dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-10-02 10:34:25: A few weeks back we noted how Google's franchise deal with Kansas City for Google Fiber was a particularly sweet arrangement. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next
ltecajun
join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

ltecajun to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25

Re: deal or no deal?

Provide facts of Google bringing much good to many markets? Oh! Wait. My android... You are right. Next?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to firephoto

Premium Member

to firephoto

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by firephoto:

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Really? Because I am pretty sure Verizon got fined for blocking tethering on their 4G network because of a net neutrality requirement on their 700 mhz spectrum. Even if they did help craft it, it still applies.

If you notice, they are not limiting traffic. They do have caps so that the network doesn't become saturated. Caps that affected relatively few people.
said by firephoto:

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.

Interesting. You know I happen to live in one of those areas that Verizon and At&t "monopolize". And contrary to beliefs, there is quite a bit of spectrum that belongs to small wireless carriers, such as iWireless. You know that they do with that spectrum? Offer a cutting edge GPRS wireless network at literally dial-up speeds! You know what Verizon does with theirs? Offer 3G AND 4G! The belief that small carriers would use this spectrum and offer real "Service" to people is complete crap. I also have US Cellular in this area. What do they do with their spectrum? Offer services at prices equal to that of Verizon, with poorer performance and awful phones.

mr sean
Professional Infidel

join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia

1 recommendation

mr sean to elwoodblues

to elwoodblues

Re: Same Perks?

Now, now...

Corporations may be people too, but when the wealth is redistributed to them its called a subsidy or an abatement...not entitlement.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx

Re: Google promised something in return...

Or you could look at Google's well below cost pricing as predatory which will eventually drive AT&T and TWC from the market, leaving only google fiber free to raise prices as they choose.
They fact that the politicians in the KC's have conspired to shift quite a bit of the initial build out cost to the taxpayers, means Google is building a partially muni financed system, without the public getting any ownership rights/benefits/control or choice in the development and future use of the system, and Google gets easy reduced cost entry into the ISP business with few responsibilities.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Reality check

This is just another "hey let's try this" by Google. They do this all the time. Remember how Google was going to sell their own phones?

I think there's a 90% chance that this Google experiment will remain just that.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto to ltecajun

Premium Member

to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

And I don't have the need to store them offsite, I am required to store them offisite if I want to say... let other people see them at their leisure.. because my connection is not fast enough to supply a single person even with the ability to watch any video i might create. So I and millions of others suffer with waiting for shit to upload or they take poor quality video on a phone and wave it about in the air in other peoples faces so they can pretend they are actually watching and enjoying what is on the 3.5" screen.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

So you want to put the onus on me for the need, sure thing.

I want to be able to backup all my home computers and servers to the cloud in less then an hour.

I want to be able to watch 5 or more TV's in full 1080p uncompressed video with full Dobly Digital 7.1 sound.

I want to be able to download all seasons of every show I enjoy (legally) within 5 minutes.

I want everything I do on the internet to be instantaneous.

Can I do all those things now? No. You pointing out that many websites or services can't provide what I request only supports my very suggestion that if I cant do those things then the internet needs to keep getting faster, copper is not the future and 1gbps over fiber is a very good start.

Whether or not YOU think the world needs those things has absolutely no bearing on it. You are not the architecture god of the internet and your opinion on what is needed for the world is meaningless (sorry to tell you that being you seem to think so highly of your opinion for what the world needs).

So now that I have proven to you why it is needed, please prove to me how we dont need it and that we should just stay with copper and not advance.

By the way, thanks for taking time away from Intel and AMD to speak with us. I am sure they are in desperate need of your advice on how they shouldnt be making faster, smaller and more energy efficient processors because someone like me can't prove to them I need it based on your personal opinion.
ltecajun
join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

ltecajun

Member

So do I, but at what cost? There is always a cost involved whether it is shared or not. I simply don't trust Google because they have no transparency like a muni would. LUS in Lafayette, LA is an example of a fairly successful muni project that provides fiber to all of the locations that they service and they even haven't seen the need for peer to peer connections above 100mbps for residential customers.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Have you proved why it is needed? I don't think you have. You proved to me why you "wanted" it, not why you "needed" it. A world where we get everything we want would be a great place. That world doesn't exist.

My opinion is meaningless? Okay. Perhaps. But yours is even more so. Because you have not proved why you need faster speeds, only why you want them.

What do AMD and Intel have to do with anything? You sure like to go off topic. But for that matter, do AMD and Intel try to make processors "future proof" or do they try to make them good for current uses, as demanded? I don't see 32 core consumer CPUs out on the market. Sure, we may need them some day and we would love to have them. But they are not needed today, not tomorrow. Just like we 1gbps fiber is not needed today. Not tomorrow....
silbaco

1 recommendation

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25

Re: deal or no deal?

Google being there has nothing to do with their supposed "failure". It has to do with Google getting good perks from Kansas City, the size of the city, and the layout of the city so they can easily build, so they can conduct their experiment. Hate to break it to you, but Google is not there so consumers can get a third choice and be saved from these evil companies. They are not the savior you make them out to be.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to ltecajun

Member

to ltecajun
So out of all of my message that is all you come up with?

