Google To Build Ultra-Fast, Consumer Broadband Networks in U.S.

[u3b3rg33k]

T1, and Apparently you're unaware of how wifi works. there are 3 channels that don't interfere, and g only gives you 54mbit half duplex max, minus interference, minus encryption, minus what the neighbors are using. Wifi is a shared medium, fiber is not.

High bandwidth wifi would require a cell setup similar to that used by cell phone companies, and wouldn't be reachable by the average laptop, as the antennas are highly directional in order to stay within EIRP requirements, and maintain a good SNR and tolerable transfer rates.

Google is implementing a low latency high bandwidth network. How would you get gigabit to the home with wifi at a competitive price, instead of reinforcing the "bandwidth is expensive" BS that the providers keep yakking on about? Google is considering doing small / sparse rural areas. Please enlighten me.

How is fiber more invasive than radio waves carpeting your entire town? Have you ripped out your cable and your phone, because you don't want "the man" invading your privacy?

[markseven]

T1, and Apparently you're unaware of how wifi works. there are 3 channels that don't interfere, and g only gives you 54mbit half duplex max, minus interference, minus encryption, minus what the neighbors are using. Wifi is a shared medium, fiber is not.

High bandwidth wifi would require a cell setup similar to that used by cell phone companies, and wouldn't be reachable by the average laptop, as the antennas are highly directional in order to stay within EIRP requirements, and maintain a good SNR and tolerable transfer rates.

Google is implementing a low latency high bandwidth network. How would you get gigabit to the home with wifi at a competitive price, instead of reinforcing the "bandwidth is expensive" BS that the providers keep yakking on about? Google is considering doing small / sparse rural areas. Please enlighten me.

How is fiber more invasive than radio waves carpeting your entire town? Have you ripped out your cable and your phone, because you don't want "the man" invading your privacy?

Kim Hart, [/FONT]Washington Post Staff Writer]

Over the past three years, large cities and rural towns promised to bring WiFi to every street corner, park bench and doorstep. The wireless service was to be the key to extending cheap Internet access to underserved areas and low-income neighborhoods.

But the efforts largely fell flat as Internet service providers abandoned the projects, which proved to be far more expensive than expected, leaving cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago -- as well as Alexandria and Arlington -- disconnected and discontent.

Many municipalities decided to move forward by investing in the technology themselves. The souring economy has further encouraged some cities to experiment with building their own networks as a way to spur economic development.

"The projects that are succeeding focus on government first," said Craig Settles, an independent wireless analyst and business consultant. "The cost to build the infrastructure is paid back with benefits for the government. If you want to expand beyond that, you don't need as many consumers to make the network profitable."

Having a stake in the network means police officers, building inspectors and paramedics, for example, can access the network while working in the field, and the government can sell excess capacity to residents and businesses. Some communities are providing free WiFi to attract shops and offices to slumping areas.

Such experiments come as federal officials try to shape broadband policies. The United States has fallen behind other countries in terms of broadband speed and reach, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international organization.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin yesterday won approval to use empty TV airwaves for wireless broadband, a proposal backed by Google and Microsoft. Martin also wants to use another section of airwaves to provide free, filtered Internet access. Sprint Nextel and Clearwire recently launched WiMax service in Baltimore, with promises to provide wireless service for mobile devices.

While these projects are getting off the ground, WiFi networks are the most feasible way to provide an alternative to typical DSL or cable Internet lines, said Esme Vos, editor of MuniWireless.com. "It is probably the easiest way to get competition as quickly as possible."

WiFi networks, most often used in coffee shops and airports, beam Internet service through a building by connecting many transmitters, or hot spots. A citywide network would cobble together enough hot spots to cover every block.

The push to drench cities with cheap wireless service began in 2005, when Philadelphia officials announced plans to bring Internet service to everyone within 130 square miles. Earthlink, an Internet service provider, pledged to build the sprawling network and reap revenue from subscriptions, and the city was to let the company erect WiFi transmitters, or hot spots, on buildings and lamp posts. A dozen other cities enthusiastically made similar plans.

But the build-out process was slow and costly. A WiFi hot spot has a short signal range, so a few thousand, rather than initial estimates of a few dozen, were needed to blanket entire cities. And the service was often less reliable than the Internet service many residents already paid for at home, so they were reluctant to pay an additional subscription fee. A year ago, Earthlink pulled out of projects across the country. Other companies, such as MetroFi and Gobility, did the same. Cities from San Francisco and Houston to Portland, Ore., and Tempe, Ariz., stopped expanding or halted service.
The profit-making model was the main cause of the failures, said Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst for the New America Foundation, a District-based research organization.

