dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
55
« Google Fiber!channel lineup »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Wonder how much all of this costs
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine

Re: Wonder how much all of this costs

Google doesn't expect a 43% profit margin the way Verizon gets from its wireless subs. They're quite willing to dump a free service (Android in smartphones, the 5 mbps for free with this project) for longterm growth and mindshare. Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

said by sonicmerlin:

Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

dib22

Member

said by FFH5:

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

Awww... well if CableTelcoUSA returns to a fair pricing model then google will stop with KC, if not...

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by sonicmerlin:

Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

And this is different from typical incumbent provider nonsense...how?
xenophon
join:2007-09-17

1 recommendation

xenophon to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by sonicmerlin:

Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

You are pretty bitter about this it seems. Major Debbe Downer.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Google doesn't expect a 43% profit margin the way Verizon gets from its wireless subs. They're quite willing to dump a free service (Android in smartphones, the 5 mbps for free with this project) for longterm growth and mindshare.

The service is not free. It costs $300.

Not a bad deal.

But not free.
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Google gets a lot of money from data mining with its search engine alone, being the whole isp and getting to mine everything yeah theres money there. Not a typical isp strategy but it should work for google.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
What are they advertising?

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

firephoto to coldmoon

Premium Member

to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:

said by FFH5:

said by sonicmerlin:

Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

And this is different from typical incumbent provider nonsense...how?

Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.

If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project. All the arm chair CEO's and economists who want cheap products and shoddy infrastructure while making piles of cash to give out to good old boy types are what drives this countries people towards the bottom.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
said by iansltx:

What are they advertising?

Their advertising business which accounts for the majority of their income and all of their profits.
sparc
join:2006-05-06

sparc to elray

Member

to elray
it's basically free. Charging $300 for a $3000 service (over 7 years) is a giveaway. Just depends on your perspective.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Crookshanks to firephoto

Member

to firephoto
said by firephoto:

Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.

If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project.

Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin.

As an example, Verizon isn't abandoning wireline because it isn't profitable. They are abandoning it because wireless is more profitable. Building out the LTE network is simply a better use of capital than building out the wireline network. This calculation may well change once the wireless network and market fully matures but for the time being it would be fiduciary negligence for them to invest their limited resources into a product with a lower ROI than wireless.

Getting back to the original point, I'm not sure what Google's long term goal is here. At their core they are a content and advertising company; I doubt they are willing to get into the last mile business on a nationwide scale. That would make as much sense as Verizon going into the search engine business or ExxonMobile trying to compete with McDonalds.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Most profitable? Shouldn't they get out of the internet business and sell hookers and blow instead?
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

said by firephoto:

Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.

If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project.

Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin.

As an example, Verizon isn't abandoning wireline because it isn't profitable. They are abandoning it because wireless is more profitable. Building out the LTE network is simply a better use of capital than building out the wireline network. This calculation may well change once the wireless network and market fully matures but for the time being it would be fiduciary negligence for them to invest their limited resources into a product with a lower ROI than wireless.

Getting back to the original point, I'm not sure what Google's long term goal is here. At their core they are a content and advertising company; I doubt they are willing to get into the last mile business on a nationwide scale. That would make as much sense as Verizon going into the search engine business or ExxonMobile trying to compete with McDonalds.

agreed companies have a obligation to stockholders.. I think google is showing the president, and sen/house why we need it, weather the cable companies like it or not fiber is the future and we all know this.. cable cant even get 50 mbps up for crying out loud, and it starting to show that they over charge big time for their tv services people are smarting up and seeing what the internet can do for them, I think in 10 years or less we will start to see fiber running threw major states (and it wont be provided by the likes of AT&T or cable co. but possibly the gov which seems to keep on spending at this point and time.. I could be wrong and this could be just my speculation) still none the less cable and AT&T, Verizon will have their day when they will loose to fiber

as shown on the video 1000mbps almost.., they where able to upload everything 10x faster or more.. upload is starting to become a major thing in the internet with more and more cloud idk if the cable co's will actually go for it (Comcast will, but the smaller ones like suddenlink, my provider, its seems they wont mess with it)
Cobra11M

Cobra11M to sparc

Member

to sparc
said by sparc:

it's basically free. Charging $300 for a $3000 service (over 7 years) is a giveaway. Just depends on your perspective.

very true.., 300 is small price to pay though.. and that's just one time fee.. I wonder what timewarner will do hahahahahha

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

firephoto to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin.

They have a responsibility to their majority shareholders. Everyone else can come or go as they please with their minor investments.

There is a very limited number of people at the top of Google with full control of the investment into the company, everyone else is just along for the ride.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Okay...so what's the problem with subsidizing superfast access with ads that are delivered over that access? If there's some issue with this, is there a problem with Comcast-NBCU?
d1gw33d
join:2009-06-20
Clovis, CA

d1gw33d to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
You're assuming too much and your snarky remark of it being "PR BS to get their as the good guy" is needless. The incumbent ISP's have price gouged customers with consistent rate hikes, implemented data caps, practice anti competitive business and provide awful customer support. Not to mention the fact they twist any regulation into a shell of its beginings and use them to squash any start ups.

Odd stance from you considering your blatant political leanings that you feel the need to slap on the left and bottom of all your posts.

