So Much For Google The ISP, Huh? Mountain View Wi-Fi Project 3 Years Later... Back in 2007 Google's acquisition of dark fiber, building of data centers and hiring of networking experts like Vint Cerf (co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol) led some to think the company wanted to be an ISP. In reality, they just wanted a more efficient and less expensive transit network for services, user storage and ads. However, their involvement with the White Space Coalition and experiments with Wi-Fi help feed the unlikely theory, which for a few years propelled onward like a lobotomized projectile, unsupported by facts. It's been three years since Google built their Wi-Fi network in their hometown of Mountain View California, at the time using 380 Tropos Wi-Fi nodes placed on utility poles around the city. The service began by offering users downstream speeds up to 1Mbps (roughly) and upstream speeds ranging from 144kbps to 986kbps. Tropos this week offered an update on the network, noting that it has reached 19,000 users and transmits some 600 gigabytes of user data per day. "The Google WiFi network is a valuable community resource and helps increase economic development by making it easy for residents and visitors to stay connected anywhere around town," Margaret Abe-Koba, mayor of Mountain View, says in the Tropos release. "We are very pleased that Google continues to support our community with this robust service." The network's been so successful, Google hasn't bothered to expand the service to a single other area in three years. This of course was because of the spectacular flame out of free, ad-driven citywide Wi-Fi services, but also because, again, Google was interested in experimenting with Wi-Fi ad delivery -- not becoming an ISP. Google has a five year contract with Mountain View to provide the service, after which they're free to shut it down. "Google the ISP" simply isn't happening. It never was. You have a better chance waiting for Google's "dark porcelain" sewer broadband project, which was announced on April 1, 2007.
|
 |  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: lol No they didn't. They're just not interested in becoming a broadband provider. Don't blame 'em to much...building out their own last-mile network would be rather spendy.
Though Google has a nice national backbone at this point. So if any ISP wants to peer with them, generally speaking they can. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Google never intended to become an ISP. Instead, they're much more interested in throwing around rhetoric about how other ISPs should be more consumer friendly and open so that they can jam their ads down the throats of additional netizens at little to no cost without stepping up to the plate themselves to provide a viable last mile solution. Google's position was cemented very clearly in the last spectrum auction IMO. Google very much reminds me of a little kid that is great about whining that Little Jimmy is picking on other kids in the class without stepping forward to actively do something about it. | |
| | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| Re: lol said by openbox9:about how other ISPs should be more consumer friendly and open so that they can jam their ads down the throats of additional netizens at little to no cost without stepping up to the plate themselves to provide a viable last mile solution. Wow! It's almost like your comment is straight from the AT&T public relations department. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol I expected that response. I view Google as a cocky teenage; so much potential, but it's mostly wasted by jaw flapping and little follow through. The old saying, "put your money where your mouth is" goes a long way and so far Google hasn't done that on the broadband front. So what's your perception of Google and providing broadband service? | |
| | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: lol jaw flapping and little follow through? it's like you're in your own world there.
The only ones that may view google as a teenager are the old farts at telco. They're used to setting the market pace and price -- they've never quite shook the entitlement they feel they deserve back when they were the monopoly. And who can blame them, really? It's difficult to give up total power. Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules.
It's great fun to watch the old guys get mad at the new guy. I do feel sorry for them though. They don't have the talent to be anything other than a dumb pipe. Deep down, they know it. Which is why they are fighting so hard against net neutrality and waging the smear campaign against google. | |
| | | | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: lol Wait.... is it 1997 again? I swear I've heard all this before. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | So what was your perception of Google as an ISP? My point is that Google is great at trying to tell other ISPs how to run their networks, but doesn't do anything to back their argument. Google's antics would be akin to the ISPs demanding that Google open their advertising system so that others' ads can glow freely their their advertising network.
