& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/10/2016 | 10:13:30 AM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
It will be interesting to see what Google goes for in the future, and remember Google has a very huge lobbying machine in Washington. It may or may not be a surprise down the road, but Google certainly is looking for any opening to get heavily into the video market bit by bit, or gigantic leap when the time is ready.
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/4/2016 | 12:50:12 AM
Re: Had doubts...
1 - The state laws you reference only applies to munis.  Anybody can build a network at any time as a private company.  So, Google can start building networks to every home in the US if it feels like it.

2 - The structural thing, assuming you mean that they build networks, I agree with.  But Google could just buy AT&T if it really wanted Fiber in all those cities and then go do it.  Which shows to me it doesn't want to.  If it really wanted to Google would just buy all the telcos.  Since they don't overbuild there is no loss of competition and since Cable would still be 60%+ of the broadband market, there should not be any issue there.

seven

 
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/3/2016 | 5:10:25 PM
Re: Had doubts...
They had numerous advantages, both structurally and in the fact AT&T and Verizon all but dictate the cadence of state telecom law.
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/3/2016 | 5:09:54 PM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
"Are we interested in this because we want cheaper Internet service?"

That's part of it. AT&T Gigapower service is $40 cheaper in cities with Google Fiber. Competition is a good thing, unless you're an incumbent or making money off of incumbents.


"If so, what incentive is there to become a 3rd vendor in a city?"

Well for one, usually one of the two vendors in a city (telcos) usually can't deliver the FCC's standard definition of broadband (25 Mbps), so what you're usually talking about is a cable monopoly which refuses to compete on price.

There's not much incentive for a company without Google's wallet to do so at scale due to high costs, but the Google build has involved helping cities learn how to get out of the way bureaucratically, and increased broadband competition generally benefits everybody, so I'm not sure I understand the question.
Duh!
50%
50%
Duh!,
User Rank: Blogger
2/2/2016 | 4:54:19 PM
Re: Had doubts...
Verizon's biggest advantage for the FiOS build was existing strand on existing pole attachments.
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/2/2016 | 4:32:15 PM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
But CLECs didn't build new Access Networks (generally there were exceptions) which is what Google is doing.  But let me as the seriousness question this way:

Are we interested in this because we want cheaper Internet service?

If so, what incentive is there to become a 3rd vendor in a city?

seven

 
mendyk
50%
50%
mendyk,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/2/2016 | 3:00:03 PM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
The standard CLEC strategy in the late '90s was to announce a nice long list of metro areas where they were going live, and then check off those areas once they installed a minimal amount of equipment. Actual network builds were far and few between. If Google is in fact serious about overbuilding broadband networks in hundreds of markets, then I'd question the collective sanity given the commoditization of those networks.
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/2/2016 | 2:36:34 PM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
I don't know, there were a lot of BAD CLECs to be sure, but there were also many good ones quite literally driven right out of the industry by deeper pocketed incumbents who repeatedly lobbied to make their lives miserable (or downright impossible).

Google is, even if it's limited in nature, building networks from the ground up. I think some of the reaction  to over-hype in these threads is legitimate, but the overall sentiment that Google is not really doing anything isn't supported by the reality on the ground in Salt Lake CIty, Charlotte, elsewhere.
mendyk
50%
50%
mendyk,
User Rank: Light Sabre
2/2/2016 | 12:21:49 PM
Re: can we just call it like it really is?
This does elicit some reminders of the CLEC "movement" of the late 1990s, which turned out to be lots of ... fiction. But, as you say, Google.  So it's all good.
cnwedit
100%
0%
cnwedit,
User Rank: Light Beer
2/2/2016 | 9:52:03 AM
Re: Serious / not serious
The latter piece of this comment is where I fault Google most. I never expected them to build out fiber to 1200 communities all at once when they didn't know how to build out one network. 

But I think the fact they basically took advantage of cities' desperate desire for broadband to ask for - and get - concessions on things like rights-of-way, power and more made Google seem more like a cynical opportunist than any kind of innovator. 

That's old news, however, and has been covered here and elsewhere. 
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Featured Video
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events