Google Invites AT&T, Comcast, Verizon To Fiber Party Whenever they actually get a network built... We already knew that Google's plan to deploy 1 Gbps fiber to the home to a limited area was going to operate as a wholesale operation -- with open access allowing ISPs to come in and compete on top of the network (whenever it's finally built). Part of the reason Google's deploying the network is so they can show how open access and competition can help keep prices down, service quality up and carriers on their best behavior. The company this week reiterated their dedication to open access, inviting companies like Comcast and AT&T to offer service over the network when it's finally built: "We (sic) definitely inviting the Comcasts, the AT&T service providers to work with us on our network, and to provide their service offering on top of our pipe -- we're definitely planning on doing that. Our general attitude has been that there's plenty of room for innovation right now in the broadband space, and it's great what the cable companies are doing, upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0, but no one company has a monopoly on innovation.
We're looking for other service providers to be able to come in and offer their service on top of our network so that residents have a choice when they open up their accounts. They get the connection from us, and then they have a choice as to who they subscribe to." But will carriers want to be part of Google's experiment? While they might participate in any venture where there's money to be made, remember that Google's deployment will be relatively small -- and Google has no plans to become a national ISP. As it stands now, Google's fiber network is little more than a press release and some meeting minutes, which have resulted in a firestorm of endless news coverage with one common theme: many incumbent carriers aren't delivering the broadband speeds or prices consumers want. Most of the incumbent carriers already dislike Google for their positions on everything from white space broadband to network neutrality, and after a barrage of criticism, carriers may be in even less of a mood to play along with Google. Remember too that the Google network's purpose won't just be just about creating a test bed for next-generation ads and exploring network build alternatives. Google wants to use the network to collect data for use as political ammunition in the debates over network neutrality, congestion control and competition. Most major carriers aren't exactly chomping at the bit to see more competition, given they spend millions on lobbying each year to avoid it whenever and however possible. That said, wherever Google winds up deploying the perfect opportunity for smaller, hungrier ISPs eager for the national coverage and deployment insights the network is going to provide. We'll have a lot of time to think about it, given Google doesn't even plan to announce the lucky launch location until later this year.
|
 fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Utopia II? .... so, basically, what will become of this operation? Will this become Utopia the 2nd?
On the surface, it sounds good, but in the end, with out the participation of the big boys, who clearly don't want to play in an open-pipe system, how is this going to be any different?
Years ago, I remember Comcast talking about wanting to be a common last mile carrier during a company meeting... nothing to this day has come from that either.
I think if Google wants to make an impact, they NEED to become the ISP and compete.. it's competition that will bring the market down in pricing. | |
|  | | | Re: Utopia II? Hardly, I think their going to deploy over existing networks (like FiOS), in which they only need to upgrade the hardware to provide the 1gbps...
--
.:|:. Go Wheatley or Go Home! | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Utopia II? said by aztecnology:Hardly, I think their going to deploy over existing networks (like FiOS), in which they only need to upgrade the hardware to provide the 1gbps... huh? My understanding is they have to deploy a fiber network.. not use someone else's.
And, my point is not the network in general. Think Utopia.. it was a fiber delivery system that any provider was welcome to contract into and sell their services over it.. in the end, it wound up failing.. and none of the big boys even participated. So my question is what makes Google think they're going to be any different in this model? They need to simply build their network, operate it themselves, and prove their point. | |
| | | | | | Re: Utopia II? I think in the end Google may end up altering their plans. They start off building this test-bed out. Suddenly, they are making some cash off of what they build... and getting an enormous amount of data! Google ISP is born and it wouldn't matter too much weather they are the ISP or a wholesaler. They still get the profit, they still own the pipes, and they still get the data. Suddenly, becoming an ISP doesn't look like such a far-off thing to them.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Utopia II? Disagree | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| google will put some sort of data inspection box in the network and that's how they'll collect data from all users regardless on who they use for the 'net.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
| | | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by jimbo2150:I think in the end Google may end up altering their plans. They start off building this test-bed out. Suddenly, they are making some cash off of what they build... and getting an enormous amount of data! Google ISP is born and it wouldn't matter too much weather they are the ISP or a wholesaler. They still get the profit, they still own the pipes, and they still get the data. Suddenly, becoming an ISP doesn't look like such a far-off thing to them. So they would become another paxio where only a handful of people can get it. *yawn*
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $50? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by fiberguy:said by aztecnology:Hardly, I think their going to deploy over existing networks (like FiOS), in which they only need to upgrade the hardware to provide the 1gbps... huh? My understanding is they have to deploy a fiber network.. not use someone else's. I disagree, I think its just for proof of concept. There's no way they want to be a dumb pipe provider and deal with maintaining a network. Why would they be courting the incumbant last mile providers to join in with them...
--
.:|:. Go Wheatley or Go Home! | |
| | | | | | | Re: Utopia II? said by aztecnology:said by fiberguy:said by aztecnology:Hardly, I think their going to deploy over existing networks (like FiOS), in which they only need to upgrade the hardware to provide the 1gbps... huh? My understanding is they have to deploy a fiber network.. not use someone else's. I disagree, I think its just for proof of concept. There's no way they want to be a dumb pipe provider and deal with maintaining a network. Why would they be courting the incumbant last mile providers to join in with them... Wrong... They are building the pipe.. They need the big boys to play ISP on there pipes. Read the press releases please.. | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | said by aztecnology:Hardly, I think their going to deploy over existing networks (like FiOS), in which they only need to upgrade the hardware to provide the 1gbps... Doubt it, having a fiber network already present would defeat one of the reasons for Google building a fiber network. It will most-likely be their own fiber or they may purchase pre-existing dark fiber in areas that have it.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Utopia II? said by jimbo2150:It will most-likely be their own fiber or they may purchase pre-existing dark fiber in areas that have it. Wouldn't they would have to pick a community where there is dark fiber to the premises to do that?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | Re: Utopia II? Not necessarily. I notice some backbone fiber locally. They could purchase dark fiber that runs down main streets or along infrastructure to use as a main line then run fiber from it into neighborhoods.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | If Google actually wanted to compete, they'd be announcing more concrete plans and not stroking the publicity for all it's worth while taunting the incumbents. I think Google will initially provide Internet service across whatever this network will be built as, but I don't believe Google wants to sustain that. I foresee this test being similar to their Wi-Fi experiment. It will be built, a few people will enjoy the luxury, and it will wither on the vine. | |
| |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Comcast & AT&T & Verizon won't play Google's game just so that Google can push for shared infrastructure in Washington.
Besides, the above companies don't want to get in to lowest price bidding wars while a company like Google(or god forbid the government) sells physical access at set wholesale rates. The wholesaler gets its income without any marketing or advertising costs(always the highest price expenses), while the retail resellers carry all the grief of dealing with customers while at the same time getting minimal revenues due to bidding wars.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | A FIBER PARTY, KNOWING AT&T PROBABLY MEANS THEY WILL BRING COPPER TO THE PARTY DEFINITELY WILL NOT BRING FIBER.
SAME FOR TIMEWARNER. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Google will try to be an ISP yep, no lose for google. I would be surprised if they even expect the incumbents to participate anyway - it's most likely just public relations to bring home the point that ANYONE can lease their pipes and offer service.
As for UTOPIA II? no, google is putting up the money for this, it's their private investment (as far as I understand).
if this ever does happen, it will be very interesting to see how the big boys try to spin it, especially if it turns out to be successful. | |
| | | | I'm curious as to what will happen to real estate prices in the town/burg that gets the Google pipes.
For instance...Battle Creek, MI saw a spike in housing prices when the Promise Scholarship (I think that's the name) was announced, guaranteeing students who graduate from BCISD a four-year college degree. A demand was instantly created in housing and compared to the rest of the state, BC is doing well. (Nevermind that most states are doing better than MI...)
IF Google lays the fiber and the network proves itself, I wonder what it will do to the local economy. It's one of the reasons that almost makes me want to see Lansing or Kalamzoo get picked. | |
|
| | Beware of Goggle Greeks bearing gifts. Nothing more to add | |
| |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Beware of Goggle Greeks bearing gifts. Also beware of Cableco's and Telco's promising lots and delivering nothing but higher prices and caps on your internet.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| | Whis IS obvious... What is plainly obvious is that if there is this much desire and consternation over a product that is years away from deployment that means that users are DESPERATE for ANY choice other than the current ISP's available in any town.
If this is not a testament to users wanting more choices I don't know what is. You paying attention FCC? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Whis IS obvious... I think saying users are "desperate" for "ANY choice" is a bit of the dramatics being played. While I believe there ARE 'some' users wanting more choices, I think it's pretty safe that that same group of people ultimately are the ones that will find something even MORE to bitch about and want, yet, another choice. There will never be a "perfect" ISP.
Not to mention, why are you looking to the FCC of all people for someone to pay attention? Ultimately, in the end, it's congress I think you're wanting to help you. | |
| | | GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Whis IS obvious... said by fiberguy:I think saying users are "desperate" for "ANY choice" is a bit of the dramatics being played. While I believe there ARE 'some' users wanting more choices, I think it's pretty safe that that same group of people ultimately are the ones that will find something even MORE to bitch about and want, yet, another choice. There will never be a "perfect" ISP. The 1,077 responses Google received from municipalities from the US only constitutes 'some' users wanting more choices... 
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|
3 edits | If you can't join 'em, beat 'em I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing.
If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply.
Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated?
And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs?
I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. | |
| | GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em said by SuperWISP:Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? Well, when current ISPs are adding restrictions (like Comcast's caps) and taking away newsgroups (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, et al.), it doesn't seem like ISPs are competing on "value added" products. Looks like more profit for them instead.
said by SuperWISP:And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? Which is? All traffic is treated fairly?
