Google Fiber Moving Forward Despite Cuts

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Clearly Google Fiber as a concept is now withered on the vine because they don't want to spend the money and deal with the bureaucracy. Cable DOCSIS 3.1 and telco's limited fiber investments (and potential of 5G) threatens the Google business model of disruptive fiber (if they were serious) or it's mission accomplished if the real reason for this project was to push providers towards speed upgrades.

some of the bureaucracy is from the cable co's and telco's paying off the bureaucracy to keep google and others out of the fiber game.

How is that so in areas where they have successfully deployed and they still have low subscriber numbers?

very slow roll outs?

the one thing they really need to push is YOU CAN BUY THE BOX WITH NO OUTLET fees.

Take KS, MO or any other city for example min people just across the street from the line can't even get Google Fiber Line, It just like here where I live just one block over it has fiber line but I can't get it so you see if people could get it then this would change running all cable and telco's out of town be causes they do want get with program.
So a faster way around there BS if they go wireless then put end to cable and telco's miss shift blocking as then any one can get.

well the cableco were not stupid. They lowered their prices and gave the customers "good enough" speeds and locked them into multi-year contracts. So google is going to have to ride it out for years, and TBH this is a loosing game because Comcast, ATT, etc can afford to lose money in those areas until the crack google because they have so much scale and in non-competitive areas make boucoup margin.

Heck I'm on 75/75 because Verizon wants too much money and it's fiber, and TBH its fast enough for us, and probably 99% of america. Docsis can easily cover 99% of America today, its the old DSL areas that wireless can help..

That is why wireless is SO important, it allows for a much lower entry cost, and if needed they can convert to fibre, but IMHO I see near-field wireless as being a long-term progression.

That pretty much tells you that people really don't give a shit about speed or caps. They just care about price.

This right here. I have a friend who lives in a Google Fiber area, and he switched but many of his neighbors have not because Comcast and AT&T dropped their prices to match Google Fiber. Why move to an unknown when you have something that works. Plus, when it comes to caps, only the very techie people care about caps. Nearly all regular users will never come close to a 1TB cap in the Comcast world. Hell, they weren't hitting 300gb which is what it was set to before they moved it up.

If you read Nighfall's post and respond with the usual justification of you have 10 people steaming 4K streams, while backing up your 40Tb of data to 3 cloud providers, and providing torrents of ultra rat linux ISOs you are not the typical user he is taking about.

hell any thing is better then comcast tv. they don't even have the NBC owned chiller and othere channels. And there HD line up sucks with the lowest bit rates ever.

Even in those areas... they are not losing money.
So instead of making 500% profit they are making 250% profit... still making money.
(numbers for illustration purposes only)

They are most definitely not taking a hit. Not even close.
The profit margins on broadband are obscene.

There are countless areas Google could have deployed with little difficulty but they wouldn't even consider them because they were too small or the local governments didn't want to play the Google Fiber Checklist game.

Google has a good reason to stay in the ISP industry - ISP behaviors (caps, poor peering, rising rates, etc) have a major impact on the overall Google biz model. They could very well sell eventually but they haven't really demonstrated signs of backing off, just not moving forward as quickly. They are still moving forward with San Antonio and Irvine with FTTH but cut 'potential' cities. They have to please Wall Street by not investing too much upfront at once but it's pretty clear they are not cutting back and actually moving forward, just more slowly.

BTW, they continue to develop features for TV and GF apps. No cutbacks there. The cutbacks appear to be in offices for future 'potential' cities while they evaluate fixed wireless. And the evaluation may take over a year so closed the 'potential' offices.

Then again, it's entirely plausible they sell the service in a few years. But would think they'd want to influence the industry as long as they think they can by being in the industry.

And you forgot they have best DVR on the block

BTW, Google just announced a new head for the Fiber unit. He's a Google product veteran..
»www.fiercetelecom.com/te ··· ign-unit

Is interesting they don't bring in a major telcom exec from the industry, although new one does have ISP experience.

I don't have a inside track as to what Google fiber is doing, but am assuming the following attitude from Google.

