re Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: ken <ken () new-isp net>
> Date: February 13, 2010 1:51:10 PM EST
> To: Bob Frankston <bob2-39 () bobf frankston com>
> Cc: dave () farber net, 'ip' <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks

> Bob, (et al)
>
> So many points to address...
>
> Google Voice is, in fact, framed by the system it is legally  
> required to
> conform to. If we wish to see real change, this is where the fight  
> must
> begin.
>
> Turning to your comment about charging for VoIP, yes, old school is a
> correct label for that concept, as I'm sure we both realize that the
> cost for VoIP service will reach zero in the near future. You will  
> note
> that the analysis you are pointing to was written in 2005 and even  
> back
> then you will find in my writings that voice would be provided as a  
> free
> service eventually.
>
> Certainly cost reductions can be done but you might want to remember
> that running a network is expensive. As David Mercer has correctly
> pointed out, the customer service alone is an ongoing expense, even
> though it has been my experience that when a well designed is  
> deployed,
> customer service is minimized.
>
> The $5K/mile refers to a 144 strand bundle of fiber being trenched  
> using
> a two man team and a Ditch Witch. I am reliably told that Jaguar  
> expects
> their team to complete one mile of installed fiber per day. I do not
> know whether this service is carrying 100Mbps or one gigabit but the
> cost for hardware to light fiber at gigabit speeds when compared to
> 100baseT is relatively trivial.
>
> Let me also raise one more critical factor in this discussion, the PUC
> (or Public Service Board) can make or break any such deployment. There
> is also the issue of gaining access to the poles, as with aerial
> deployments, as many locations have utility poles which have no
> additional capacity for fiber to be hung.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Ken DiPietro
> Ellerslie MD
>
> On 02/13/2010 11:25 AM, Bob Frankston wrote:
> > As I wrote in http://rmf.vc/?n=BeyondLimits the type of hypergrowth  
> > we
> > associate with Moore’s Law stems from marketplace in which we are  
> > very
> > accepting of what works. This means that even backhoes are subject to
> > major price-performance improvements because we find ways to get more
> > bits through existing paths by using better electronics rather than
> > bigger trenches.
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to be careful about being overly optimistic – Google’s vo 
> > ice
> > services are still framed in terms of carrier concepts like phone  
> > calls
> > and the Android store rebates part of the price to your carrier but
> > those can also be ploys to co-opt the incumbents.
> >
> >
> >
> > It’s a matter of incentives – carriers need to limit capacity to
> > maintain the value of their services and their bits. Google  
> > incentives
> > are aligned with increase usage and capacity. That changes everything
> > and upsets the accounting model we see in analyses such as
> > http://nextgencommunications.net/blog/2005/05/the-better-model/ which
> > comingle technology costs with application costs. Note that that
> > analysis assigns a monthly charge to VoIP – very old school. This  
> > goes
> > right to the points I made in http://rmf.vc/?n=IPTelecomCosts.
> >
> >
> >
> > If Google isn’t constrained by carrier architectures it could be v 
> > ery
> > creative in finding ways to reduce costs and improve performance. For
> > example it needn’t build a home-run distribution architecture. I  
> > can
> > think of a number of ways to reduce the costs of providing bit paths
> > among homes and to reduce the cost of operating such facilities. If  
> > it
> > isn’t concerned with counting bits it can create a resilient
> > infrastructure that isn’t path-dependent and which scales less the
> > linearly with the deployment.
> >
> >
> >
> > My biggest concern is that this still seems to be a pay to subscribe
> > model but as this is not Google’s main business I hope they can p 
> > ast
> > that. That would allow even further reduction in costs such as  
> > services
> > housing complex as a whole and letting the residents divvy it up  
> > among
> > themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we’re talking $5K/mile for example – is that the cost of 1  
> > strand or
> > 100 strands or bundles? Is that a gigabit or a terabit or a 100
> > terabits? Is it the cost for the backhoe or the glass?
> >
> >
> >
> > Let’s encourage Google to experiment. For Google this is a means a 
> > nd not
> > an end so they have every incentive to drive the process and give  
> > us the
> > factor of a million improvements we’ve seen in our home networks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 13, 2010 09:57
> > *To:* ip
> > *Subject:* [IP] Re: Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband
> > Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >    *From:* ken <ken () new-isp net <mailto:ken () new-isp net>>
> >    *Date:* February 13, 2010 9:52:48 AM EST
> >    *To:* dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >    *Subject:* *Re: [IP] Re:    Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >    Broadband Networks*
> >
> >    Dave,
> >
> >    Perhaps these comments and this link will help to shed some  
> > light on
> >    this discussion.
