Comments on: Google asks for GoogleNet bids

By: WWW.ANOMALICRESEARCH.COM » Blog Archive » Google a Computing Monster - 20 to 100 Petaflops of Processing Power… Direct Secret Links Into US Government

Thu, 22 May 2008 01:28:45 +0000

[...] continue to hirer (including for very super-computer specific jobs) and they are building a global fiber optic network to better connect their distributed server farms, so it’s reasonable to assume Google has well [...]

By: For Google, Infrastructure is a Strategic Advantage - GigaOM

For Google, Infrastructure is a Strategic Advantage - GigaOM — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:51:49 +0000

[...] the exception of optical systems, Google has built or is building the gear. It has been rumored to be a big buyer of dark fiber to connect its data centers, which helps explain why the company spent nearly $3.8 [...]

By: GoogleNET Going Global | K E K U [alpha]

GoogleNET Going Global | K E K U [alpha] — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:47:28 +0000

[...] wrote about the GoogleNET back in 2005 for the now-defunct Business 2.0 magazine and have been following this pretty closely, though not writing about as [...]

By: GoogleNET Going Global « GigaOM

GoogleNET Going Global « GigaOM — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:26:06 +0000

[...] written about the GoogleNET back in 2005 for the now defunct Business 2.0 magazine and have been following this pretty closely, though not writing as often about [...]

By: robert Gonzalez

robert Gonzalez — Fri, 26 May 2006 00:04:42 +0000

well my name is robert i work for a communications company that does fiber splicing and placing were currently contractors for Charter cable ,time warner cable and bright house networks were based in chatsworth ca,and can begin building your entire network from ground up

By: Bobby

Bobby — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:52:36 +0000

Wouldn’t they want to have mesh wifi networks though so they could pinpoint exactly where that user was if they were mobile…or would they be able to do that with GPS?

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:09:58 +0000

Charlie, I continue to disagree with you while agreeing with many of the points you make. You are only telling one side of the story.

1) Europe is a factor. That is why AT&T Wireless and Cingular switched to GSM. That is also a reason why Cingular is holding off on UMTS — the European equipment needs 2100 MHz spectrum we don’t have yet in the US and they don’t want to pay a premium to get unique equipment.
2) WiBro equipment will most likely be fully WiMax compliant, yet it will be available in quantity long before anything equivalent.
3) I agree it would be hard to put together full coverage at 2.5, but so what. There are parts of the country that Cingular and Verizon still don’t cover despite having paid aggregate hundreds of millions to get all the licenses. You would be surprised at what is available in large markets. McCaw knows this and ClearWire is making good use of this “worthless” spectrum (again see Nextel and SMR, if a PITA can save you $5B it is often worth it). Huge swaths of 2.3 GHz are owned by non-carrier speculators who are just waiting for the right price.

As for 700 MHz: If you are a start-up carrier why invest in a low density national network when you would be better served building a competative regional network (see ClearWire)? 700 MHz is excellent for rural coverage, but in areas of higher population density you will run into the issue of having to split cells for capacity and this will aleviate the coverage gains. It is these high population areas where you will be paying $10/pop/MHz instead of $1, since the FCC will be going after the money and not auctioning national licenses. That’s the thing, regional licenses benefit the FCC more than anyone and that is why they are there. It is the same reason there are spectrum auctions instead of beauty contests (which would better serve public interest). Finally, you seem to be missing the simple point: “better” frequencies cost more money. When 2.3 was auctioned it went for pennies a POP because no one new what to do with it. 2.5 GHz has generally been given awayA 2.3 network is going to need more equipment, but the spectrum will be a lot cheaper than 700 MHz. In the end you will end up spending a similar ammount of money to get a fully built out network. Would you rather spend it upfront on spectrum, or as you grow on equipment?

Sprint is full of crap. Nothing I’ve said has anything to do with them and their 2.5 holdings other than to point out that they could be doing something with them right now if they chose, as opposed to sometime in the next 4 years.

Again, Charlie, it is not that your thoughts are wrong (I hope not because I agree with most of them) it is that they do not cover the whole picture. I’ll go back to the well one more time and point out that Nextel showed with SMR that a whole lot can be accomplished with spectrum most people considered “junk.”

By: Meshify » General News

Meshify » General News — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:06:10 +0000

[...] Om Malik made a brief mention of Google-Net earlier this week, but for the most part, there was nobody reporting, or even speculating on this. Anyway, more detail here from Light Reading about the new network. As an example of what controlling your distribution/telecom costs can enable, this article from SiliconBeat briefly touches on video. Video isn’t the only end application as Dave Burstein notes: “Google has told their folks to plan services ‘as though the servers and delivery’ cost next to nothing, although the real cost in 2005 remains in the $billions. They know that will come down with Moore’s law, and they are pricing down the learning curve. Once they build the basic network, the marginal cost of doing more will be amazingly small. [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:05:53 +0000

While in-line with their other activities such as dark fiber purchases and the subsequent VPN offering, why hasn’t this RFP issue been discussed in the blogosphere to a greater degree and why people are focusing more on the VPN aspect.

Not questioning your sources, but just curious as to why this isn’t exploding everywhere given the implications of a “Google-Net”. Have you heard anything else?

By: åäºè?é³¥å¿è£¡å?·é

åäºè?é³¥å¿è£¡å?·é — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:54:08 +0000

Google çç¶²è·¯æ¿ç

Google å¨ä¸çµ±æ±æ¹çè·¯ä¸å?å?é²äºä¸æ¥ã