"These communications systems should not just be solely about profit margins . . . It's more about providing a public service," he said. "Look at what cities pay for landscaping and street lights. It's a shame this hasn't been made a higher priority.

Maryland's Allegany County built a network for the school system seven years ago, and it has since expanded to businesses, nonprofit groups, police departments, museums and government agencies. Cumberland, the county seat, now has service in its downtown area.

Conxx, the Cumberland-based company that runs the county's network, is constructing a city-owned network intended to provide free Internet service to low-income students in Harrisburg, Pa. The company is building a network in Ohio to provide automatic utility meter-reading to cut costs.

Mike Voll, vice president of sales for the firm, said interest in deploying city-run networks has spiked over the past few weeks as municipalities start cutting budgets.

Minneapolis, for example, partnered with a local Internet service provider to cover the city's 60 square miles. US Internet owns the network, which is made up of more than 3,000 hot spots, and the city's government is the largest customer, allowing workers to eliminate paper records and work remotely. Residents can subscribe to the network for $20 a month.

The city spends about $1.3 million a year for the service, said Joe Caldwell, US Internet's chief executive. He said he receives at least two calls every week from cities looking for help deploying new networks.
In the faltering economy, consumers are looking for cheaper alternatives for high-speed Internet service.

San Francisco, left in a lurch when a partnership with Google and Earthlink dissolved last year, has become a test site for another company. Meraki first installed an Internet connection in a volunteer's home and used rooftop repeaters to extend the signal across several blocks. More than a quarter of the city's neighborhoods now have strong coverage, with 160,000 people using the free service, said chief executive Sanjit Biswas.

Biswas hopes that, as more apartment buildings and coffee shops in town install their own hot spots, they will merge into a giant network that covers entire towns and suburbs.

"For a few thousand dollars, you can light up a business district and then scale to grow into other areas," he said.

Meinrath of the New America Foundation is experimenting with technologies in his Greenbelt neighborhood, trying to find the best equipment to expand the service to more households.

"While we're waiting for a single company to fund everything," he said, "the rest of the world is leaving us farther and farther behind."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403443_2.html

In bold are a few things that stood out.

I'm sure Google has the resources to offer GBs over WiFi :pimp:

Invasive = digging up roads and sidewalks to install FO.

[u3b3rg33k]

There is no gigabit wifi right now. 802.11n is the "best" right now, and that's effective rate is 130Mbps at best.
Realistically, with multiple people (say, 20 or 30) using each access point, you'd be lucky to get 10Mbit service, as the AP has to drop to the rate that the slowest user is connected at.
10Mb/s < 1000Mb/s

In order to go the wifi route, they have to run power AND data to every access point, and the Access points have to be put on towers requiring MORE digging up than just running the data to buildings directly. Or they'll have to get permission to put them on top of private buildings (sounds invasive to me).


Google isn't interested in long term customer service. They're more likely to set it up, show that it works, then hand it off to some partner.

As for repeaters, every repeater cuts your bandwidth in half. So you may have good coverage, but you won't have anything close to gigabit.


You don't work for AT&T, do you?

[Bimmerman325i]

I want this service. I don't use wifi at home, so that point is moot, but wired gigabit.....omg dowantdowantdowant

[techterr]

So who pays for this?

So now cities are going to get in on building wireless networks.. Instead of my tax dollars going to fix the roads and the sewers and the water systems.. they are now going to build wireless networks... the cities put red light cameras at all the intersections and get how much of the proceeds?, the company who puts up the cameras gets 90% of the money.. what makes you think this is going to be any different? And the cities that are drafting new rules and regulations on how to charge telcos and cable companies more taxes when the install new infastructure are now using those fees to compete with the companies that have spent millions on there networks just to see the cities thumb there noses at them.. Sorry, this shit just makes me mad... I think the telcos and cable companies could do a better job at pricing, but this isn't the way... just my two cents..

[markseven]

There is no gigabit wifi right now. 802.11n is the "best" right now, and that's effective rate is 130Mbps at best.
Realistically, with multiple people (say, 20 or 30) using each access point, you'd be lucky to get 10Mbit service, as the AP has to drop to the rate that the slowest user is connected at.
10Mb/s < 1000Mb/s

In order to go the wifi route, they have to run power AND data to every access point, and the Access points have to be put on towers requiring MORE digging up than just running the data to buildings directly. Or they'll have to get permission to put them on top of private buildings (sounds invasive to me).


