Google Fiber delays San Jose project, may switch to wireless instead

Wireless could help Google Fiber avoid fights with incumbents over pole access.

Read the whole story

 

[elh]

Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

 

[TheShoxter]

I REALLY hope Google goes full speed using the Webpass acquisition and start setting up a bunch of wireless networks in the "potential" fiber cities. I for one live in by an area that Webpass operated in, so it would be amazing to see Google expand that coverage outside of large residential buildings in a much shorter timeframe than possible with fiber deployment.

 

[Morley Dotes]

The tinfoil-hatters are gonna have a field day with this...

 

[TheShoxter]

elh[/url]":ntcorvij]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

 

[MisterGrumps]

Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

I've no issue with wireless if there's no data cap or the data cap is at least the same as the hard line. Even for gaming the ping times at my house for 4g are identical to what I get over coax cable, but obviously a 6gb data cap is a little low when steam games are 40gb+

 

[THavoc]

wireless service that does not require expensive, capital-intensive and time-consuming installation of fiber cables under the ground

But it could speed Google Fiber deployment, which has also stalled in other cities where Google must negotiate access to utility poles owned by the incumbent ISPs against which it's trying to compete.

This high barrier to entry into the market is why the infrastructure should be muni owned and used by any ISP that wants to compete in the local market.

 

[arkiel]

elh[/url]":t3i0gedz]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

I dunno. If they could offer max LTE with a strong signal throughout the city and without a data cap, they could snatch up a lot of landline customers already dealing with sub-LTE speeds. Minimal and centralized investment. I don't know how acceptable latency would be in that scenario, but raw speed could probably fit the bill.

Offer 50mb LTE unlimited for 10 dollars a month + wireless receiver and let the wired ISPs choke on it.

 

[THavoc]

TheShoxter[/url]":2kod4m2s]

elh[/url]":2kod4m2s]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

I'd be more concerned about potential saturation levels as more and more people come on board.

Plus, how will weather affect it when it is being actively used by a lot of people?

 

[ingenious]

Google Wi-Fiber would be a good name

 

[THavoc]

arkiel[/url]":3nf4841k]

elh[/url]":3nf4841k]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

I dunno. If they could offer max LTE with a strong signal throughout the city and without a data cap, they could snatch up a lot of landline customers already dealing with sub-LTE speeds. Minimal and centralized investment. I don't know how acceptable latency would be in that scenario, but raw speed could probably fit the bill.

Offer 50mb LTE unlimited for 10 dollars a month + wireless receiver and let the wired ISPs choke on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this would be used mostly as backbone rather than consumer connection?

I didn't get the impression it would be a LTE-like replacement.

 

[solomonrex]

THavoc[/url]":3lvqng2q]

TheShoxter[/url]":3lvqng2q]

elh[/url]":3lvqng2q]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

I'd be more concerned about potential saturation levels as more and more people come on board.

Plus, how will weather affect it when it is being actively used by a lot of people?

It's point to point wireless so saturation shouldn't be any more of an issue than for fiber.

I would assume that they have the weather issue solved, but at least in the desert that is California there's less to worry about. According to the site, they already operate in Boston with it's real weather, fwiw.

 

[THavoc]

vlam[/url]":1jt2aa1m]I don't understand how it's still expensive to deploy wiring in cities. Surely by now we would have built a network of tunnels with automated robots that can thread wire from a spool through these tunnels, thus preventing any need to repeatedly dig up ground to bury cables.

Think of it like a hyperloop, but instead of future tech propulsion, it just has a track and motored robot car that pulls wiring/cables instead of transporting people.

Maybe where they currently use underground but that seems to be in the minority.

