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
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to ltecajun

Member

to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

Re: deal or no deal?

Google being there has everything to do with their failure. If those communities had better networks then Google would not have seen them as a good test bed and would have chosen another place. Are you honestly that dense?

They certainly are not there to give a 3rd choice. They are there to show the failures of the incumbents and what can be had with an internet that goes beyond the duopolistic capture of the current market. They are there to show gigabit internet is possible and profitable with the hopes it pushes more ISP's to expand because more people will want it and the more people that are on the internet the more money Google makes over all.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25

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

Considering networks is what I do (no I do not work for an ISP) it seems you are probably arguing with someone who knows MORE about networks than you.

Proof it? Seriously? The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to tshirt

Member

to tshirt

Re: Google promised something in return...

If $70 per month is below cost for a FTTH deployment, why is Sonic.net selling gigabit plus two phone lines for $70?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25

Re: deal or no deal?

Google doesn't even know if it will be profitable. They hope it will. Everyone hopes to be profitable. But will they ever earn a serious return on their investment? Seems extremely unlikely.

If non-profit muni's can't offer even close to gigabit speeds and even break even at the prices google is planning, what makes you think it is so profitable?

iano
@virginmedia.com

iano to ltecajun

Anon

to ltecajun
Hmm, I wonder how google got so big\relevant without Android.
Maybe we should Google it and find out!

d988923kbnkj
@swbell.net

d988923kbnkj to insomniac84

Anon

to insomniac84

Re: They had their chance, they didn't do it

said by insomniac84:

The first person into a new market always has an advantage. They at any time could have offered gigabit without caps and negotiated deals with the city for any regulatory breaks. They chose not to.

Someone else beat them to it, now they lose. Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals.

In this case, the late mover has the advantage of lower network gear and fiber costs, as well as not having a workforce and farming everything out to largely non-union, lower paid workers.

The legacy infrastructure that the telcos have is a disadvantage because they can't easily ditch their copper plant because some phone services don't work over VOIP.

Since the phone service is regulated for them, makes it hard to ditch some of the existing plant.

Google has an inherent advantage over cable/telco in that they are willing to build their own gear and do custom things to reduce costs/improve performance - the cable and telcos only buy gear and pay someone to install into their network.

Bahamut X
Premium Member
join:2000-12-09
Fort Worth, TX

Bahamut X to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: Reality check

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Remember how Google was going to sell their own phones?

»play.google.com/store/de ··· selector

Phone, check.
Tablet, check.

No, they don't sell service with thier own phone, but it does look like they do sell thier own phones...
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

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

Lets see businesses deploying copper still. Lets look at those facts shall we?

1.) Copper is still capable of 1gbps (even 10gbps) at such short Ethernet lengths, are easily terminated and dont really require any special skills like fiber. 2.) Switches above 10gbps are not so common place yet and thus are still very expensive and not worth the added cost for a vast majority of businesses out there. 3.) Fiber for such short runs would be expensive because a major cost in fiber is the splicing and short runs totaling into the hundreds or even thousands for even an office of 500 people is not worth it when you consider #1 and #2 above. 4.) ISP's do not provide WAN links that would be usable at an affordable price for said speeds (reason we are here discussing this). 5.) Few servers are capable of utilizing even bounded multi-gigabit cards, especially servers that a vast majority of the businesses you are lumping together would use. Should I go on?

And I am calling BS on you knowing a company that deployed fiber to the desktop and went back to copper. Not that there arent some out there that did that and then during a remodel went the cheaper route (see #1-5 above). I just think you personally are full of crap and if it is a true statement, then it was probably to 3-5 workstations and a server. Your argument that it is more costly to maintain and is slower than copper shows your lack of knowledge, yet again. If you are truly going to tell me that running copper for a a quarter mile, mile or many miles is more reliable and faster than fiber you truly need to exit from this conversation. Or is it that you have been defeated on the ISP side so now you are attempting to bring this to a local level?
Skippy25

Skippy25 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco

Re: deal or no deal?

Maybe you should look into how the network is being built before you come here babbling. You would look less silly then.

One other thing... being you are so network knowledgeable I am sure I am not telling you anything you dont know, but you do realize that providing 1mb or 1gb over current infrastructure has a very marginal cost, right? So if the muni's were built out with that infrastructure support they would provide it at a cost that is marginally greater than 100mb.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to ltecajun

Member

to ltecajun
You must live by yourself...
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next