<<   <   Page 2 / 2
KBode 8/29/2016 | 8:18:00 AM
Re: So.... "We have written all this about Google Fiber and yet when Verizon complains about the same things they are written off?"


Who wrote them off? Boston struck a special deal with them after they complained like Google Fiber. These ISPs just didn't bother complaining because they liked the status quo as it was and had no need to push back against what's effectively regulatory capture in many markets custom designed to protect THEM from competition.
R Clark 8/29/2016 | 7:15:07 AM
Good for telecom The other way to frame this is that there's barely a part of telecom that Google isn't already in. It's in international subsea cable, it's in MVNO wireless, it's obviously in handsets and mobile content and it's in remote telecom access.  Its DIY culture drove it into longhaul telecom but I suspect they entered fibre access more as an experiment.

It's good for telecom to have Google lobbyists agitating for simpler regulations, but it's also good to have Google dial back on its plans and let everyone understand there's no shortcut to building and oeprating wireline access.
brooks7 8/26/2016 | 8:37:29 PM
Re: Infrastructure ain't software Duh!,

They are trying to compete in the NFL by playing Little League Baseball.  Both are fine, but you can't do one in the other.  You can not succeed in applications by being a telco.


Duh! 8/26/2016 | 3:26:38 PM
Re: Infrastructure ain't software I wasn't questioning the Telcos' efforts to get data center economies into COs. It's the repeated attempts to get into pure information services that reminds me of Wile E. Coyote.
inkstainedwretch 8/26/2016 | 3:08:23 PM
Rules and regs The rules and regs have been there for years and are well known. Cable ops had to conform, and were justly angry when states waived a lot of those rules and regs for AT&T and Verizon so those two could build AND the states didn't immediately waive those same rules-and-regs for the cable ops. Verizon and AT&T got special treatment and still whined about it. Furthermore, they got away with redlining

Then Google comes in with Google Fiber. I agree with everything Carol wrote, but I'd add a bit. Google's whole approach to Google Fiber was to do it on the cheap -- in a couple of the first Google Fiber cities, they bought existing dark infrastructure for pennies on the dollar. With subsequent cities, they pushed the burden (that is to say, the costs) of planning onto the cities themselves. All the while, they insisted on being free of the same rules and regs that VZ and AT&T were absolved of -- and which the cable operators managed to conform to. Some cities (e.g., Portland OR) ultimately lost interest in jumping through Google's hoops.

Furthermore, Google put a twist on VZ's and AT&T's redlining by going direct to consumers and forcing them to organize into Google Neighborhoods before Google would even commit to a build.

-- Brian Santo
cnwedit 8/26/2016 | 2:42:45 PM
Re: So.... I assume you are referring to Verizon's complaints about municipal processes and permiting bureaucracy?

Seven, I'm sure they did complain to the regulators. And people like me could have chosen to pay more attention to those complaints and didn't. 

What Google did was mount a major campaign that was much more public, and because they were already talking to cities who were chomping at the bit to get Google Fiber to their town, that might have given them a bigger platform. 
cnwedit 8/26/2016 | 2:39:58 PM
Re: Infrastructure ain't software Basically I agree with your comments on hubris, at least where Google is concerned.

The one distinction I'd make between what Google did with Google Fiber and what telecom operators are trying to do now is that Google didn't need to get into the FTTH business - whether or not Google Fiber succeeded or failed, the bigger and much more profitable business continued. They just thought they could show big telecom a thing or do, and it turned out to be harder than they expected. 

Telecom operators, on the other hand, aren't trying to compete with Google so much as emulate what Google has done in SDN and data centers as part of an effort to survive. Some of them, to be sure, also want to be content players, just as, back in the pre-Internet days, they flirted with setting up their own content companies, working with the big studios. 

But most of what I see in telecom is determination to find a way to add value to their broadband pipes in a way that ensures their future as something more than commodity. 
brooks7 8/26/2016 | 2:33:44 PM

We have written all this about Google Fiber and yet when Verizon complains about the same things they are written off?

Look, do I want higher end services to show up..yes.  But we spend so much time hoping that FTTH will happen, that we miss:

- When it has happened

- A plan to make it happen


Jill Again 8/26/2016 | 2:17:34 PM
Google Fiber The Federal officer in the movie National Treasure needed to have someone to pin for the crime committed, no matter how noble the cause. As he said, "Someone's got to go to prison Ben", the sentiment occurs to me that "someone's got to pay the bill". Everyone in this game wants to use other people's money. We just can't all agree on who that might be, other than we are pretty sure it isn't us. 

The reality is the demand is seemingly unlimited when the cost is near zero. Welcome to the real world. How many CLECs went bankrupt chasing the same dream?
Duh! 8/26/2016 | 1:59:58 PM
Infrastructure ain't software The word you're looking for is "hubris".  The belief that being successful in innovating big data centers somehow translates into having the know-how to build outside plant. 

Hubris runs both ways in our industry. The idea that a Telco can somehow compete with Google in their space is about as dubious as the idea that Google can compete with Telcos in theirs.

The late, great Ken Olsen always used to say "Stick to your knitting". 

<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Sign In