Don't get me wrong, Google does some good and innovative things and has a lot of talent, I just don't believe they've done anything overly productive on the ISP front for consumers. They're great at spelling out what others should do, but that's about it.... | |
| | | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: lol Apparently you are unable to make accurate comparisons. ISPs don't need to demand that Google open up their advertising system. ISPs are free to sign up and create their own ad campaigns within the existing system Google provides. That's just what Google has done: create products people use under the existing internet framework. AT&T hates this because they want a cut of the truckloads of money so now they claim that Google is getting a free ride and kills babies and supports al qaeda. Really ridiculous claims that anyone in the technology field knows is bullshit. But, they are used to getting their way so they fund astroturf organizations and pr campaigns against Google. They also continue the legislative lobbying. Thy are really good at that part.
Google isn't an ISP. They marked their territory in the city where their headquarters is by offering free wifi. It was a slap in the face to AT&T/PacBell (I believe), but that's about it. | |
| | | | | | | |  kmb40
join:2004-08-02
Fort Washington, MD | Re: lol As someone working from the belly of a Telco today, I think you are making some valid points about Google and Telco's.
Maybe Google is trialling the Mountain View wifi service so they can learn how to do it properly before going national. True its been a a while but maybe they are willing to spend the time to do it right!
I know this is a foreign concept to telco bell heads because they remember a time they had unlimited budget, unlimited resources and no competition. That day is dead. Time to play ball and put customer experience before profit OR collapse and die.
Cough = GM. Lol. | |
| | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by morbo:AT&T/PacBell (I believe) ... Never heard of them. SBC bought PacBell (The Pacific Telesis Group, actually) well before AT&T sold off their cable enterprise to Comcast (ATTBI). There hasn't been a connection between AT&T and PacBell since 1984. SBC absorbed the PacBell brand in 2002, well before SBC bought AT&T. By the time SBC rebranded as AT&T, PacBell (and Ameritech, and SNET, and Prodigy) were mere memories of past services).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | You need to abide by Google's rules to use their ad network....not much different than following the ISPs' rules to use their networks. FWIW, I didn't support the belief that Google has a "free ride" and that they need to share their profits with the network providers any more than they already do.
I realize Google isn't an ISP, but that idea that it would or could be was a genesis for this thread. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by morbo:Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules. What planet are you posting from? It's Google that wants to change the rules (in fact impose a whole set of new rules), namely the imposition of "network neutrality" via new government regulations.
Their motive (as another poster pointed out) is simply to have as wide open, cheap, and unfettered a landscape as possible for their ads to be seen. But that's not how they frame their message, to say the least. AT&T, whatever you think of them, is at least up front about their business goals. | |
| | | | | | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: lol Yeah -- AT&T wants content and application service providers to pay them to reach their ISP subscribers, as does anyone else who is anti-neutrality (mainly broadband ISPs, and people like openbox9  who either have a stake in the ISPs, or have drunk the kool-aid). We call this "double dipping."
Google, as a content and application provider, does not want to do this, for obvious reasons, as does anyone else who is pro-neutrality. (mainly, companies who aren't broadband ISPs)
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
| | | | | | | | | said by MyDogHsFleas:said by morbo:Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules. What planet are you posting from? It's Google that wants to change the rules (in fact impose a whole set of new rules), namely the imposition of "network neutrality" via new government regulations. Their motive (as another poster pointed out) is simply to have as wide open, cheap, and unfettered a landscape as possible for their ads to be seen. But that's not how they frame their message, to say the least. AT&T, whatever you think of them, is at least up front about their business goals. WTH? Network neutrality has been the norm since the beginning days of the internet. All companies that tried to subvert network neutrality were either forced to open up by competition (AOL), or simply went down under.
The only reason it's become such a contentious topic these days is that ISPs with little to no competition again want to attempt to impose their own, selfish controls on how people access the internet.
You honestly think AT&T is up front about their business goals? Really??? What about the various "reeducation" schemes they've employed, such as "focus groups" whose purpose is to convince people overage caps and metered internet billing is a way of "saving money" for Grandma? | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol said by sonicmerlin:WTH? Network neutrality has been the norm since the beginning days of the internet. All companies that tried to subvert network neutrality were either forced to open up by competition (AOL), or simply went down under. The only reason it's become such a contentious topic these days is that ISPs with little to no competition again want to attempt to impose their own, selfish controls on how people access the internet. You've constructed your own reality. Unfortunately it does not correspond with actual reality.
