Topic 'Re: google fiber' in forum 'Canadian Chat' - dslreports.com

Re: google fiber

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:56:15 EDT

Gone posted : You have greenfield developments in Windsor? :p ;)

I shouldn't talk. Things aren't good in down here either but we still have a few new subdivisions that were FTTH from the get go.

Re: google fiber

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:53:22 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by Gone:

Is Bell doing anything in Windsor right now? FTTN? FTTH? Anything? You'd think with the way that Windsor had been described in the past that it would be a prime candidate for a FTTH overlay, which makes the idea of running new copper cabling all the more baffling.

FTTH in greenfield developments. A handful of 7330s popping up around town for FTTN.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:25:43 EDT

Gone posted : Is Bell doing anything in Windsor right now? FTTN? FTTH? Anything? You'd think with the way that Windsor had been described in the past that it would be a prime candidate for a FTTH overlay, which makes the idea of running new copper cabling all the more baffling.

Re: google fiber

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:32:27 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by Gone:

said by MaynardKrebs:

SUre it does - it allows Bell to show an increased COST.....which is perfect for bamboozling the CRTC and getting Cost + 40% or whatever it is over their whole physical plant.

Windsor is a deregulated market so the CRTC has absolutely no control over rates there. Furthermore, spending all that money on keeping an end-of-life copper plant operating is completely retarded when they could instead save money on fibre which in turn will allow them to return a larger profit for their shareholders.

They have no control, but the costs to run and maintain the network do go in to their aggregated costs. They likely figure this particular neighborhood isn't going to go FTTH for quite some time, and the copper was really bad, so they had to replace it.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:32:40 EDT

Gone posted :

said by MaynardKrebs:

SUre it does - it allows Bell to show an increased COST.....which is perfect for bamboozling the CRTC and getting Cost + 40% or whatever it is over their whole physical plant.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:57:05 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted : SUre it does - it allows Bell to show an increased COST.....which is perfect for bamboozling the CRTC and getting Cost + 40% or whatever it is over their whole physical plant.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:41:56 EDT

Gone posted : That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:22:42 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by LazMan:

Long story short - the cost of maintaining copper infrastructure is rising; fibre is cheaper to maintain.

ROI is 5-7 years on aerial overbuild...

We all watched in amazement over the past few weeks as Bell replaced an aerial copper line running behind our office with... get this... a NEW aerial copper line. They hung new strand, and lashed a 50 pair cable to it. They've been cutting in the new terminals over the last week or so.

Absolutely amazing...
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:49:09 EDT

Gone posted :

said by LazMan:

ROI is 5-7 years on aerial overbuild...

Underground ROI would be interesting to know, as they've actually replaced aerial copper with underground fibre here in Fort Erie, albeit it's not nearly as extensive as the underground copper areas that have had new underground fibre laid.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:37:56 EDT

jumpingryan posted :

said by LazMan:

Long story short - the cost of maintaining copper infrastructure is rising; fibre is cheaper to maintain.

ROI is 5-7 years on aerial overbuild...

That is interesting WRT to the 7 years ROI.... and highlights an issue that is going on with me this weekend (tech was over on Saturday)

I reported an issue with one of our two landline phone lines, and the Bell tech attempted repair and determined it was a ground issue on Bell's cabling.

There are apparently no pairs left to move us to, the copper is approximately 60 years old (poles were 1957, copper might be older than that).

As of today, the cabling guy was being dispatched to find the issue (how it does that I don't know it worked out for him, or how he even does it).

My line run is 10 KM from the CO, and there are load coils on the line... the streets on all sides of me have DSL except mine (no cable here)

The tech was a pretty good guy (David), and he mentioned he won't know about upgrades until they happen, but the changes (he mentioned he now works for Bell rather than Bell Aliant and our area switched due to the sale) are actually positive.

Apparently Bell has alot more money than Bell Aliant to do upgrades.

He also mentioned how much easier fiber was to work with, more robust, and longer lasting.... mentioning the two streets either side of me that now have great internet :(

I am hoping they can't patchwork fix the fault, or find it economically not viable, and this will be the kickstart for upgrades (leading to DSL and the like).

Bell would gain 16 overnight customers over a 2 KM total line run (line comes across the hwy and T's off in 3 directions).... probably not the best ROI... but better than nothing.

One can only hope!

R

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:23:36 EDT

jumpingryan posted :

said by Gone:

Or at least, that's my guess anyway. I'm not complaining either way!