> >
> >    George, (et al)
> >
> >    Donny Smith (Jaguar Communications) has the lowest connected  
> > cost of any
> >    FTTH network construction company that I am aware of and Jaguar  
> > trenches
> >    all of their installations.
> >
> >    Here is a link to an analysis of Jaguar's network even thought I  
> > am
> >    reliably told that their numbers now are closer to $5K/mile for  
> > backhaul
> >    plus $600 per home connected.
> >    http://nextgencommunications.net/blog/2005/05/the-better-model/
> >
> >    Now, with respect to whether Google will cherry pick locations, I
> >    believe it is only fair to wait and see before passing judgment.
> >
> >    Respectfully,
> >
> >    Ken DiPietro
> >    Ellersile MD
> >
> >
> >    On 02/12/2010 10:54 AM, Dave Farber wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* George Ou <George.Ou () digitalsociety org
> >            <mailto:George.Ou () digitalsociety org>
> >
> >            <mailto:George.Ou () digitalsociety org>>
> >
> >            *Date:* February 12, 2010 7:31:46 AM EST
> >
> >            *To:* "dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>" <dave () farber net
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>>, "ChrisSavage () dwt com
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>
> >
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>" <ChrisSavage () dwt com
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>
> >
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>>
> >
> >            *Subject:* *RE: [IP] Re:    Google Plans to Build Ultra
> >            High-Speed
> >
> >            Broadband Networks*
> >
> >
> >
> >            “For example, I recall that Loma Linda (a municipal fi 
> > ber
> >            build) used
> >
> >            some UK-based inexpensive fiber-laying system using
> >            micro-trenches,
> >
> >            and fiber in some special sheathing to make it especially
> >            easy to
> >
> >            run.  A completely new network might be able to use such a
> >            system in a
> >
> >            way that an established network provider might not find
> >            attractive.”
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I guess you think that Verizon must be really stupid for
> >            doing things
> >
> >            the old fashion bell-head way and spending $800 per home
> >            passed plus
> >
> >            another $800 to hook up an actual subscriber.  Those young
> >            wizards at
> >
> >            Google will just figure out how to cut costs in half.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Now let us return to reality.  Verizon’s costs are the
> >            lowest in the
> >
> >            industry because most of their cabling is aerial.
> >             Underground plant
> >
> >            costs about 7 times more money and this is one of the  
> > major
> >            reasons
> >
> >            Qwest is avoiding fiber because 3 quarters of their  
> > homes use
> >
> >            underground plant while Verizon has the opposite ratios.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Google is going to cherry pick fewer than 1% of homes that
> >            will be the
> >
> >            cheapest/shortest aerial runs and communities with the  
> > least
> >            onerous
> >
> >            regulations.  Then they’re going to turn around and cl 
> > aim
> >            that this is
> >
> >            somehow relevant to the remaining 99% of the nation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            George Ou
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:43 AM
> >
> >            *To:* ip
> >
> >            *Subject:* [IP] Re: Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From: *"Savage, Christopher" <
> >
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>ChrisSavage () dwt com
> >
> >            <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>>
> >
> >
> >
> >            *Date: *February 11, 2010 8:27:39 AM EST
> >
> >
> >
> >            *To: *< <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> >
> >
> >
> >            *Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Google Plans to Build Ultra High- 
> > Speed
> >
> >            Broadband Networks*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Dave,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I’d add the following to Chuck’s points.  Suppose Goo 
> > gle
> >            goes big and
> >
> >            ends up serving 500,000 people.  At 2.5 people/household  
> > that’s
> >
> >            200,000 customers.  I don’t have the numbers handy but I
> >            suspect a
> >
> >            network with 200,000 customers would put them in the top  
> > 20
> >            network
> >
> >            operators in the country.  (Numbers fall off pretty  
> > steeply
> >            after
> >
> >            Verizon-AT&T-Qwest-Century-Comcast-TW-Cox-Cablevision- 
> > Charter-BrightHouse…)
> >
> >            Their experiment may be the worst flop of all time, but
> >            whatever they
> >
> >            learn will reasonably apply to a very large segment of the
> >            populace.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            For example, I recall that Loma Linda (a municipal fiber
> >            build) used
> >
> >            some UK-based inexpensive fiber-laying system using
> >            micro-trenches,
> >
> >            and fiber in some special sheathing to make it especially
> >            easy to
> >
> >            run.  A completely new network might be able to use such a
> >            system in a
> >
> >            way that an established network provider might not find
> >
> >            attractive.  If that process was cheap enough, and scaled
> >            well, that
> >
> >            would be very interesting information for the industry  
> > as a
> >            whole (not
> >
> >            to say regulators) to see.  (Cf. /The Innovator’s Dilem 
> > ma/).