Obviously you are admitting defeat and Android within itself is all I would need to say being it touches on so many other markets. Android alone helped to improve the entire mobile phone market or are you going to argue with that and demand proof?

Please tell -
How did you pick Google out of the bunch in failed promises to deliver when they are the only ones that have never failed to deliver on broadband out of the group?

Also, please provide proof (thought I would ask first) that the incumbents have not failed and did not get incentives for the last decade or 2 to improve their networks. HINT: You will need to come up with something creative here being the entire fact Google is there shows they failed. (Good luck!)

Lastly, please provide proof that Google entering these markets is NOT a good thing for the communities. Again, I thought I would ask first being you like to play this silly game.

I really dont expect a reply from you being that you will fail to live up to the challenge, but none the less it has been fun playing hasnt it?
Skippy25

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Oh how silly you are.

So what I view as a need, you view as a want. Are we really going to have this debate? If you really want to get technical, we dont NEED electricty, we dont NEED a highway system and we dont NEED a civilized society. See how stupid your game is?

My AMD and Intel comment was pretty clear. Or at least I thought it was, but let me break it down to you so even a 1st grader can understand. YOU do not get to dictate what is a need or want for anyone other than yourself and those that you are directly in control of (kids). So with that, YOU do not get to say how we should expand for the future and at what pace we do so. So again, stop trying to act as though you get to determine those things.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to ltecajun

Member

to ltecajun
At what cost?

It is Google's money and if they want to bring a true network and true competition to KC, then that is a savings in my book.
FastLearner
join:2003-09-14
Arvada, CO

1 recommendation

FastLearner to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: Sorry, but no

I agree.

I don't like government entities choosing winners and losers. Give them both the same agreement and let the free market hash it out.
ltecajun
join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

ltecajun to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25

Re: deal or no deal?

Yeah! Go drink your Google cool-aid and let's continue this debate in a couple of years. Again what has Google provided that is worth a damn outside of Android which just recently has reached a point that truly is usable as a mobile OS. *crickets* I thought so. This should have been a Non-Corporate funded and built network to begin with to truly be successful. Now I understand the Liberal thinking that these companies have been taken in funds for a very long time, but that is the past. Even the new muni projects require some form of tax payer funding to eventually make it off the ground where they are profitable and sustainable.
ltecajun

ltecajun

Member

By the way... This is the link to the LUS Fiber pricing for their services. Completely funded via Bonds.
»www.lusfiber.com/index.p ··· ng-guide

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

1 recommendation

mackey to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by silbaco:

Have you proved why it is needed? I don't think you have. You proved to me why you "wanted" it, not why you "needed" it.

Sorry, the same thing can be said about the internet in general. You don't NEED cable or DSL speeds. You don't even NEED dial-up either. You don't NEED the internet at all.

Saying you need the faster speeds because you want to watch 5 hi-def Netflix streams is no different then saying you need a cable/DSL connection because you want to watch a single standard-def Netflix stream.
said by silbaco:

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time.

Yes it is their problem. They refused to slowly roll out FTTH over the last 10 years, so they're now looking at a complete overhaul as they need to do it all at once. Had they put the millions if not billions they got in tax breaks and subsidies for their fiber deployment into actually deploying it we would not have the situation we currently have.
said by silbaco:

It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging.

Bullshit. It would be no more expensive for them then it is for Google. In fact, they could probably do it cheaper due to economies of scale and because they already have some of the supporting infrastructure in place already. If Google can do it, TWC and ATT could do it too. They're too busy giving money to shareholders and execs to actually put anything back into their network however.
said by silbaco:

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

Yes, if they decide to actually deploy FTTH they too should get the perks. No spending huge amounts of money on the extremely expensive FTTH deployment, no perks.

/M
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Ah. So you can't debate worth a crap, you instead of debating the subject at hand, you debate about me and make petty insults? Interesting.

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

alchav

Member

Last Mile Plan still missing!

I still haven't seen Google's Plan for The Last Mile. You guys seem to think that dropping Fiber from the closes Pole is a Plan. I think Google is not going forward in Kansas City because they want to clean things up, not add to the mess. Fiber is the Future, and that means Clean and Out of Site. Going underground is more costly, and that is the problem. The solution, Communities and Cities have to Fiber Wire themselves. Then Google or the ISP's could just meet them at the HeadIn.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by silbaco:

Which would be extremely expensive. I am all for building new fiber networks, but the fact remains that it is expensive. It is a serious investment for something that at this point we do not need. I congratulate the companies that do it. But I also understand why a lot of companies do not do it.

So, according to you, we'll *NEVER* need the Telco's to do a serious investment. All we need is a copper pair for the next decade or two because, after all, who will need >10mbps?

You, sir, need to get with the times. The telcos need to replace the copper lines with fiber. The reason they don't is.. why should they when they can brainwash everyone into thinking that the speeds they have is perfect.

The truth is, services are utilizing more bandwidth. We've been using copper for over a freaking century and has been showing its age for a decade. We need to ditch it now before it becomes useless or "soldered and duct-taped" to death.