You shouldn't be, as I am hoping everyone can get good quality net.... including my DSL inaccessible home that has internet on all adjoining streets! And wireless PTP and other options won't work here due to huge trees.

I actually grew up near Fort Erie, closer to Cooks Mills and Netherby Road, but about 30 minutes away regardless. Used to go to Crystal Beach amusement park when I was a kid, although that is apparently long gone!

Having worked around the federal government for a while (military), and having been formerly posted to Ottawa, tax dollars for programs is like a big pool that professional divers dive for pucks.... and I see the markings of problems with this one in the 100 million plus range.....

There is little to actually say with the previous broadband program that this X dollars bought this line/node/whatever. No acknowledgement, no announcements, no signs, and no public information. Ripe for exploitation with only the CRTC, and a few bureaucrats watching and/or participating.

While some may argue announcements and the like are a waste of money as well, but it would almost be better than handing cash out, and with no idea where it is going. The CBC, with their corporate attitude to spending mostly taxpayer dollars could be comparable in this sense... government gives money, public and government don't know where it goes.

The CBC is probably skating on thin ice, and the outcome of the next election will probably dictate their future.... in many cases they brought it onto themselves.

The federal broadband program is a good concept, and is implemented in good faith... the people along the way, if past history and indicators are considered, are the ones who will sink this.

The Federal Bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing the nuts and bolts of the program and ensuring the requirements for funding are written correctly, and the Bell corporate world....

Both parties are sometimes short on competence, technical experience, and a moral compass that is true. A simple email to the Broadband connects to ask a question regarding one important issue, the cost of wireless bandwidth in no DSL areas, got the response that they are considering speed only.

Unfortunately, if it gets found out that the program is a big boondoggle, it will get cancelled by politicians, and nobody wins... so we are in a catch-22 on this one... accept it as is, or complain until something wayward gets exposed.

Anyways, just my thoughts!

R

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:05:08 EDT

LazMan posted : Long story short - the cost of maintaining copper infrastructure is rising; fibre is cheaper to maintain.

ROI is 5-7 years on aerial overbuild...

Re: google fiber

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:27:21 EDT

Gone posted : I highly doubt a dime of tax dollars is going toward the FTTH rollout in Fort Erie, Port Colborne or Pelham. Rather I suspect that these are the next tier of Bell's markets for television rollout and along with Kingston we just happened to be lucky enough to be at the right place and right time when it comes to a level of aerial infrastructure combined with a greater willingness to deploy fibre directly to the home rather than do the interim step of FTTN like had been done elsewhere previously.

I suspect that even though they're in Southwestern Ontario, Windsor, Sarnia, St. Thomas, Stratford, etc will be in a similar position when it comes time to roll out Fibe TV as well. There's no longer any financial justification for deploying FTTN rather than just going right to FTTH. And at some point in the future Bell is going to start doing brownfield fibre in the GTA and in other areas that they already have FTTN. Competition with cable will force their hand on that. If they're already doing brownfield fibre elsewhere, it's only a matter of time that they do it there, too.

Or at least, that's my guess anyway. I'm not complaining either way!

Re: google fiber

Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:27:32 EDT

jumpingryan posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

There are rural FTTH projects going on - they just take time, and can't happen overnight.

That is pretty much the problem... due to a level of corporate secrecy, it is biting them on the public relations.

Nobody understands who, what, or when an area is expecting a rollout. Answers are NEVER given as to why someone who lacks DSL/cable internet actually can't get it, or when they can expect it until near the point they will actually get it.

Rightfully, the public expects a stronger level of communications when it involves their public money that pays for part/all of the rollouts. They expect a level of accountability with public funds.

Right now, it seems the incumbents are doing some rural areas... often areas that already have a level of landline internet service that meets the minimum broadband standards. Upgrades to offer IPTV packages to your house paid by your tax dollars.

Fort Erie may be an example of one of them... How many residents that already had DSL are getting an upgrade? I don't want to disparage the town, or the work that is being done... it is great news. But are taxpayers paying for a network upgrade rather than a rollout?

Or perhaps instead of wired access, the incumbents focus on upgrading their cell towers with taxpayer money.... they got internet to people, and can brag about it.... and they can charge ALOT more for it.... the kicker is, taxpayer money went to upgrade cellphone towers!