> >             It would
> >
> >            imply that Chuck’s back-of-the-envelope cost estimates  
> > are
> >            high by a
> >
> >            nontrivial factor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            As another example, I have heard some strong network  
> > neutrality
> >
> >            proponents argue that over a reasonable planning period,  
> > the
> >            cost of
> >
> >            adding bandwidth to deal with the demands of the top 5% or
> >            1% or 0.1%
> >
> >            of users who send/receive massive amounts of data is
> >            actually cheaper
> >
> >            than the cost of deploying the systems needed to  
> > monitor, limit,
> >
> >            and/or bill for their usage.  This has always struck me  
> > as an
> >
> >            interesting, if a bit implausible and counterintuitive,
> >            assertion.  A
> >
> >            1 Gbps network might well provide a test of it.  (I am
> >            reminded here
> >
> >            of the survival approach of the 17-year cicadas that we  
> > get
> >            here in
> >
> >            the mid-Atlantic.  It’s called “predator  
> > satiation.”  With
> >            billions of
> >
> >            defenseless cicadas available, predators eat all of them
> >            they want,
> >
> >            and then get sick of them and mainly leave them alone – 
> >  with
> >            billions
> >
> >            still left.  Perhaps with currently available apps there
> >            really is an
> >
> >            upper limit to how much bandwidth any one person will use,
> >            i.e., maybe
> >
> >            it is possible to simply satiate the bandwidth “hogs 
> > ”.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I have to say – win, lose, or draw, Google’s proposal  
> > here
> >            is one of
> >
> >            the most */interesting /*things to happen in the business
> >            for quite
> >
> >            some time…
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Chris S.
> >
> >
> >
> >             
> > --- 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:56 AM
> >
> >            *To:* ip
> >
> >            *Subject:* [IP] Re: Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From: *"Charles Jackson" <
> >            <mailto:clj () jacksons net>clj () jacksons net
> >
> >            <mailto:clj () jacksons net>>
> >
> >
> >
> >            *Date: *February 10, 2010 9:47:32 PM EST
> >
> >
> >
> >            *To: *"'Faulhaber, Gerald'" <
> >
> >             
> > <mailto:faulhabe () wharton upenn edu>faulhabe () wharton upenn edu
> >
> >            <mailto:faulhabe () wharton upenn edu>>
> >
> >
> >
> >            *Cc: *"'David Farber'" <  
> > <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net
> >
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> >
> >
> >
> >            *Subject: RE: [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Well, Google never claimed to be providing a real  
> > broadband
> >
> >            distribution service or significant infrastructure.   
> > Rather,
> >            they
> >
> >            proposed an experiment.  On Google’s blog, they claim t 
> > hat
> >            they are
> >
> >            looking to offer service to between 50,000 and 500,000
> >            people.   If we
> >
> >            assume 2.5 people per household, this works out to 20 to  
> > 200 K
> >
> >            households.  If we assume $1,000/passing, $1,000 more per
> >            active drop,
> >
> >            and 10% penetration, then passing 50 K people (20K subs)
> >            would cost
> >
> >            them $22 million.  I think they can afford that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Heck, they might learn enough about future or emerging
> >            consumer needs
> >
> >            that this experiment will be well worth the money.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            See
> >
> >            <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
> >            and
> >
> >            <http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi>http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi 
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            There’s also the political side.  If they pick a medium 
> >  sized
> >
> >            community (100 K pop), with above ground utilities (easy  
> > to
> >            build),
> >
> >            outside the snow and hurricane zones (no interruption of
> >
> >            construction), and a poor cable TV system and no FIOS,  
> > their
> >            service
> >
> >            could easily come out looking golden.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Making the experimental network “open” probably costs  
> > them
> >            little and
> >
> >            gives them another political plus.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* Faulhaber, Gerald  
> > [mailto:faulhabe () wharton upenn edu]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:15 PM
> >
> >            *To:* Charles Jackson
> >
> >            *Cc:* 'David Farber'
> >
> >            *Subject:* RE: [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Well, if we have a charitable organization willing to lose
> >            money on
> >
> >            broadband distribution, fantastic!  We’ll let search ad 
> > vertising
> >
> >            subsidize infrastructure.  I’m all for that; but then I
> >            don’t own any
> >
> >            Google stock.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            My point re: CLECs is that a firm actually needs to have  
> > real
> >
> >            experience in local distribution networks to make them  
> > work
> >            (i.e., run
> >
> >            with reasonable reliability, not break down due to weather
> >            and poor
> >
> >            outside plant, not have the fiber chewed up be squirrels,
> >            not have
> >
> >            repeaters used for target practice, all the boring stuff
> >            that network
> >
> >            guys know and Silicon Valley guys don’t), not just mone 
> > y to
> >            throw at
> >
> >            the problem.  When they’ve successfully trenched 5,000  
> > miles
> >            of fiber
> >
> >            under city and suburban streets and it actually operates  
> > for
> >            a year
> >
> >            without failure, then they might have some network cred.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber
> >
> >            <http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~faulhabe>
> >
> >
> >
> >            Business and Public Policy Dept.