 

[tekknik]

TheShoxter[/url]":3vxqv9pc]

elh[/url]":3vxqv9pc]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

It's more of a latency issue than anything else for me. If you play games sensitive to latency it doesn't matter how much I competition it is if it's all wireless.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

"Google Fiber is already up and running in seven other major cities, outside California, but a source familiar with the project says the company is putting additional fiber locations on the back burner to reassess the technology and explore a cheaper alternative—wireless service that does not require expensive, capital-intensive and time-consuming installation of fiber cables under the ground," the Mercury News reported.

The hidden subtext is Google doesn't have to play "pole" games with the competition.

 

[Rommel102]

Local...Loop...Unbundling...

 

[Statistical]

tekknik[/url]":1s3u50f0]

TheShoxter[/url]":1s3u50f0]

elh[/url]":1s3u50f0]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

It's more of a latency issue than anything else for me. If you play games sensitive to latency it doesn't matter how much I competition it is if it's all wireless.

Fixed wireless like what WebPass uses isn't Wifi. It can have similar latency as fiber. In theory it could have superior latency due to the slower speed of light in fiber but that really only makes a difference at extreme distances.

 

[Vincent294]

Still worth it to spite Comcrap. My parents are constantly frustrated by all the outages and connection drops.

 

[d4Njv]

I wouldn't put it past the cable lobby to introduce legislation authorizing wireless jammers.

 

[caspar347]

TheShoxter[/url]":lu7iqyi0]

elh[/url]":lu7iqyi0]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

That's the problem. It can't provide gigabit speeds at scale. If it could you'd see all of the mobile operators offering home internet. You could provide gigabit to maybe a few houses per access point, but forget a whole street much less a whole neighborhood at least with current tech.

That's starting to change (a big part of "5G" is gonna be high capacity via small cells in street-sized areas, so this is an area that's getting a lot of industry attention) but as it currently stands wireless doesn't scale well enough for that to work. Which is why it's used in edge cases like rural where it doesn't need to scale.

Edit: if you need an example of wireless-for-home-ISP gone horribly wrong, look at Sprint. Many people started using their unlimited plans as home internet and that was a huge part of their 2010-era network implosion.

 

[Vincent294]

d4Njv[/url]":1pos26zc]Wait until you see the cable lobby introduce legislation authorizing some sort of wireless jammer.

Can't wait for the ads making wired phones look cool. *cue jingle* It's endless pain and misery fun to do Xfinity.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

tekknik[/url]":21n43ggf]

TheShoxter[/url]":21n43ggf]

elh[/url]":21n43ggf]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

It's more of a latency issue than anything else for me. If you play games sensitive to latency it doesn't matter how much I competition it is if it's all wireless.

I imagine that's what LoLa is about.

 

[THavoc]

betam4x[/url]":1ajgyqdu]

Statistical[/url]":1ajgyqdu]

tekknik[/url]":1ajgyqdu]

TheShoxter[/url]":1ajgyqdu]

elh[/url]":1ajgyqdu]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

It's more of a latency issue than anything else for me. If you play games sensitive to latency it doesn't matter how much I competition it is if it's all wireless.

Fixed wireless like what WebPass uses isn't Wifi. It can have similar latency as fiber. In theory it could have superior latency due to the slower speed of light in fiber but that really only makes a difference at extreme distances.

Light only moves at one speed.

That is not true. In a vacuum it travels at one speed.

Elsewhere? Not so much.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html

Scientists have long known that the speed of light can be slowed slightly as it travels through materials such as water or glass. However, it has generally been thought impossible for particles of light, known as photons, to be slowed as they travel through free space, unimpeded by interactions with any materials.Jan 23, 2015

 

[Vincent294]

caspar347[/url]":2plkqehd]

TheShoxter[/url]":2plkqehd]

elh[/url]":2plkqehd]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

That's the problem. It can't provide gigabit speeds at scale. If it could you'd see all of the mobile operators offering home internet. You could provide gigabit to maybe a few houses per access point, but forget a whole street much less a whole neighborhood at least with current tech.