Counting in new construction often fudges the numbers in their favour too.... the incumbents added broadband in an area that was being built fromt he ground up anyways.... and the worst part is likely that taxpayer dollars are paying for that too.

In summary, I believe the broadband program is probably going to come under the watchful eye of the auditor general within the next few years.... many shortcomings will be found in terms of value for the taxpayer, along with money that went to unknown places, and I predict, before it is fixed, it will be shut down in the name of political expediency.

It will actually be unfortunate, as the program does/did help some people... but right now, due to lack of communication on part of the incumbents WRT to taxpayer dollars, and inability to achieve the set goals, it seems that nobody understands where the money is going....

Companies that refuse to disclose average costs by density to bring broadband to residents in the name of secrecy shouldn't be recieving taxpayer money. Companies that built cell towers with public money, yet refuse to disclose the cost of wireless bandwidth shouldn't be receiving taxpayer money.

That is the big problem with the federal broadband program.

Guspaz planted the seeds for a great idea on how to fix it in a previous post. A program taylored to giving people who lack landline internet a good level of service. Level the playing field to low density and unserved areas, and then let the companies move back to cities for their gigabit service. I modified/expanded his idea slightly, but he deserves full credit for planting the seeds in my head:

Government credits an amount per existing household that lacks landline high speed internet to both cable and/or DSL last mile providers. House/business structure must have been constructed and in use/domesticated prior to XXXXX date of program start to avoid the new construction taxpayer paid racket.

Program ends XXXXX date, and may/may not be renewed (gives a little push to get the most work done). Max number of households is XXXX.

Service provider provides an address that service has been enabled to minimum broadband standards including min broadband cap (yet to be set) set by CRTC, and gets a credit. Don't like the minimum broadband standards, then upgrade them, but that is another story. Lets get the project moving.

Program would not be first to the post wins... the provision of a min level of service is not connected to a customer signing up. A cable company provides service first.... would get paid... and should a DSL company come in after, they would get paid too.

This program would be about giving Canadians service, choice and healthy level of competition by using taxpayer dollars in a more accountable way.

And here is another possible incentive to encourage competition, and get the little guys off to a head start... if you aren't an incumbent, the amount triples.

Why is wireless not in the program nor satellite, nor cellular... mainly because their service sucks, and is too expensive. Those services are mobile.... and should be under that sort of category.

Make a separate wireless program if the federal government wants to subsidize cell towers and wireless. Or tell the companies to offer similar caps and speeds and work on their technology... this is about giving Canadians the best internet, not a patchwork of crap and empty/no promises.

Anyways.... another rant complete!

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:26 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

The incumbents (meaning Bell) was ready to roll trucks across Grey and Bruce Counties until the SWIFT initiative started, according to my source.

Perfect example of a Government project scaring away business investment. Bell knows they can't compete against people who spend money without accountability.

I vote in elections. I have no idea if you do. and county government is quite accountable, thanks.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:56:37 EDT

Doonz posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

The incumbents (meaning Bell) was ready to roll trucks across Grey and Bruce Counties until the SWIFT initiative started, according to my source.

Perfect example of a Government project scaring away business investment. Bell knows they can't compete against people who spend money without accountability.

They just don't spend the money that was gifted to them either.

BTW i have a friend in Olds and I hate him

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:44:34 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by DKS:

The incumbents (meaning Bell) was ready to roll trucks across Grey and Bruce Counties until the SWIFT initiative started, according to my source.

Perfect example of a Government project scaring away business investment. Bell knows they can't compete against people who spend money without accountability.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:43:04 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by elwoodblues:

But again, this is not the incumbents that are doing it.

Gosfield is a SILEC - Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:53:02 EDT

DKS posted :

said by elwoodblues:

But again, this is not the incumbents that are doing it.

The incumbents (meaning Bell) was ready to roll trucks across Grey and Bruce Counties until the SWIFT initiative started, according to my source.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:50:59 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

You are obviously convinced that nothing good can come from any government. You are quite wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to pursue it, please take it to CanPol.

Nice deflect. I've not named any particular political party, so why should this be considered a CanPol topic?

No deflection. If you want to whine about government waste, the place is CanPol, thanks.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:39 EDT

elwoodblues posted : But again, this is not the incumbents that are doing it.
--
My Name is Wiley E Coyote, Super Genius

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:46:43 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by PX Eliezer1:

In the old days, companies felt a societal obligation to do that.

