https://youtu.be/jTmXHvGZiSY?t=30

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Robert Andrews <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Unfortunately it's like 500 billion for search and 50 billion for youtube
> and 5 billion for android...   Still billions are great numbers but you
> have to consider that Google spends money like it's rain...
>
> On 08/12/2016 12:33 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
>
>> Didn't the previous email say there were only 3 money makers?
>> Android, search engine, and Youtube?
>> $555 billion isn't bad for three money makers. LOL
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     *From:* Josh Reynolds <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:30 PM
>>     *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave?
>>
>>     http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/10/investing/google-alphabet-al
>> l-time-high/
>>
>>     "Shares of Google parent company Alphabet (GOOGL, Tech30) hit an
>>     all-time high Tuesday of more than $813 a share. The company is now
>>     worth $555 billion."
>>
>>     "The company is still growing at a rate that would make most companies
>>     envious. Analysts are forecasting that profits will increase more than
>>     15% this year and that sales will be up 20%.
>>
>>     That's truly remarkable when you consider just how colossal Google is.
>>     Sales are expected to top $88.5 billion this year and exceed $100
>>     billion in 2017."
>>
>>     So, that may take awhile there Robert.
>>
>>     On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Robert Andrews
>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>      > Sorry to sound like not a google fanboy but it's a typical phd
>>     company..
>>      > They look at the paper pile before the experience pile...  & yes
>>     they will
>>      > eventually go down because of it...
>>      >
>>      > On 08/11/2016 03:24 PM, Brian Webster 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 <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>
>>      >> www.Broadband-Mapping.com <http://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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     wrote:
>>      >>>
>>      >>>
>>      >>> Wait until they experience ducting ;)
>>      >>>
>>      >>>
>>      >>> ----- Original Message -----
>>      >>> From: Bill Prince
>>      >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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
>>      >>>
>>      >>>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >
>>
>>

Reply via email to