There is no network neutrality regulation. There's a bill in Congress that wants to direct the executive branch to craft a whole new set of regulations. The bill explicitly favors the content creators over the carriers, without blushing. Go look at it if you don't believe me. | |
| | | | | | | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol That's uh, kinda the point.
It's a bill to protect content providers from anti-competitive measures taken by carriers.
In short (names here used just for example) it forbids Comcast from demanding money from Google when a Comcast subscriber uses GMail or any other Google product. It forbids TWC from exempting their own (hypothetical, I don't think they have one--yet) internet video service from their usage meter, while letting YouTube, Hulu, and others languish under their stingy caps. It forbids AT&T from deliberately dropping Skype packets while letting their own (or a partner's) VOIP product run free.
Or did you really want, say, dslr to become a pay-only site, because Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all demand that Justin pay not only his own ISP (nac.net), but them as well? That's what you're advocating when you spout anti-neutrality rhetoric.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol said by sivran:That's uh, kinda the point. It's a bill to protect content providers from anti-competitive measures taken by carriers. Right. I think you missed the larger context. The poster that I was replying to was living in some non-Earth reality where network neutrality was already being enforced by government regulation. I was simply pointing out that there was a bill that had not yet been enacted.
In short (names here used just for example) it forbids Comcast from demanding money from Google when a Comcast subscriber uses GMail or any other Google product. It forbids TWC from exempting their own (hypothetical, I don't think they have one--yet) internet video service from their usage meter, while letting YouTube, Hulu, and others languish under their stingy caps. It forbids AT&T from deliberately dropping Skype packets while letting their own (or a partner's) VOIP product run free.
Or did you really want, say, dslr to become a pay-only site, because Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all demand that Justin pay not only his own ISP (nac.net), but them as well? That's what you're advocating when you spout anti-neutrality rhetoric.
These are all hypothetical problems that do not exist today.
To me it's foolish in the extreme to build up a big new government bureaucracy, write a whole new set of regulations, and burden the court system with the inevitable flood of lawsuits, to solve a non-problem.
If this ever becomes an issue, and normal competition doesn't take care of it, then existing laws such as antitrust can be applied. Don't be spun into urgent action by those trying to gain business advantage from regulations (*coff* Google *coff*).
This reminds me so much of the "There's trouble in River City! With a capital T!" scene from The Music Man. Whipping the crowd into a frenzy over a problem they didn't know they had, to make a few more bucks.
The last thing I'll say is: be careful what you wish for. It's really easy to have a whole raft of unintended consequences when you toss well-meaning but ill-defined legislation out there to a government bureaucracy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol The problem with the whole "competition will solve it" idea is the lack of competition in many, many areas. When your only choice is between nothing, and a provider who violates neutrality principles, whatcha gonna do? With excessively low usage caps looming, the environment's ripe for abuses. Give it a few years and even Comcast's reasonable-today 250GB cap will seem stifling.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol said by sivran:The problem with the whole "competition will solve it" idea is the lack of competition in many, many areas. I didn't say "competition will solve it". I said "if competition doesn't solve it, existing law (such as antitrust) can be applied."
Besides, do you really think the big national ISPs will have different terms&conditions for different locations? I don't. | |
|
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Google doesn't flap it's jaws until they actually have something. The exception being Android for phones, but they followed through as promised.
Gmail, Google Maps, Google News are services I use every day. I got a Google Voice number which has been handy for giving out to people I wouldn't give my cell phone number to. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol Google has been outspoken regarding net neutrality, opening the networks, white space devices, the spectrum auction, etc. They had a real opportunity to put their money where their mouth was by making an honest bid for spectrum, but their play was nothing more than lip service IMO.
I've said it before, Google has a lot of talent and they kick out a few decent and innovative products. | |
|
| | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Building and maintaining that last mile is an expensive pain in all the Grand Broadband Plans. Other then this project Google wants a free ride on the other networks.