Believe me, it wasn't out of a feeling of social obligation. The regulatory bargain struck back in the day was to offset the cost of rural service with profits from urban service.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:43:18 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by elwoodblues:

The thing is , the incumbents aren't "investing" in infrastructure outside of major cities. Look in the Rogers forum about a guy who can't get service outside Cambridge.

Yes the ROI is higher in cities, but at the same time, you can offset the higher cost of providing service to remote areas with that money.

There are rural FTTH projects going on - they just take time, and can't happen overnight.

Gosfield North Communications Cooperative is building FTTH in a rural area:

»www.gosfieldtel.ca/ftth
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:41:00 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by DKS:

You are obviously convinced that nothing good can come from any government. You are quite wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to pursue it, please take it to CanPol.

Nice deflect. I've not named any particular political party, so why should this be considered a CanPol topic?
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:33:54 EDT

El Quintron posted :

said by PX Eliezer1:

Now the successor companies such as Verizon only want to do the bare minimum, and they want to be where they can make the absolute highest profits ie wireless, and abandon the landlines.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, seeing as the government has "monopoly of force" it seems fitting that it should "force" these companies to lay out infrastructure. At gunpoint if necessary.

:D
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:01:25 EDT

PX Eliezer1 posted :

said by elwoodblues:

Yes the ROI is higher in cities, but at the same time, you can offset the higher cost of providing service to remote areas with that money.

In the old days, companies felt a societal obligation to do that.

Now it's the quick and easy buck, same principle as the quick and easy *uck.

Keep Bay Street and Wall Street happy.

-----

I'm serious about that.

Back in the days of the old AT&T Bell System (destroyed by the govt in 1984) the company motto was "One System, One Policy, Universal Service". They were able to wire up almost all of their assigned territory (about 85 percent of the continental US, the rest was other companies).

Now the successor companies such as Verizon only want to do the bare minimum, and they want to be where they can make the absolute highest profits ie wireless, and abandon the landlines.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:43:22 EDT

elwoodblues posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by elwoodblues:

The problem is you have a conflict, if SWIFT gets off the ground, they'll be in direct competition with MNSI, and not at the mercy of the incumbents (TPIA), and could, on paper provide better service for less money.

The way I see it going is they'll convince the government that they can build the project within their budget, find out that they can't and end up getting a hugely subsidized network that operates at a loss that we all pay for.

That kind of fiasco puts a huge chill on companies investing in infrastructure.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:41:40 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

There are also successful government investments in infrastructure which could not be done otherwise. And they do really well, thank you.

"do really well" is subjective. Often the true cost of some of these boondoggles is quite well hidden, thank you.

You are obviously convinced that nothing good can come from any government. You are quite wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to pursue it, please take it to CanPol.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:52:02 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by DKS:

There are also successful government investments in infrastructure which could not be done otherwise. And they do really well, thank you.

"do really well" is subjective. Often the true cost of some of these boondoggles is quite well hidden, thank you.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:06:57 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by elwoodblues:

There are also successful government investments in infrastructure which could not be done otherwise. And they do really well, thank you.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:05:15 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by elwoodblues:

Re: google fiber

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:28:41 EDT

DKS posted :

said by elwoodblues:

That is exactly what is being planned. The incumbents have stopped cold. Nothing is being done right now, save wireless expansion. Bell keeps adding towers, but no fibre.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:39:30 EDT

MacGyver posted : Never say never. If »o-net.ca/ can do it, then anything can happen. Although just the mention of Google is enough to make the incumbents go rushing to the CRTC, »o-net.ca/ probably flew under the radar...

Re: google fiber

Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:25:30 EDT

elwoodblues posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

I can find out, but my suspicion is that it came from each county sharing in cost out of existing programs. $350k out of money already collected, in order to find out information, is reasonable. no decisions have been made yet. Time will tell. Sometimes the weight of government initiative carries more than the pseudo-interest of private enterprise.

The point I was making which seems to be lost on you is that government money is the public's money - collected for existing programs, stolen from another budget, or paid to cancel gas plants.

They want to spend a couple of hundred million on this SWIFT network - largely replicating facilities that already exist. Even funding a study to decide if that's a good idea already sounds like folly.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:46:19 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : The facilities by and large do exist. Most every Bell CO within the area they're looking at already has fibre to them. The transport may not be capable of the 40Gbps goal that SWIFT has, but the raw facilities are there.

If the government doesn't spend taxpayer's money lightly or easily, explain eHealth, ORNGE or the gas plants please.