> >
> >
> >
> >            Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
> >
> >
> >
> >            Philadelphia, PA 19104
> >
> >
> >
> >            /Professor Emeritus of Law/
> >
> >
> >
> >            /University of Pennsylvania/
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* Charles Jackson [mailto:clj () jacksons net]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:56 PM
> >
> >            *To:* Faulhaber, Gerald
> >
> >            *Cc:* 'David Farber'
> >
> >            *Subject:* RE: [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I’m game to sharing this exchange with the IP audience.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            My response to Gerry’s response is that the proper mode 
> > l for
> >            Google’s
> >
> >            experiment is not a CLEC (funded by investors trying to  
> > get
> >            their
> >
> >            money back) but more like “Green Acres” in which  
> > Oliver Wendell
> >
> >            Douglas can get by even if he doesn’t make any money
> >            farming.  If
> >
> >            Google is willing to lose a little money (in Google terms)
> >            and puts a
> >
> >            good manager on the project, they can provide first-rate
> >            service.  If
> >
> >            they choose a market that is currently underserved, they
> >            could end up
> >
> >            looking pretty good.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            If they offered service to 100,000 people, that would be
> >            about 40K
> >
> >            households.  If they got 10% penetration, that’s only 4K
> >            customers.
> >
> >            It doesn’t take a lot of resources to give good service 
> >  to 4K
> >
> >            customers—especially if you are willing to lose $2 for  
> > every
> >            $1 billed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            ======================
> >
> >
> >
> >            Charles L. Jackson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            301 656 8716    desk phone
> >
> >
> >
> >            888 469 0805    fax
> >
> >
> >
> >            301 775 1023    mobile
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            PO Box 221
> >
> >
> >
> >            Port Tobacco, MD 20677
> >
> >
> >
> >             
> > --- 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* Faulhaber, Gerald  
> > [mailto:faulhabe () wharton upenn edu]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:05 PM
> >
> >            *To:* Charles Jackson
> >
> >            *Cc:* David Farber
> >
> >            *Subject:* RE: [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Chuck [Dave, I’m happy to have this exchange on IP, if  
> > Chuck
> >            agrees]--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I mis-spoke.  I meant experience in running a local  
> > distribution
> >
> >            network, and was a bit sloppy in not being specific.  But
> >            running a
> >
> >            long-haul network is worlds apart from running a local
> >            distribution
> >
> >            network.  Evidence?  Many of the CLECs /circa/ 2000 were  
> > run by
> >
> >            redundant AT&T operations guys, who thought they  
> > understood
> >            networks.
> >
> >            Turns out they were clueless when it came to local
> >            distribution, and
> >
> >            most went belly-up (helped along by recalcitrant ILECs of
> >            course).
> >
> >            But these guys went into a business they didn’t underst 
> > and while
> >
> >            thinking they did understand it.  Running Google’s CDN  
> > is no
> >
> >            experience for local distribution.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber
> >
> >            <http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~faulhabe>
> >
> >
> >
> >            Business and Public Policy Dept.