I get as upset with all spying Google as I do when the US Gov does it. I don't think most people realize almost every web site has a java script that reports back to Google. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol said by WhatNow:Building and maintaining that last mile is an expensive pain in all the Grand Broadband Plans. Other then this project Google wants a free ride on the other networks. I don't subscribe to the "free ride" argument, even though morbo alluded to such. Google is sitting on $19B+ and continues to grow earnings nicely, but yet they aren't serious about building and maintaining infrastructure capable of providing broadband service....even though they have no qualms about making demands of other ISPs. If Google entered the ISP market, then I would get on board with their position, but until then.....said by WhatNow:I get as upset with all spying Google as I do when the US Gov does it. I don't think most people realize almost every web site has a java script that reports back to Google. What, you mean Google isn't altruistic in their actions? I agree, people worry about AT&T, the US Gov, and the likes of NebuAd, but most don't realize the sheer volume of data that Google collects. IMO, they're the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the corner.
BTW, NoScript helps with the Javascript calling Google problem  | |
| | | | | | | Re: lol Pray tell, exactly WHAT demands is google making to other ISP's? I mean, they support net neutrality, but guess what, EVERY OTHER CONTENT provider does. I think what you are complaining about is that google is vocal about making sure that ISP's are exactly THAT. INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. I don't WANT comcrap to sell me tv shows, or music, or books, I want comcrap to provide me with the ABILITY to purchase tv shows, music or books from WHOMEVER I want. I want comcast to allow me to search google. I think the problem you have with these google 'demands' is that google is DEMANDING that the ISP's provide what they are selling. If I WANTED a walled garden internet, I would sign up with AOL. If I WANT an ISP, and the megacorps are ADVERTISING they are ISP's, then the ONLY thing I want from them is an IP address, and the ability to use MY connection in the manner I see fit.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: lol I have no problem open networks but no one wants to pay for the upgrades to handle the traffic. The heavy usage end users like the unlimited flat charge with no caps. The low volume end users and everybody else hate when that flat fee goes up. I use less then 15 gig per month I don't care to subsidize someone using 500 gig a month if my ISP goes up on the flat rate. The content providers like Hulu and NetFlix and Google don't want to pay for the demands their content put on the last mile of the transport. But on sites like this everybody wants fttp and more speed but cut my flat rate charge. If this community wants better faster networks then somebody is going to have to come up with the money. Content providers, the ISPs, and the End users all need each other to get to a bigger better internet. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: lol Honestly, if you only use 15GB/month, then you are a fool if you pay for anything more than the lowest level DSL (call it 768), for about $14.00/month. If you are paying $60+, then why are you complaining, you don't NEED a 20mb/sec connection, and you are throwing your money away. So stop complaining when someone USES what they pay for, and do yourself a favor, and only PAY for what YOU USE. If you don't WANT to subsidize the heavy user, guess what, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. Get a cheaper plan!
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol said by karlmarx:Honestly, if you only use 15GB/month, then you are a fool if you pay for anything more than the lowest level DSL (call it 768), for about $14.00/month. If you are paying $60+, then why are you complaining, you don't NEED a 20mb/sec connection, and you are throwing your money away. So stop complaining when someone USES what they pay for, and do yourself a favor, and only PAY for what YOU USE. If you don't WANT to subsidize the heavy user, guess what, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. Get a cheaper plan! This is faulty logic. It's like saying that if you don't need to drive 1200 miles per day, you should not buy a car that goes over 50 miles per hour.
There is utility in having a fast connection, even if you don't run it full out all the time. I personally have 18 Mb/sec download service (AT&T U-verse) because when I want to download a few gigabytes of software install binaries for my work, I want it to finish in 20 minutes or so. I consistently get more than 3 GB downloaded in 30 minutes or less. | |
|
| | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | That was how i knew they had java script on almost every web site. | |
| | | | | | | Um... Google likely doesn't want to start up an ISP because A: it's INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE, B: it's HORRIFICALLY DIFFICULT to wrest power from the incumbents, and C: It's EXTREMELY hard to to "Do No Evil" when you are an ISP AND a content provider.
Everyone with any rational understanding of the broadband industry wants ISPs to merely be dumb pipes. We all know how much ISPs want to also be content providers and CONTROL the information they send you through "their pipes".
