Except for northwestel/bell and all the subsidies for telesat c-band based internet and phone in the arctic...
Well actually all of Nunavut would collapse without several billion dollars from Ottawa every year. On Aug 11, 2016 6:05 PM, "Paul Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote: > I hear the same thing in Canada all the time about the “taxpayers” funding > the ILEC’s …. yes, there has been subsidy and grants and other stuff over > the years but those phone networks were never actually *built* with > taxpayers dollars - some LEC’s got funding to expand into areas they > wouldn’t normally serve and stuff but that’s different in my opinion …. > > > > On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thing is, they are not throwing a wrench into rural ILECs they go only > after low hanging fruit. > > And nobody has received ANY taxpayer money, the USF is a fee only > applied to those using the PSTN. > > And that fee replaces the old AT&T line haul payment they got from > MaBell back in the day. It was a replacement to make them whole. > > > > Rate or return regulation is 100 years old and has built a great nation. > Just because you did not achieve pioneers preference by starting a > railroad, gas company, electric company, bus line, truck line, airline, or > telco, don't be a hater. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds > > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:16 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? > > > > They just need to generate enough revenue with Apps to keep their > > primary focus going. :) > > > > Wait, you're not in favor of them using their own personal cash to > > throw a wrench in the works of 1Mbps DSL LECs who have received > > billions upon billions of taxpayer money? > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Josh Luthman > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Google Apps is great but doesn't generate much money. Now Gmail kind of > >> does but it's mostly the ad revenue (their premier product). > >> > >> They've done decent things otherwise but I have a hard time respecting a > >> company that just uses tons of money to build a network with the > intention > >> of destroying other companies business. > >> > >> Josh Luthman > >> Office: 937-552-2340 > >> Direct: 937-552-2343 > >> 1100 Wayne St > >> Suite 1337 > >> Troy, OH 45373 > >> > >> > >> On Aug 11, 2016 6:32 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> You have a very naive viewpoint of what they have accomplished. Look > >>> at how successful many of their projects have been! Not all will be > >>> hits, but the ones that have done well have done VERY well. > >>> > >>> They are also doing a lot of work with robotics, driverless cards, > >>> drone delivery, and a TON of medical research. Google "X" (secret > >>> projects / labs) will. > >>> > >>> Many of their things have spun off into their own Alphabet projects, > >>> so that they require each one to fund themselves. Smart business > >>> strategy. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Who is we? I think Google turned to a garbage generator, look at all > >>> > the > >>> > cancelled projects. > >>> > > >>> > Josh Luthman > >>> > Office: 937-552-2340 > >>> > Direct: 937-552-2343 > >>> > 1100 Wayne St > >>> > Suite 1337 > >>> > Troy, OH 45373 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Aug 11, 2016 6:24 PM, "Brian Webster" <[email protected]> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Having been directly involved in the Google Fiber projects, I can > tell > >>> >> you > >>> >> there are a number of factors that caused them to take pause on the > >>> >> deployments. One was the almost obstructionist attitude of pole > owners > >>> >> (read > >>> >> competitors to their broadband deployment). This forced a lot more > of > >>> >> the > >>> >> project deigns to underground deployment. In cities like San Jose > and > >>> >> San > >>> >> Francisco, there were a lot of requirements that cost more money > than > >>> >> Google > >>> >> budgeted for. In some respects Google kind of had the idea that > cities > >>> >> would > >>> >> remove obstacles like that to get them in their city. With so much > >>> >> existing > >>> >> broadband already in place, this is certainly not the case. I think > >>> >> Google > >>> >> thought all cities were going to have the attitude like they had > with > >>> >> the > >>> >> first cities who applied for Google to come to their cities (Like > >>> >> Kansas > >>> >> City did). > >>> >> > >>> >> Google was also of the impression that they could design and permit > >>> >> their > >>> >> networks and then cherry pick neighborhoods to deploy based on >> > pre-sign > >>> >> ups > >>> >> (in Google terms - fiberhoods). This creates a huge logistic > problem >> in > >>> >> planning construction especially with underground deployment. This > >> also > >>> >> drove up costs. > >>> >> > >>> >> Google is still investigating the wireless options. What you will > see > >>> >> from > >>> >> them should be a hybrid network system. They will buy up dark fiber, > >>> >> capacity on lit fiber, conduit space and whole fiber systems where > >> they > >>> >> can. > >>> >> They may use microwave to cross connect systems or bridge high > >>> >> construction > >>> >> cost areas such as railroad crossings. They are looking at wireless > to > >>> >> basically go more from the curb to the customer, especially in MDU > >>> >> cases. > >>> >> Existing competition and/or existing contracts within an MDU makes > it > >>> >> risky > >>> >> to do a wired play if they cannot assure themselves of a huge take > >> rate > >>> >> within the MDU. I see their wireless play as more of a high capacity > >>> >> short > >>> >> hop last mile, but even then they will have challenges with > spectrum, > >>> >> interference and capacity. > >>> >> > >>> >> While we all would think Google is a great company with resources > to >> do > >>> >> whatever they set their minds to, keep in mind I have seen a lot > from > >>> >> the > >>> >> inside. I like to equate them to a group of thirty somethings with > ADD > >>> >> and > >>> >> too much money. They also seem to have the attitude that older folks > >>> >> are too > >>> >> far behind the times to possibly know what they are talking about. > >>> >> Google is > >>> >> certainly not a utility infrastructure company and lack the people, > >>> >> tools > >>> >> and skill sets to be one. They are their own best cheerleaders and > >> they > >>> >> have > >>> >> a dangerous habit of believing their own hype internally and are not > >>> >> real > >>> >> good at listening to fresh viewpoints and outside input. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thank You, > >>> >> Brian Webster > >>> >> www.wirelessmapping.com > >>> >> www.Broadband-Mapping.com > >>> >> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:29 PM > >>> >> To: [email protected] > >>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? > >>> >> > >>> >> They may have great RF engineers, but you still cannot fit a camel > >>> >> through > >>> >> the eye of a needle. > >>> >> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Josh Reynolds > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:04 AM > >>> >> To: [email protected] > >>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? > >>> >> > >>> >> So, I get it. You guys are sitting around feeling so smug with your > >>> >> WISP. > >>> >> > >>> >> We're talking about one of the largest and most powerful companies > in > >>> >> the > >>> >> world though. Do you really think they don't have some of the best > RF > >>> >> engineering talent in the world on their payroll? > >>> >> > >>> >> They're not doing anything different than many of us have done, > which > >>> >> is > >>> >> evaluate the business case for each technology and pick the most > >>> >> appropriate > >>> >> one for the application. If it was going to cost you a couple > hundred > >>> >> thousand just to cross an intersection, you'd be doing the same > thing > >>> >> too. > >>> >> It's the smart play. > >>> >> > >>> >> At least they're not doing this in LEC style, which would mean > "saying > >>> >> they can't do it unless they receive federal subsidies". > >>> >> > >>> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:59 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller > >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Wait until they experience ducting ;) > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >> > From: Bill Prince > >>> >> > To: [email protected] > >>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:48 AM > >>> >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > It's apparently "too expensive" to do underground fiber. At least > in > >>> >> > San Jose. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Anyone know anything about Webpass? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > bp > >>> >> > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On 8/10/2016 9:44 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Google Fiber considering fixed microwave technology as > alternative >> > to > >>> >> > fiber. > >>> >> > Interesting times! > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/ > 08/google-fiber-del > >>> >> > ays-san-jose-project-may-switch-to-wireless-instead/?comments=1 > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > > > >