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

FLATLINE to Cobra11M

Member

to Cobra11M
Oh please stop with this obligation to the stockholders nonsense. If you believe that then your a fool like the rest of them. Real business people will tell you their obligation is to the customer. Only then are you really looking out for the stockholders. Put the customer first, run a decent business, and the stockholders will profit. Putting the stockholders first inevitably alienates the customer. Want examples? Just look around. Who's missing? Who's been in trouble for years. Its just a lousy policy that will only take you so far and as we have seen can ruin some of the biggest and best.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by sonicmerlin:

Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.

Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Yes, this is a good PR/press move, but it's more than that. Google makes money off visitors. Now, they don't need their own network for that, assuming the incumbent ISP's deliver those visitors, but you have companies like AT&T saying they want to be paid for carrying Google's traffic. Google doesn't want to pay them and set such a precedent, so a nice way around that is to build their own network.

Now consider the moneymaking part of this. Why do you assume Google can't make money here? The incumbents are doing quite nicely, and many of them are hampered by the limitations of old technology infrastructure. Google is free to build all-fiber networks that can do laps around the incumbents in terms of speed. If they price competitively, they'll get customers, not only because of price but also because of their immediate brand recognition and also because many people don't like their current provider too much. And, even if they only break even, they're still making money on getting the site visitors they need. And, if they decide to bail on fiber later on, they can get a lot of money by selling those networks and subscribers to someone else. They could even include a stipulation that the buyer not try to charge them to deliver visitors to their sites.

Finally, they can always use fiber as a club to hold over the heads of the incumbents. "If you won't play nice with us, we'll drop fiber networks into your territory and steal your customers."

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

Getting back to the original point, I'm not sure what Google's long term goal is here. At their core they are a content and advertising company; I doubt they are willing to get into the last mile business on a nationwide scale.

Competition. I think they want to turn up the heat to get ISPs providing better Internet at a more affordable rate so that they can provide more compelling content.
It is the same reason they built their own browser. For the longest time they backed Firefox, but after it became clear to them that the Firefox codebase was in too bad a shape to provide the sort of fast-moving innovation they wanted to see in browsers, they started their own. The result has been very successful as Firefox and IE have struggled to keep pace with Chrome, but at the same time are almost definitely faster and more standards compliant than they would otherwise be.
Google doesn't want to be in the ISP or browser business, but since their product rides on top of both, they have a huge interest in making sure these two technologies are pushing forward as fast as possible.

The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Denver, CO

The Limit to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
Of course not, because like a previous poster said, pro big business for some odd reason only side with the companies who only want to maximize profit, other than putting the customer first.

Google is maximizing profit through their advertising business, and this *may* just be a PR scuttle, but in the end customers are being served FIRST. I don't know why people have it in their heads that profit always comes first, when in reality the customer is who comes first. There is NO profit if there is NO customer. I know this for a fact, I've seen it firsthand. I come from a large family, and many members started their own businesses. One business ran for over 30 years, then he decided to retire. He was making a decent living, put the customer first, and everything went well after that. Another has had his business for over 15 years, doesn't try to charge an arm and a leg for services, and he has almost too much work coming in his shop.

So this bs about "stockholders coming first" is exactly that, bs. Stockholders should realize that long term profits are the cream of the crop, not short term. I would rather invest in a company that I know I would receive returns from in the next 20-30 years or more. Short term profits are great, but they aren't required.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

KrK to d1gw33d

Premium Member

to d1gw33d
He advocates for the 1% all the time. Been doing it for years.

He's always talking about freedom for Competition and etc but always is against actual competition or fairness. Not sure why.

NWOhio2
@buckeyecom.net

NWOhio2 to sonicmerlin

Anon

to sonicmerlin
Did you not realize their shareholders are going to DEMAND their money back off this build. If they don't make their $$$ they will sell this system and someone at Google will be out on the street and QUICK.

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

ArrayList to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
a very very very expensive "advertising campaign"
ArrayList

ArrayList to xenophon

Premium Member

to xenophon
Yep, industry shills usually are.
ArrayList

ArrayList to KrK

Premium Member

to KrK
he is a hypocrite
ArrayList

ArrayList to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

Finally, they can always use fiber as a club to hold over the heads of the incumbents. "If you won't play nice with us, we'll drop fiber networks into your territory and steal your customers."

I hope they use those exact words.

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
·Consolidated Com..

spewak to d1gw33d

Premium Member

to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:

You're assuming too much and your snarky remark of it being "PR BS to get their as the good guy" is needless. The incumbent ISP's have price gouged customers with consistent rate hikes, implemented data caps, practice anti competitive business and provide awful customer support. Not to mention the fact they twist any regulation into a shell of its beginings and use them to squash any start ups.

Odd stance from you considering your blatant political leanings that you feel the need to slap on the left and bottom of all your posts.

My sentiments exactly, and yet he is bemoaning the fact that Google is gettin' 'er dun!

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to NWOhio2

Premium Member

to NWOhio2
said by NWOhio2 :

Did you not realize their shareholders are going to DEMAND their money back off this build. If they don't make their $$$ they will sell this system and someone at Google will be out on the street and QUICK.



I live in Kansas city and judging from the amount of people who can't wait to pre order this service I would say you have about a 0% chance of being correct.

South Korea ISP's charge about 35 ~ 40 USD for 100/100 fiber in major metro areas, so google will do just fine.

They are using basically the same business model. Cheap prices and no customer service.

That's how its done overseas and people figure it out just fine.
« Google Fiber!channel lineup »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Wonder how much all of this costs