Google is well aware of this. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol said by sonicmerlin:Um... Google likely doesn't want to start up an ISP because A: it's INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE, B: it's HORRIFICALLY DIFFICULT to wrest power from the incumbents, and C: It's EXTREMELY hard to to "Do No Evil" when you are an ISP AND a content provider. A: Yes it's a very expensive undertaking. Why do you think the incumbents are so defensive about the billions that they've spent on building existing infrastructure?
B: Not if you do it legally and competitively.
C: I don't subscribe to that theory. The potential for "evil" exists without an ISP owning/distributing content. | |
| | | | | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: lol So help me out here... your argument is that every company who wants to put up a website must "contribute to infrastructure" above and beyond what they already pay their own ISP, preferably by building their own damn network?
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol That most definitely is not my argument nor what I wrote. Google does much more than "put up a website" btw. They are very adamant and outspoken as to how other companies should run their networks. There has been much buzz that Google was interested in being an ISP, so much so that they've invested minimal amounts of money to do so to save face imo. If they truly want a utopian and open network, then they should get serious about it, otherwise Google is simply pawing (that's not necessarily a bad thing btw) at the incumbent ISPs like everyone else. | |
| | | | | | | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: lol So then why are you so against neutrality? | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol I've never stated I'm against network neutrality? I have stated that there's no reason to overly regulate the ISPs at this point in time. Watchful eyes with occasional hand slaps have worked nicely and will continue to do so imo. | |
|
| | |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by WhatNow:I get as upset with all spying Google as I do when the US Gov does it. I don't think most people realize almost every web site has a java script that reports back to Google. Gotta love the Urchin.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads | |
|
| | | | Never stepped up to the plate?
What about Google's $500 million investment in the Clearwire venture?
'»googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/···net.html'
Or the fact Google did bid $4.6 billion on 700 MHz C Block auction?
Or the investments in research and development of White Space Devices (WSDs)?
Or creating the Android platform for open mobile development? Or the Chrome browser?
Google doesn't want to expand into a non-core business, like broadband. That's entirely justifiable, but doesn't mean Google isn't willing to spend money to make the web: cheaper, faster, freer, more available, and more open. A place where innovation can occur unfettered.
Coincidentally, that also largely aligns with the interests' of web users. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: lol Google's mediocre Clearwire investment was a start, but it's only a half-hearted effort IMO.
The spectrum auction was to save face after all of the talk. If they were serious about an alternative and competitive network, they should have bid appropriately.
I'll hold judgement regarding the white space devices until/if we actually see any viability in the technology. Having said that, how much has Google really invested in white space R&D?
Android and Chrome are nice concepts, but they don't contribute to the necessary infrastructure.said by Samsonian:Google doesn't want to expand into a non-core business, like broadband. Their core business is advertising. They've already expanded well beyond that, but their new business ventures always tie back to their root of advertising. I have no doubt that is Google's interest in a free and open network infrastructure, which is fine, if the make sufficient investments. | |
|
|  rawgerzIn Debt we trustPremium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | I prefer my content companies separate from an ISP | |
| | | | | Re: lol said by rawgerz:I prefer my content companies separate from an ISP In a better America... | |
|
| | | :| go back to your bling.com you windows live fan boy | |
| | |
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Successful? said by Bestrate:If Google’s Free WiFi is so successful, why hasn’t it spread Nationally? How many times does it have to be said that they do not want to be an ISP?! | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Bestrate:If Google’s Free WiFi is so successful, why hasn’t it spread Nationally? Because their free wifi is equivalent to being a sponsor of the Memorial Day Parade in their headquarter's town. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| said by Bestrate:If Google’s Free WiFi is so successful, why hasn’t it spread Nationally? Google is not superman mkay
they cant just sent repeaters on each telephone pole...or could they?
