Everyone seems to want Google to enter the mobile space. However, I don't think Google buying T-Mobile would work out so well.

T-Mobile has no low-frequency spectrum. Lower frequency spectrum allows signals to travel further (in real-world conditions) and offers better in-building coverage. AT&T and Verizon have most of the sub-1GHz spectrum in many markets with Sprint trying to re-farm the ~14MHz they acquired via Nextel. A Google-owned T-Mobile wouldn't be pushing the envelope on coverage and that's something that the majority of Americans seem to find quite important (even if they don't venture out of their home location much).

T-Mobile is the furthest behind in the path to LTE. Part of this is due to T-Mobile needing to move technologies to different radio bands. T-Mobile (historically) ran GSM at 1900MHz and deployed UMTS at 1700MHz. They are now trying to re-allocate that so that they can run UMTS at 1900MHz (a technology/frequency combination compatible with the iPhone) and LTE at 1700MHz (also compatible with the iPhone). AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all have unused spectrum for their initial LTE deployments. Even if Google were so inclined, it takes time to re-do a lot of these decisions and for customers to be appropriately equipped to move on to further plans.

Then the question comes up: how would Google improve T-Mobile or wireless in general? T-Mobile's coverage likely wouldn't see dramatic expansion via Google ownership. Google would probably push an aggressive LTE rollout, but certainly not faster than Verizon. Unlike wired connections, wireless carriers have pushed out the latest technologies (or will within 5ish years of those technologies becoming available). We know that we can get 100Mbps to the home over DOCSIS (cable) and ADSL in many countries is much more advanced. Wireless isn't. In fact, LTE is probably more advanced in the US than anywhere else (due mostly to Verizon, but others are similarly pushing). Google couldn't really offer greater than LTE speed. Google would probably want to offer an unlimited connection. That would be quite welcome, but I wonder if they might bump up against capacity and capital constraints on this one. If Google Mobile became as popular as AT&T or Verizon, that Google Mobile would have considerably less spectrum (as T-Mobile has considerably less). One can improve capacity by adding cell sites, but many jurisdictions make that very difficult to accomplish. If it's less popular, are the revenues there to invest so much in the network?

In terms of financials, Sprint has been losing money for 7 years (expecting to start turning a profit in 2014) and T-Mobile seems to be going the red-ink route as well. We coalesced (as a society) around two carriers and that's unfortunate. Google doesn't just take on projects and subsidize them forever. In fact, they do cancel many things. I don't think we would expect Google to spend excessively on subsidizing wireless for consumers.

Speaking of finances, T-Mobile would probably want a price above $30B. AT&T offered $39B and T-Mobile has more assets today (in the form of wireless spectrum) due to AT&T's breakup fee. That's a lot of money to put toward this project. I think a lot of us would like better competition in wireless and for wireless to be better in general. However, without some sort of plan for what Google could bring (beyond an all-Android phone lineup of Google-approved devices), it doesn't seem (to me) that it would create something great. It would greatly eclipse Google's next largest purchase (Motorola Mobility). With Motorola, Google was getting an Android manufacturer and a patent portfolio. It was strategic and Google clearly has ideas about how handsets should be made. Do they have similar ideas on how a carrier should be run?

Finally, the thesis behind the article is that Google wants to push Android forward. However, I question that. Sure, Google came out with the Nexus 4 at $300, but it doesn't seem like they're pushing too hard to make sure supplies are available. In some ways, it feels like they're trying to egg the industry along, but don't want to do it themselves. In a lot of ways, it's more fun being the person outside the tent yelling at the people inside it. If you can produce a proof of concept about how you can do better than them (without having to bring it to the same scale), all the better.

That isn't a criticism of Google or anyone in general. We need people like that. It's merely to point out that something like Google Fiber (or possibly the Nexus 4) isn't the same as becoming a utility company. Google was offered rates below what the cities charge competitors (telco and cable companies) for using utility poles. Google didn't have to spend time and money on things like getting resistant cities to allow them in or deal with onerous requirements - Google's proposition was "we'll pick whoever bends over backward the most for us". Again, that isn't a criticism of Google, but merely to point out that many cities and towns in my area denied Verizon the right to install FiOS for reasons like not including enough public interest programming on their cable lineup. Heck, in the cities that have Google Fiber, Google didn't even have to commit to serving the whole city. Similarly, and this might be proven wrong in the coming months, the Nexus 4 might not be something Google intends to be mass-market, but more of an at-cost proof-of-concept. We'll see if it becomes generally available selling millions in the coming months. We'll also see if LTE becomes a part of the picture.

When purchasing a near-$40B wireless company, you have to really want to be in wireless. You have to think you can make money out of it and you have to think you can do something better than the current management. Maybe Google could do better - I'm hoping that Google Fiber becomes a runaway success and profit center for Google and expands across the country. Maybe Google's prowess extends to utilities. It would be awesome. However, I think that Google doesn't want to test that out whole-hog. I think they want to take baby steps. They have Google Fiber for that purpose. They had Google Nexus devices before buying Motorola. Maybe a Google MVNO (virtual network operator running off of one of the national networks) first would let them test this.