That's starting to change (a big part of "5G" is gonna be high capacity via small cells in street-sized areas, so this is an area that's getting a lot of industry attention) but as it currently stands wireless doesn't scale well enough for that to work. Which is why it's used in edge cases like rural where it doesn't need to scale.

To be fair it doesn't take much to outdo the current ISPs. Won't live up to the usual Google Fiber pedigree though.

 

[THavoc]

caspar347[/url]":3ovj5nxn]

TheShoxter[/url]":3ovj5nxn]

elh[/url]":3ovj5nxn]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

That's the problem. It can't provide gigabit speeds at scale. If it could you'd see all of the mobile operators offering home internet. You could provide gigabit to maybe a few houses per access point, but forget a whole street much less a whole neighborhood at least with current tech.

That's starting to change (a big part of "5G" is gonna be high capacity via small cells in street-sized areas, so this is an area that's getting a lot of industry attention) but as it currently stands wireless doesn't scale well enough for that to work. Which is why it's used in edge cases like rural where it doesn't need to scale.

This was what I was asking. As more people use it, won't it start to slow down, etc?

Add in weather issue and I'd think it'd get progressively worse, no?

 

[kpluck]

Google should simply start telling cities, "This is ridiculous we won't be installing our service in your city. Goodbye." Then, they should buy a full page ad in the local newspaper saying they are abandoning the city because the elected officials are idiots.

After doing that, they may find other cities a little easier to work with.

 

[beebee]

vlam[/url]":sp6sfqxa]I don't understand how it's still expensive to deploy wiring in cities. Surely by now we would have built a network of tunnels with automated robots that can thread wire from a spool through these tunnels, thus preventing any need to repeatedly dig up ground to bury cables.

Think of it like a hyperloop, but instead of future tech propulsion, it just has a track and motored robot car that pulls wiring/cables instead of transporting people.

Horizontal boring for fiber is common these days. No robot required. ;-)

http://www.ditchwitch.com/fiber

 

[THavoc]

beebee[/url]":2yowdjym]

vlam[/url]":2yowdjym]I don't understand how it's still expensive to deploy wiring in cities. Surely by now we would have built a network of tunnels with automated robots that can thread wire from a spool through these tunnels, thus preventing any need to repeatedly dig up ground to bury cables.

Think of it like a hyperloop, but instead of future tech propulsion, it just has a track and motored robot car that pulls wiring/cables instead of transporting people.

Horizontal boring for fiber is common these days. No robot required. ;-)

How about robots with lasers? They are always required.

 

[vlam]

beebee[/url]":3nn784bo]

vlam[/url]":3nn784bo]I don't understand how it's still expensive to deploy wiring in cities. Surely by now we would have built a network of tunnels with automated robots that can thread wire from a spool through these tunnels, thus preventing any need to repeatedly dig up ground to bury cables.

Think of it like a hyperloop, but instead of future tech propulsion, it just has a track and motored robot car that pulls wiring/cables instead of transporting people.

Horizontal boring for fiber is common these days. No robot required. ;-)

http://www.ditchwitch.com/fiber

Well the robot is for threading cable after the fact. So if, say, a Google wanted to come in and create their own fiber network from scratch, they'd just have to use the robot I mentioned to pull fiber through the already made tunnels.

Obviously as you build said tunnel, you can drop cables as you go. But afterwards, you need some way to thread the tunnel with cabling to make it reusable, which is really what my idea was going for.

 

[Statistical]

caspar347[/url]":3jbn5ssa]

THavoc[/url]":3jbn5ssa]

caspar347[/url]":3jbn5ssa]

TheShoxter[/url]":3jbn5ssa]

elh[/url]":3jbn5ssa]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

That's the problem. It can't provide gigabit speeds at scale. If it could you'd see all of the mobile operators offering home internet. You could provide gigabit to maybe a few houses per access point, but forget a whole street much less a whole neighborhood at least with current tech.

