Comments on: Has Google changed its mind about sharing its fiber network?

By: wyrdwyrd

wyrdwyrd — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:16:48 +0000

It’s a sad day.

For me personally, this is final confirmation that Google has broke with it’s mission statement.

Giving me hope that telcos and cable company giants might finally have to face *real* competition, then snatching that hope away is *definitely* evil.

–
Furry cows moo and decompress.

By: Bobert

Bobert — Wed, 30 May 2012 01:34:38 +0000

My understanding is that the local telco (AT&T) and cable company (Time Warner) put up a big fight to keep Google out, and it’s not hard to see why.

By: Sharon Thomas

Sharon Thomas — Tue, 29 May 2012 03:22:53 +0000

Good article and well written.

By: whatnow

whatnow — Sun, 27 May 2012 13:52:56 +0000

Most fiber systems use a transmit and a receive fiber but if the end electronics can process the signal you can tx/rx the signal over the sane fiber strand. Reltec developed their FTTC system using one fiber back in the 90s. I will say now that fiber has become so cheap you probability get higher speeds at a lower cost using two fibers. You also get more end electronic choices because many vendors produce the dual fiber and very few produce the single fiber electronics.

By: chrisconder

chrisconder — Sun, 27 May 2012 11:39:14 +0000

With fat pipes like that you don’t need ISPs per se. The customer can buy whatever services he chooses too. Its the future. Adding ‘open access’ the way the government understands it is only adding extra costs on to the customer. Customers are quite capable of buying what they want. They have never had much choice before, it will be great to see how it all works.

By: tmc

tmc — Sun, 27 May 2012 09:35:43 +0000

Google went down the path of offering a cable tv service.. Once this happened, the business model evolved to something more selfish like Verizon’s model.. just more bandwidth. Maybe this will change, maybe not… As the costs of deployment rise, so does the self interest in recouping return on investment.

By: Joshua Goldbard

Joshua Goldbard — Sat, 26 May 2012 18:58:25 +0000

They don’t need to run multiple fibers if everything is being handled by one multiplexer and all of the different service providers have access to the edge device.

The assumption I have is that no one lays single strand fiber anywhere anymore. You need at least a return path…

Google, while using the blocking tactic of Open-ness as a means to an end (in this case getting approval to lay a gigabit network) Google has never been all that open about anything. Sure they have some open-source initiatives, but they all tie back into helping further the Google agenda.

So what if Google wants to be AT&T 2.0? Could they really be as bad as Ma Bell? Worse?

I think the point here is that Google got the approval to put their network in and they don’t see any positive market position to sharing that network.

If you want a physical network run by private operators, you certainly can’t expect any private company to build one voluntarily.

By: mr white

mr white — Sat, 26 May 2012 14:59:24 +0000

Google is open like black is white. How can you tell Google is lying, their mouth is moving. Google are charlatans.

By: keninca

keninca — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:54:54 +0000

Stacey, why do they have to run multiple fibers, and then involve a third party to provide access? Why can’t they run a single fiber (adding fibers only to increase total bandwidth), and then be the access provider as well? It’s all IP, if a third party wants to offer TV or voice services to consumers that are connected to the local fiber network, why do they need a discrete connection to that network? And if they do want one, can’t they just get access the way the consumers do – by renting multiple lines to their servers?

If Google isn’t controlling the flow of traffic to subscribers, or restricting access, it’s still open. If they don’t prioritize packets, or block traffic from some services, it’s open.

If you’re looking for somebody to just build a dark fiber network, I never got the impression that that Google’s intent. I was expecting a complete gigabit internet service for consumers, to demonstrate to carriers, cable companies, and politicians that such a network is good for the economy and economically feasible.