problem?

<comment><USER18> This makes a good case for having both some "core hours" for sharing, and some "crank stuff out" time.

<comment><USER19> I think a 1 on 1 off day could be interesting. Normal week but every other day is worked from home in quiet, maybe include some IRC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Charlie Stross has also Chimed in on this: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/08/writer-i...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/08/writer-interrupted.html)

<comment><USER21> This makes a really interesting comparison.

It's noteworthy that (fiction) writing hasn't gone down the "collaboration is part of the job"/"don't trust the coder hacking away by herself" wormhole that seems to be swallowing the software world at the moment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is something I definitely agree with. I've sometimes found that taking a few seconds to cache state in a notepad before responding to the interruption helps a lot. Having times of day dedicated to meetings also helps reduce fragmentation. At the risk of being overly self-promoting, solving problems with fragmented work days is something my cofounder and I are working on now with TimeFerret ([https://www.timeferret.com](https://www.timeferret.com)).

</comment><comment><USER23> Also discussed at length here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9515613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9515613)

</comment><comment><USER24> The first part of this seems to well describe the problem.

Then it looks like it goes in to a sales pitch for 'solutions' to that problem?

</comment><comment><USER25> This might be somewhat off-topic but do we really always have to conduct a study first before we can acknowledge and solve a problem that is obvious if you have any common sense?

<comment><USER26> Seemingly common sensical notions can be wrong. The hope is that empirical study is less so.

<comment><USER25> I agree with that notion completely, but I think one can overdo it and get lost in pedantry and bureaucracy. Imagine you would program your software and do a benchmark test on every single line. That is what it feels like.

<comment><USER27> I've always liked the warning to not let perfect be the enemy of good. But I also think it's easy to rationalize too much guessing and too little evidence gathering. I find it a really hard balance to strike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> @joshka, add a 2013 tag

</comment><comment><USER29> good mate

</comment><comment><USER30> I'll offer the dissenting opinion.

Let's say the ratio is worse: 10x less productive; 10x more error prone.

I will _still_ interrupt my coworkers who are working on the wrong thing. 1/10th of a thing that makes 100x more money is better than 1x of a thing. I _want_ that nonsense flushed from their working memory.

I understand that makes me a micro-manager; but I'd rather have more productive coworkers that help keep our business alive. My coworkers appreciate it (most of the time) because it helps them grow.

<comment><USER31> > I will still interrupt my coworkers who are working on the wrong thing.

How common is this, how can you tell, and why were they working on it in the first place? How often do you interrupt them when they were working on the right thing, as an unfortunate side effect?

I've wasted time and energy on dead ends and it is one of the most frustrating things, even when it was understandable, sanctioned, and a _desired_ exploration of the problem space. I'm all for trying to avoid unnecessary waste.

> I understand that makes me a micro-manager;

That this is your understanding would concern me greatly, though. I'd rather be macromanaged - have the big picture explained to me, in a way that I can understand and buy into, that I can then approach in the ways that best suits my own talents and abilities. Where I can contribute my own insights and ideas to the collaboration, where I don't start working on the wrong shit in the first place.

Not just... along for the ride, like floatsam, being told I've been doing it wrong a hundred times and do it this other way because I've been told to, without any deeper insight to correct the underlying problem. Or even worse, without any real underlying problem in need of actual correction.

<comment><USER32> > how can you tell

He can tell because he's a manager, and if he wasn't always right, he wouldn't have been made a manager, so he's always right.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to find remote jobs? - <AUTHOR> Are there any job boards that list remote positions? Every job site I have recently tried requires to enter a location, which limits the search to one Geo Location.
Ironically, https://remote.com/ seems like a scam. Is there a legitimate source of remote jobs on the web? <comment><USER2> [http://stackoverflow.com/jobs?allowsremote=true&sort=p](http://stackoverflow.com/jobs?allowsremote=true&sort=p)

[https://angel.co/jobs](https://angel.co/jobs) (startup focused — when searching, hit the "Remote OK" checkbox under "Job Type")

[https://www.flexjobs.com/](https://www.flexjobs.com/)

[https://remoteworkhub.com/remote-jobs/](https://remoteworkhub.com/remote- jobs/)

[https://weworkremotely.com](https://weworkremotely.com)

[https://remoteok.io](https://remoteok.io)

[http://www.workingnomads.co/jobs](http://www.workingnomads.co/jobs)

[https://jobspresso.co/#s=1](https://jobspresso.co/#s=1)

[https://jobs.github.com/positions?description=remote&locatio...](https://jobs.github.com/positions?description=remote&location=)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs](https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs) (not typically remote, but can occasionally find a few)

([https://www.3riverdev.com/how-to-find-a-remote- job](https://www.3riverdev.com/how-to-find-a-remote-job))

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a list towards the bottom of this page.

[http://worldwidewebworks.blogspot.com/p/work.html](http://worldwidewebworks.blogspot.com/p/work.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/remote-developer- jobs](https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/remote-developer-jobs)

</comment><comment><USER5> Check out past posts on this subject: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=find%20remote&sort=byPopularit...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=find%20remote&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER6> list of such job boards: [https://github.com/raynesio/remotelist](https://github.com/raynesio/remotelist)

</comment><comment><USER7> The company has openings, they just aren't advertised. Cold email the companies you dream of working for!

</comment><comment><USER8> [https://remoteok.io/](https://remoteok.io/)

</comment><comment><USER9> remoteok.io and I would check specific job pages to your language of choice or framework.</comment>