Maybe the people you know personally don't, but collectively as a group governments spend like drunken sailors.

As far as the sources and uses of the $350k for the study - if it wasn't spent on the study, maybe it could be spent on something more useful - regardless of what it was "earmarked" for in the budget. Money is money - and wasted money is wasted money, no matter what budget or pocket it came out of, ultimately it comes out of ours.

Then again, maybe you know more about fibre optic infrastructure than I do.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:28:43 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

Your point is, right now, nonsensical. The facilities, by and large, simply do not exist. There is some infrastructure out there, but not much. I am also fairly certain that no new money has been found; just money spent from existing pockets. Will it be spent? Maybe and maybe not. I happen to know a couple of the principals mentioned personally. They don't spent taxpayer's money lightly or easily. Your concern is, at the very least, premature. My point was simply to make clear exactly why there is zero progress outside of urban areas. Now you know.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:53:36 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by DKS:

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:33:27 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

And like I said, government money makes it our problem. Money from the Feds and province (i.e. US!) is EXACTLY what they intend to try to get!

They're already spending $350k on a study. Where pray tell do yo think THAT came from? The broadband fairy?

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:46:46 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : And like I said, government money makes it our problem. Money from the Feds and province (i.e. US!) is EXACTLY what they intend to try to get!

They're already spending $350k on a study. Where pray tell do yo think THAT came from? The broadband fairy?
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:23:38 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

said by DKS:

said by HeadSpinning:

The problem with SWIFT is that to do what they want is going to cost A LOT more than they've planned. I've run in to their "consultant" on another project before, and I think he's giving them bad direction, and in the very least, a gross misunderstanding of the true costs of what he's proposing.

That will be their problem. It will be interesting to watch. Pass the popcorn.

Government money makes it our problem

Not really. It's an upper level tier issue. They need movy from the province and feds. It may not happen.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:07:26 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by DKS:

said by HeadSpinning:

That will be their problem. It will be interesting to watch. Pass the popcorn.

Government money makes it our problem
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:04:10 EDT

DKS posted :

said by HeadSpinning:

That will be their problem. It will be interesting to watch. Pass the popcorn.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:57:55 EDT

HeadSpinning posted : The problem with SWIFT is that to do what they want is going to cost A LOT more than they've planned. I've run in to their "consultant" on another project before, and I think he's giving them bad direction, and in the very least, a gross misunderstanding of the true costs of what he's proposing.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:21:47 EDT

DKS posted :

said by MrRedRabbit :

Once we get the ISP to understand that all of the infrastructure in North America needs to be upgraded to FTTH. Including to the older homes.

And neither Google nor any incumbent will ever do it.

»www.wowc.ca/news/western ··· -network

SWIFT is a southwestern rural Ontario fibre network. It's serious stuff and there is major money and influence begin it. I know for a fact, from impeccable sources, that the moment SWIFT was announced, any work that any incumbent was doing on fibre outside of major cities in southwestern Ontario was stopped cold. There were some huge plans in the works. Dead in the water until SWIFT is done and then they will re-evaluate.

More here: »www.wowc.ca/?q=projects
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:05:24 EDT

anon posted : why are we making copies of the internet... i will love to see the day when we run out of resources to do such a thing... lol

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 01:07:30 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by LazMan:

I considered buying a Ferrari today... Doesn't mean that's going to happen, either.

I considered building my own Fibre network... doesn't mean it won't happen ;)
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: google fiber

Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:07:38 EDT

MaynardKrebs posted :

said by LazMan:

I considered buying a Ferrari today... Doesn't mean that's going to happen, either.

Having considered Ferrari's, for the most part I'd rather have a McLaren.

Re: google fiber

Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:21:39 EDT

Devanchya posted : when Hell becomes somewhere other than Michigan

Re: google fiber

Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:48:42 EDT

58391701 posted :

said by LazMan:

I considered buying a Ferrari today... Doesn't mean that's going to happen, either.

doesnt mean its never gonna happen either, there is no advantage to being negative and saying google will never bring it. its just negative.

i dont think it will happen either, doesnt mean id ever say its never gonna happen, thats stupid.

Re: google fiber

Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:26:02 EDT

PX Eliezer1 posted :

said by 58391701:

lolololol

»Google Considers Bringing Google Fiber to UK [32] comments

and its never coming to canada?

Read the whole story. The thing was a wet firecracker, and a specific denial issued.