Google isn't interested in long term customer service. They're more likely to set it up, show that it works, then hand it off to some partner.

As for repeaters, every repeater cuts your bandwidth in half. So you may have good coverage, but you won't have anything close to gigabit.


You don't work for AT&T, do you?

Sounds like you know what you are talking about so I will buy in that FO is the best option.

Nope, don't work for ATT, nor am I in the telecomm business.

[Kruzen]

So now cities are going to get in on building wireless networks.. Instead of my tax dollars going to fix the roads and the sewers and the water systems.. they are now going to build wireless networks... the cities put red light cameras at all the intersections and get how much of the proceeds?, the company who puts up the cameras gets 90% of the money.. what makes you think this is going to be any different? And the cities that are drafting new rules and regulations on how to charge telcos and cable companies more taxes when the install new infastructure are now using those fees to compete with the companies that have spent millions on there networks just to see the cities thumb there noses at them.. Sorry, this shit just makes me mad... I think the telcos and cable companies could do a better job at pricing, but this isn't the way... just my two cents..

Are you retarded? Google will use their own infrastructure and pay for it, the only money the state would get is taxes that telco's already pay. Google is good.

[techterr]

Are you retarded? Google will use their own infrastructure and pay for it, the only money the state would get is taxes that telco's already pay. Google is good.

You might want to look into this a little more.. If you think that Google is going to pay billions to put in infastructure without any help or longterm comittment from a municipality... then they must be retarted.. Think about ROI, Google has.. and they are in no way stupid.. After working for a telco for almost thirty years, you get to see this stuff first hand.. You get to watch cities and counties come in and use the fibers that you and your coworkers put in the ground or on the poles and then after years of letting them use it for next to nothing, they put in there own and then tell you that they are going to give away free access and raise the taxes you pay on the infastructure that you put in for them... Cable companies are finding this out too. So now everyone is screaming that we need bigger bandwidth, the companies that have spent the money and got burnt, are saying, not so fast.. can you blame them? So now Google says that they are going to build a network that is faster and cheaper... with no strings from anyone... I'll believe it when I see it. Just remember, Google has done wonders raising it's stock price by floating rumors before..

[Kruzen]

You might want to look into this a little more.. If you think that Google is going to pay billions to put in infastructure without any help or longterm comittment from a municipality... then they must be retarted.. Think about ROI, Google has.. and they are in no way stupid.. After working for a telco for almost thirty years, you get to see this stuff first hand.. You get to watch cities and counties come in and use the fibers that you and your coworkers put in the ground or on the poles and then after years of letting them use it for next to nothing, they put in there own and then tell you that they are going to give away free access and raise the taxes you pay on the infastructure that you put in for them... Cable companies are finding this out too. So now everyone is screaming that we need bigger bandwidth, the companies that have spent the money and got burnt, are saying, not so fast.. can you blame them? So now Google says that they are going to build a network that is faster and cheaper... with no strings from anyone... I'll believe it when I see it. Just remember, Google has done wonders raising it's stock price by floating rumors before..

The thing is, there's nothing stopping the current telco's from offering gigabit networking to your front door, bandwidth is by and large, free, after initial investment, with the only expense being electricity and people to maintain the switching/routing equipment.

If you think comcast couldn't be offering gigabit ethernet to every one of their customers already for a relatively low cost of upgrades to their own infrastructure you're believing a lie.

It's easier to sell a bunch of people crap service and overcharge for it while they can, gigabit ethernet service costs like $10 US in third world countries, and while they have a much smaller demographic to provide for, the fact is it's inexpensive, simple technology and there's no reason we shouldn't have it, and have it for cheap.

[techterr]

I would love to have gigabit too

I would love to have a gig connection at my house, but it isn't going to happen on the old telco plant in most neighborhoods.. in fact most of the cable system is going to be at it's limits when comcast starts selling 100 meg. As for the service being basically free, I bet comcast and the telcos would argue with you on that... I can tell you that a 100 gig fiber card for a fujitsu mux is close to thirty grand, and each node has at least two cards, you don't get your money back by giving away service.. It looks like someone who is a lot smarter than me wrote an article about this issue in the seattle times, it's worth a read

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011069322_brier15.html