A speculated Google perspective
1. People love to complain about at&t/Comcrap/TimeWarner etc... However we are still being held back significantly in various cities. This is getting very old.
2. We at looking at wireless technologies because those technologies might be the answer to having easier distribution helping to avoid the problems in #1.
3. We are significantly below the number of FTTH subscribers, and will not continue to give cart-blanche to the fiber group without the promised results... Hence why were are putting other cities on hold.

I truly believe Google Fiber will continue to work hard to deploy FTTH, but believe they will be more strategic on how they do it. Some might say they are being smarter about it.

Really, if you think about it, Google Fiber's edge was low cost and high bandwidth compared to crappy cable. However, the crappy cable companies will stall deployments until cable technology pretty much takes the edge off of fiber to the home I.E. Increased speeds.

With so much time going by, I think Google fiber has lost some of its edge to the cable companies who have scrambled to increase speeds. Though in all reality in most markets it is a PR stunt, and few people actually have gig speeds. If you hear a 'lie' enough times, it slowly becomes the truth doesn't it?

I also wonder if maybe people don't think anymore highly of Google than the do comcast et al. Google has fairly poor uptake, yet EPB in Chattanooga has over 50% of the market share. It makes me wonder if EPB is so successful simply because people like/trust them.

Google has been depending a lot on hype using games like "Fiberhoods" and the "build it and they will come" philosophy because everybody supposedly hates incumbents. Which hasn't proven to work. Whereas EPB seems to be more active in trying to get as many people subscribed as possible using whatever means it takes.

Google didn't even offer a lower priced 100 Mbps package until recently. $70 is not an attractive price for many people, regardless of speed. That gave all their competitors a huge opportunity to undercut Google Fiber.

Agree, EBP has always offered lowered tiers. GF just started this year with $50/100M. $70 as only option was too much for many.

...
If you live in a city that has made substantial concessions to get Google Fiber, is a Google Wireless test, good enough in return?
Are the concessions written to allow/require the city to reconsider? (Obviously GF feels they can stop/start/change/ and withdraw any and all "promises" as they see fit)
It not that they aren't pursuing "NextGen" broadband, but their has been a tremendous wave of bitching here and similar sites when T and V confessed wireless is their solution of choice....Is GF's version now somehow more magically delicious? or do most see Google as the latest carpetbagger?

Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat? Are they sure that's not Fran Shammo?

Pretty sure: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Porat

Stories referring to Google Fiber that are actually about wireless, are like frontier selling xDSL as FiOS.
We need a more descriptive term.

Fiber is part of the Access group within Google/Alphabet. It's not just Fiber anymore......

So instead of FTTH, it's something like

Fiber to the Antenna to the Transceiver at the Curb or Hill to the Antenna Near the Computer via the Ether (FatChance -A Google Access product TM )
I have long thought this was the next step on every providers menu, the wireless drop.

It's not different than "ClearWire" wireless internet.

Which sounded like a great idea, but failed in the real world (I was in their test range, but even when the whole area lit up they could not reach my home) LTE stands a better chance for fixed point to point. strand or pole mount should reach a majority without fancy towers or extreme pruning.
I'm very open to see more real world tests, and a variety of flavors side by side in the final product.

"We're pausing for now our work in eight cities where we've been in exploratory discussions. But very much to your question, it's to better integrate some of the technology work we've been developing."

This sounds like a pretty stark contrast to some of their earlier statements a few months ago where it sounded like they only planned to dip their toes in the water when he came to wireless alternatives, unless they are referring to something else entirely. If the pause is truly going to be that short, it sounds like wireless fiber (or whatever it eventually gets marketed as) is going to have to have a much more aggressive ramp-up than initially implied.

Perhaps they will still refer to it as a "test", but it sounds like the scope of that is going to pretty much encompass their entire future expansions. Kind of like how Kansas City was deemed a "test" for years during the initial wired fiber rollout, but in reality it was a fully functioning and vetted deployment that was just as dependable as any other ISP. Maybe term was really meant more from a business perspective to determine its scalability and cost.

But is the technology that WebPass used ready for prime time, not just to deliver business internet between tall structures, but across residences? Will they use a hybridized system where physical fiber is either ran to homes in some cases or will all homes use a wireless receiver to connect to a nearby physical fiber backhaul line? Unlike their purely physical fiber deployment, they are going into some new and unknown territories and will end up competing with other companies who want to enter the wireless 5G market like AT&T and T-Mobile. I guess we will find out soon...

GF is apparently testing a different fixed wireless technology than WebPass in KC. But beyond the technology testing, GF (now Google Access) needs to figure out how they will balance FTTH and wireless rollouts. They claim FTTH will still be offered but to what degree? Will they offer FTTH as an option for an install fee and wireless with no install fee? Will FTTH have tighter qualification criteria. There's a lot more to figure out than just what technology will be used.

You're right. I had to look it up. They are actually testing short-range 3.5 Ghz fixed wireless connections in Kansas City off of utility poles to get connections of a few hundred Mbps, but not quite Gigabit speed. This sounds a lot different from Webpass's approach which requires high mounting points and line of site, but at the benefit of higher data speeds. I guess their acquisition was just to diversify the technology at their disposal to apply where appropriate since the approach will need to be different for large corporate buildings vs. apartment complexes vs. individual homes in suburbs vs. individual homes in rural areas.

Honestly, I don't think many people will be upset about getting 1/2 or 1/3 the speed of Gigabit fiber as a trade-off for cheaper installation costs and a much wider and more flexible deployment. 100 Mbps+ is still stupid fast compared to what incumbent ISPs offer in most areas, many of whom still only offer overpriced DSL and have no plans for faster wireline services as copper lines get retired in the next few years.

I think their new name -- "Google Access" -- is very fitting. I don't think the goal here is to get the average American household at 1 Gbps. The goal should be wider overall access for all and the ability to get at least what the current definition for broadband is -- 25 Mbps. It doesn't sound like asking for much, but existing telcos and cable companies have failed miserably.

I would assume that they would do as Webpass already does, and use wireless when possible, fiber when needed or for an extra upfront fee for those who really want it, especially businesses.

is Millimeter broadband going to take the place of fiber.

They are still going to require fiber backhaul to a point so close to the residence that I dont see how it could negate the need for a fiber rich network to the curb.

Because going from the access point into the house is like half the cost and think about churn which is ultra expensive. I have a thousand dollar ONT that Verizon put in my basement. If I leave them they will keep it there, but that is money just going down the drain for them. With wireless, it's wireless and easy. Customer cancels, return the device. They can reuse it.

That is a main reason why AT&T went to VDSL, the FTTN is a much more cost effective solution especially if say you have 30% attach (1 in 3 houses), although DSL is limited and didnt really solve 20 year old copper problem is was still CHEAPER.

Yeah, have seen other sources claim the last mile is 50% of the cost. Fixed wireless will be good enough and enable to rollout faster but is a bummer that FTTH will be downplayed.

I mean, "I Want to Believe" as Fox Mulder's poster reads, but we'll see.

Isn't it I N T E R E S T I N G when just after google fiber turns away from aggressive deployment that Cox goes ahead with more caps & overage trials (also, charter kills free tier upgrades)? The truth is since telcos have refused to compete, they have instead chosen to collude to bring higher prices, service fee$ and other ways to increase profits while holding back innovations/investments which customers have been looking for spanning DECADES and been flat out refused by incumbents because they have nowhere else to turn.

Quoting...
to conduct trials in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz millimeter wave bands, and is also conducting a variety of different tests in the 3.5 GHz band, the 5.8 GHz band and the 24 GHz band.

3.5 GHz band will be refarmed for a tier system of providers. Old license holders will loose their footprint protection and become Tier 2 applicants that can be blocked by newly licensed Tier 1 providers such as the incumbent celllar providers. In a nut shell.

5.8 GHz is well used by incumbents Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP) »Wireless Service Providers

24 GHz is easily blocked by Foliage.

70 through 90 GHz ... Forget it if there is a crystal clear line of sight.