--
HN7000S 5.6.1.35 - 99 West 1370 MHz -Transmit 1 watt - .74m Dish - Pro Plan - installed October 2007 - WRT54G V6 DD-WRT V24 | |
|
eggboardPremium
join:2000-11-18
Seattle, WA | Sacca Chris Sacca was the guy instrumental in setting up the MV network, and he was the point person for the EarthLink deal on Wi-Fi in San Francisco that never happened. He left the company to start a VC fund. (Here's his blog: »www.whatisleft.org/ )
Google has so many fingers in so many pies that when a chief backer of a project moves on, projects languish. I never thought Google would become an ISP (too much infrastructure required), but thought that they could wind up being a significant secondary revenue source for muni-Fi networks if the SF test had worked out. Which it didn't. | |
| | | Well, just because someone likes to have a barbecue for the neighborhood every now and again doesn't mean they want to (or should) go into the restaurant business--no matter how many "neighbors" might suggest it. | |
|  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:18 | TiSP! What happened to Google's TiSP service?  | |
| | | | Re: TiSP! said by Smith6612:What happened to Google's TiSP service? They flushed it. | |
| | | Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:18 | Re: TiSP! So that's where it went! | |
|
| Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
| I was a beta tester but it kind of fail because of drop outs of people using the bathroom.
I almost busted my bladder from trying to hold it for 3 days..
--
HN7000S 5.6.1.35 - 99 West 1370 MHz -Transmit 1 watt - .74m Dish - Pro Plan - installed October 2007 - WRT54G V6 DD-WRT V24 | |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Google as an ISP Anyone with half a clue knew that the fibre was being used to interconnect their data centers and to provide their own backbone to connect to peering points and other networks for private peering. | |
| | | They can partner with another wireless player I'd rather see Google partner with a wireless telco not associated with the old Bell system (ie: T-Mobile USA or Sprint) and create their own branded LTE network using their backbone to support the wireless infrastructure.
I know they are playing a part with Clear in WiMax but I'm talking LTE.
They have the funds / cash to invest in heavier buildouts and might have more ambition to battle the ATT's and Verizon's of the world. | |
|  ajc18aka IGnatius T Foobar
join:2000-05-06
Mount Kisco, NY | Media was looking for a story where there was none. The news here is that there isn't any news. Large organizations buy or lease dark fiber for their own networks all the time. People were paying attention to this one because it was Google, but that doesn't mean anything special in this case. Google was doing what all large organizations do: building their global data network in the most cost effective way possible.
--
Art Cancro
UNCENSORED! BBS »uncensored.citadel.org | |
| | | Google plans to be ISP with White Spaces White Spaces are a 1000 times more effecient than WiFi for delivering Internet access on the last mile. Since this Mountain View project, Google has lobbied for Governments to allow unlicenced usedd of the 700mhz spectrum. Once that happens, look for Google to release 20 dollar FON.com-like routers that will spread free wireless broadband Internet access on the 700mhz spectrum all over the world, much more effeciently than Micro-oven spectrum that is the WiFi spectrum. | |
| | | Wow... So many misinformed views here.
I was involved with Google and many others during the explosion of citywide Wi-Fi networks. Here's the bottom line:
Google very much put their money where their mouth is in Mountain View. This network was considered the single best engineered and operated of its kind. They spared little cost. The simple fact-of-the-matter is that citywide border-to-border Wi-Fi just didn't work that well, for a huge list of reasons (cost, maintenance, interference/performance, etc).
Let me clarify this: Citywide Wi-Fi does not give Google a competitive broadband delivery service as compared to DSL, Cable, or LTE/4G - experiment done.
It was ALWAYS nothing more than a proof-of-concept, and never did Google commit it would be expanded beyond what it was. Further, I would suggest they've very much delivered above-and-beyond what others who entered similar agreements with municipalities did... believe me, many companies found an exit on many agreements - including the evil telcos. To this extent, Google is a stand-up citizen. | |
| | | Muni Wi-Fi isn't sustainable As Google obviously found out, municipal Wi-Fi isn't sustainable. People are too greedy for bandwidth, administrative costs are high, and the spectrum gets clogged easily (especially with systems such as Tropos). The result is poor service which no one would pay for (though they'll use it if it's free) and a lack of alternatives (because the spectrum is saturated and private WISPs can't easily overcome the noise to provide better service). | |
|
| |
|
|
Successful?