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
| | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em If you have an unused bedroom would you like the government to make you rent it out to anyone that showed up at your door and had the money for the room at a price the government set. | |
| | | | | "Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. | |
| | | | GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em said by SuperWISP:"Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. Interesting.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by SuperWISP:I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing. If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply. Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. and if you have caps and port blocks, what makes you any different from ABC isp or XYZ isp?
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $50? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
| | | | | Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em said by dvd536:said by SuperWISP:I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing. If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply. Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. and if you have caps and port blocks, what makes you any different from ABC isp or XYZ isp? Where in ANY of his post do you see him say he has caps or port blocks?
| |
| | | | | | Re: If you can't join 'em, beat 'em Actually, we do block some ports. Some examples: Windows file sharing. SQL Slammer. Pop-up spam. | |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | When you share When you share the customer gets caught in th finger pointing of who is causing the service interruption. Is it Google the fiber pipe provider or the ISP (big dogs) leasing the pipe. Who rolls the truck first to prove which party owns the problem. The companies that used the baby bell networks for POTS service ended up making the bell companies roll their trucks and prove the problem was the resellers problem.
I can see Google which does not have a fleet of trucks doing the opposite making the ISPs prove the problem belongs in the Google network. If Google wants to be a test bed ISP then let them pay for all the support that goes with maintaining the customers and pipes. That may give Google a lesson in all the problems that come with serving customers end to end. Maybe they will learn why the ISPs don't want to be just dumb pipes or how much it costs to maintain and service a physical network. It looks easy when someone else does it. | |
| | | | Re: When you share said by WhatNow:When you share the customer gets caught in th finger pointing of who is causing the service interruption. Very true. This happens now with Qwest DSL when a customer has service from a third party ISP. The third party ISP incurs huge tech support costs because it gets the calls for problems that are really Qwest's fault.
said by WhatNow:Maybe they will learn why the ISPs don't want to be just dumb pipes or how much it costs to maintain and service a physical network. It looks easy when someone else does it. Also true. I was out yesterday at 6 AM 20 miles from town in cold, driving rain replacing a router that failed prematurely. (It was so new that it was still under warranty.) Customers, of course, didn't know what was wrong but needed their Internet even at that hour. "No excuses, sir" -- I did it. I wonder if Google CEO Eric Schmidt has ever touched a router, much less done such work. | |
|
| | Random Thoughts... Nearly every post here has it's merits, except maybe for the individual who flames and threatens to ignore...
Personally I believe each point of view expressed is "right" in it's own way. We all see things the way they "occur" to us.
In my opinion, service providers "walled gardens" are fast becoming legacy approaches... True Net Neutrality should give the same power to the common man as it does the corporation... Google should become an ISP... AT&T should have bought Quest so they could bring UVERSE to my neck of the woods... Primustel should develop a Lingo iPhone app, they've always had a better product than Vonage. Its funny that long distance calls made from a mobile device use the same wired network as land line calls, but providers and over cell they are free.... | |
| ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | As Dr. McCoy once said..... "Beware of Romulans bearing strange gifts" | |
|  NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 | Disin-Google-uousIf Google were serious they would be going after the FiOS portion Verizon is off loading onto Frontier. Especially the portion here in the high tech laden Silicon Forest of the Pacific Northwest.
Personally, my philosophy is that any infrastructure making use of public and/or community granted private property easements should be required to wholesale access to all competing parties at same price.
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation | |
| |
2 edits | Re: Disin-Google-uous Disingoogulous?
In any event, it IS interesting that Google is not proposing to build out its fiber anywhere where there's FiOS. If they really believe their approach to be superior, why aren't they? And how can they accuse ISPs of "cherry picking" when they will do the same (only on the basis of PR, because this is a publicity stunt)? | |
|
| | The last thing Google wants to be is an ISP they said it themselves, they want to build out a network then share everything with the incumbents. Google's entire reason for existing is for products like AdWords. Why do you think they give all of their products away for free? Because it enables more people to get on the internet (and look at ads which google already makes something like 21billion a year from).
Which is the same reason that they keep pushing cloud computing. | |
| | | | And ISP's won't go for it. The last thing they want is to compete against each other. They haven't had to do that since government regulation was around.
Also, it would let people see just how much they've overpaid for the service they've gotten over the years. | |
|
| | More ads on every page If google goes through with this you will notice words highlighted on every page that are just ads. Look what they turned youtube into you can't go to any page anymore without seeing ads. | |
| | | | Re: More ads on every page said by macdrizzle:If google goes through with this you will notice words highlighted on every page that are just ads. Look what they turned youtube into you can't go to any page anymore without seeing ads. two words: adblock plus | |
|
| | Dark Fiber With Google quietly buying up dark fiber over the past several years I believe they may be headed in the direction of high speed ISP or at least fiber backbone provider.... | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·
Think Big With a Gig?
Think big with a gig unlike some other ISP's that think like pigs. Promise customers anything just don't put it in writing. By what means will the competition use to put a wrench in Google's networks?