..and the cost? How much did it cost to wire the entire country half a century ago? I guess they "thought" that unshielded copper could do everything and they'd never have to invest in infrastructure again. Maybe they should have verified their findings before coming to that conclusion.

The fact is, if they would invest, they wouldn't have to upgrade for quite sometime. Fiber has almost unlimited bandwidth, so all you have to do is change the GBICs on each end to upgrade to faster speeds. Just lay the fiber lines and yank the copper. They'd get a decent return recycling the old copper lines and could possibly come out ahead.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to mackey

Premium Member

to mackey
Our economy needs the internet, or it would collapse. Our economy does not need gigabit internet.

I don't watch netflix, because I don't need it.

It will probably cost less for these companies to do it all at once when the time is right than to have started doing it 10 years ago. Fiber keeps dropping. Deploying it early on was a huge expense, and some of those fiber networks already need upgrading to compete with modern standard fiber deployments.

Don't forget what these companies actually do. TWC and At&t are in telecommunications. Google is a web content provider who is entering the communications industry with a tiny deployment after deployment costs have dropped to a fraction of what they were with TWC and At&t entered the industry. And the fact remains Google is unlikely to ever turn a profit from this service, despite the perks they received. But that is how google operates. They lose billions on android and have lost billions on youtube.

FTTH deployments are not as easy as google makes them look. My ISP is actually under going one right now. Eventually, I will have it. But it won't be gigabit speeds and it won't be near as cheap as google either. I should also state my ISP is a nonprofit and is in a huge amount of debt from the ftth deployments, that they may or may not be able to pay in the future. These deployments are expensive and supplying gigabit speeds is not as cheap as google makes it look.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

2 edits

aaronwt to ltecajun

Premium Member

to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

said by ltecajun:

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.

Even VUDU requires at least 9Mb/s for three bar HDX. Vudu has been around for about five years now.

Now multiply that by a family of five that may all be doing their own thing, and the bandwidth you need grows alot.

And me I'm not doing anything illegal online but I have the 150/65 tier on FiOS. The higher upload speed allows me to backup to my cloud storage much faster. Although if they would have had a 65/65 tier I would have picked that. I'm by myself so I don't really need the 150Mb/s download speeds. but I have easily maxed it out when downloading a bunch of updates for my PCs and electronic devices.

AdamB0
join:2001-01-07
Columbus, OH

AdamB0

Member

AT&T and TW can

eat a shit sandwich! Both have been the beneficiaries of the FCC allowing them to collect fees to upgrade their network, yet they haven't. AT&T is still milking every penny they can out of their copper lines. TW still has pathetic speeds for a premium. Now that Google is showing them how things should be done, they scream and cry.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to SimbaSeven

Premium Member

to SimbaSeven

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

I didn't say never. There is a time to upgrade and there is a time to wait. At&t actually has ftth u-verse in new construction. But the difference to the consumer is unnoticeable.

Was not long ago everyone was saying deploy new wireless networks. Sprint did just that. And now they are decommissioning it after wasting billions. They jumped the gun too quickly and have wasted tons of money that someone has to pay for. When the time is right for a company to deploy ftth, they will. For some small companies, that time is now. For larger companies that can deploy VDSL or other fast technologies and have the overwhelming majority of their subscribers be happy, that time might be a few years from now. At that time fiber will be even cheaper and more logical.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco

Re: Competition

what purpose does having a file on > 300 million people do for a private company that doesn't sell products to all of those people?
ArrayList

ArrayList to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Yep, lets just half ass every form of infrastructure for the next 100 years.

face it, either we figure out how to make this happen or be happy living in the 2000's. It's 2012, why the hell are we not willing to update things that really do need updating?
ArrayList

ArrayList to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
It's needed tomorrow, not today.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
3 Things

First, our economy NEEDS the internet or it would collapse? Prove it! Besides who are you to say it doesnt "need" gigabit to not collapse?

Second, I see I am speaking with someone that has no clue of networks. You do realize that the cost to upgrade would be a complete waste if you dont deploy it to the 10-15 year future right? Copper certainly would not be that, thus fiber is the only way to go and providing 10mbps or 1gbps is an incremental cost barely measured in the scheme of things. Why do you think Google is doing 1gbps over say 100mb symetrical? 100 would still put them in the upper echelon of all ISPs.

Third, it appears you are arguing just to argue because 1 you have no clue about networks and 2 you constantly want to impose your opinions on what is NEEDED (by your definition) and what is not on everyone else.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to ltecajun

Member

to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

Lets assume just for a moment that Google has done no good beyond Android and you win that one argument being that is really irrelevant to this project.

Where are your answers to my other questions? *crickets*

And I know how LUS was funded. It was funded the way a muni should be if a private company has failed to deliver what the community wants and is unwilling to serve it as such. It was approved by the people and will be paid for by the people.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList

Re: Competition

said by ArrayList:

what purpose does having a file on > 300 million people do for a private company that doesn't sell products to all of those people?

That's a great question. Google must have some reason. A lot of it is advertising. The more then know, the more they can charge for more accurate advertising.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next