That's starting to change (a big part of "5G" is gonna be high capacity via small cells in street-sized areas, so this is an area that's getting a lot of industry attention) but as it currently stands wireless doesn't scale well enough for that to work. Which is why it's used in edge cases like rural where it doesn't need to scale.

This was what I was asking. As more people use it, won't it start to slow down, etc?

Add in weather issue and I'd think it'd get progressively worse, no?

Yeah. With fiber, every connected house has a dedicated 1 or 10 or whatever gigabit line but with wireless all connected houses share whatever the access point has. And one person can really big it down if they know how and load balancing isn't set up well.

No residential fiber is shared. Google fiber and Verizon FiOS are GPON

 

[Gooberslot]

kpluck[/url]":1iee8x76]Google should simply start telling cities, "This is ridiculous we won't be installing our service in your city. Goodbye." Then, they should buy a full page ad in the local newspaper saying they are abandoning the city because the elected officials are idiots.

After doing that, they may find other cities a little easier to work with.

Cities aren't the problem. Most cities would do anything to get Google Fiber. The problem is the states. People voting along party lines isn't helping things either.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Statistical[/url]":15tbw6us]

No residential fiber is shared. Google fiber and Verizon FiOS are GPON

"Pardon me, would you have any Grey GPON?"

 

[earthlingkc]

Statistical[/url]":14ilcimy]

caspar347[/url]":14ilcimy]

THavoc[/url]":14ilcimy]

caspar347[/url]":14ilcimy]

TheShoxter[/url]":14ilcimy]

elh[/url]":14ilcimy]Wireless is not a comparable alternative to fiber.
It's a shame as my current employer HQ is in San Jose

While it certainly is not fiber, if it can provide reliable Gigabit speeds to the market, then I have no problems. If anything, it only adds more competition to the ISP market. We've seen how much this can benefit customers in the areas that Fiber has been deployed.

That's the problem. It can't provide gigabit speeds at scale. If it could you'd see all of the mobile operators offering home internet. You could provide gigabit to maybe a few houses per access point, but forget a whole street much less a whole neighborhood at least with current tech.

That's starting to change (a big part of "5G" is gonna be high capacity via small cells in street-sized areas, so this is an area that's getting a lot of industry attention) but as it currently stands wireless doesn't scale well enough for that to work. Which is why it's used in edge cases like rural where it doesn't need to scale.

This was what I was asking. As more people use it, won't it start to slow down, etc?

Add in weather issue and I'd think it'd get progressively worse, no?

Yeah. With fiber, every connected house has a dedicated 1 or 10 or whatever gigabit line but with wireless all connected houses share whatever the access point has. And one person can really big it down if they know how and load balancing isn't set up well.

No residential fiber is shared. Google fiber and Verizon FiOS are GPON

Verizon and ATT are GPON, Google Fiber is a hybrid of GPON on front end and said to be some form of WDM-PON on the backend, providing effectively 1:1 capacity or with atleast lower splits than GPON players.

I have Google Fiber and consistently get 900+ to anywhere in country and 700M+ to Europe/Asia. GPON players struggle to get that but part of reason is also because Google Fiber has a dedicated longhaul backbone across country not shared with other Google services.

 

[THavoc]

earthlingkc[/url]":y0rr4ad5]I have Google Fiber

Soon we will be nuking you from orbit. <scowl>

 

[earthlingkc]

THavoc[/url]":3ol07c39]

earthlingkc[/url]":3ol07c39]I have Google Fiber

Soon we will be nuking you from orbit. <scowl>

Mwahahaha.

 

[THavoc]

earthlingkc[/url]":emmv6egi]

THavoc[/url]":emmv6egi]

earthlingkc[/url]":emmv6egi]I have Google Fiber

Soon we will be nuking you from orbit. <scowl>

Mwahahaha.

That kind of power in one person's hands is too much!

I stand to oppose your mad quest for speed and power.