> >
> >
> >
> >            Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
> >
> >
> >
> >            Philadelphia, PA 19104
> >
> >
> >
> >            /Professor Emeritus of Law/
> >
> >
> >
> >            /University of Pennsylvania/
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* Charles Jackson [mailto:clj () jacksons net]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:47 PM
> >
> >            *To:*  <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net
> >            <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >
> >            *Cc:* Faulhaber, Gerald
> >
> >            *Subject:* RE: [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband
> >
> >            Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Gerry wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >            Google has never run a carrier-grade local networking  
> > business
> >
> >            (besides its trivial Mountainside, CA WiFi network) and  
> > has zero
> >
> >            experience in networking.  Networking is a very different
> >            business
> >
> >            from anything Google has done before . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Google’s Internet backbone appears to be the second or  
> > third
> >            biggest
> >
> >            backbone.  Google runs an ENORMOUS network.   A recent
> >            presentation
> >
> >            stated that Google accounts for about 5% of Internet
> >            traffic—behind
> >
> >            only Level 3 and Global Crossing.
> >
> >            See
> >            http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_ObserveReport_N47_Mon.pdf 
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Google may not be an ILEC or cable company, but the
> >            organization must
> >
> >            possess a significant (enormous?) amount of networking
> >            knowledge.
> >
> >            They haven’t been doing access networks—but there are
> >            probably very
> >
> >            few entities in the world that spend more on routers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            If Google chooses to offer service in a community that  
> > has a
> >            poor
> >
> >            cable company and no FiOS, they should find it easy to  
> > look
> >            golden
> >
> >            (assuming that they are willing to lose a few hundred
> >            dollars per
> >
> >            household passed.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >            (Charles L. Jackson)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >             
> > --- 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >            *From:* Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> >
> >            *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:50 PM
> >
> >            *To:* ip
> >
> >            *Subject:* [IP] Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            I agree with Gerry. Djf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >               *From:* Gerry Faulhaber <
> >
> >               <mailto:gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>gerry- 
> > faulhaber () mchsi com
> >
> >               <mailto:gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>>
> >
> >               *Date:* February 10, 2010 5:59:59 PM EST
> >
> >               *To:*  <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net
> >
> >               <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >
> >               *Subject:* *Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed
> >            Broadband Networks*
> >
> >
> >
> >               Dave [for IP]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >               I am a huge enthusiast for more broadband competition  
> > and
> >            welcome
> >
> >               Google into the business.  I have always wondered why  
> > Google
> >
> >               (whose market cap = $179B compared to total US cable
> >            industry =
> >
> >               $95B) whined incessantly about the domestic BB  
> > providers
> >            when it
> >
> >               could well have entered the market itself.  It  
> > certainly
> >            has the
> >
> >               financial strength to do so, and has for quite some  
> > time.
> >             Its
> >
> >               entry (which this announcement perhaps heralds) is long
> >            overdue,
> >
> >               in my book.  But this is merely a blog announcement,  
> > and
> >            talk is
> >
> >               cheap.  Let's be cautious about how much we read into  
> > this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >               But let's be serious; Google has never run a
> >            carrier-grade local
> >
> >               networking business (besides its trivial  
> > Mountainside, CA
> >            WiFi
> >
> >               network) and has zero experience in networking.
> >             Networking is a
> >
> >               very different business from anything Google has done
> >            before, and
> >
> >               my guess is that unless they are in for the long haul,
> >            they will
> >
> >               get their head handed to them...by customers who are
> >            unwilling to
> >
> >               tolerate poorly performing networks.  They have also  
> > shown
> >
> >               themselves cack-handed at dealing with the politics  
> > of local
> >
> >               distribution.  Remember the Google/Earthlink San
> >            Francisco Free
> >
> >               WiFi network proposal?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >               Google, I certainly encourage you to get into this
> >            business.  But
> >
> >               this ain't no search engine biz; running carrier-grade
> >            networks
> >
> >               for commercial and residential customers is tough and
> >            demanding
> >
> >               and presents challenges you have never encountered
> >            before.  I hope
> >
> >               you are up to it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >               Professor Emeritus Gerald Faulhaber
> >
> >
> >
> >               Wharton School and Law School,  University of  
> > Pennsylvania
> >
> >
> >
> >                   ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >
> >
> >                   *From:* Dave Farber <mailto:dave () farber net>
> >
> >
> >
> >                   *To:* ip <mailto:ip () v2 listbox com>
> >
> >
> >
> >                   *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:25 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >                   *Subject:* [IP] WSJ TECHNOLOGY ALERT: Google  
> > Plans to
> >            Build
> >
> >                   Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                   Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >                       *From:* "charles.brownstein" <
> >
> >                        
> > <mailto:charles.brownstein () verizon net>charles.brownstein () verizon net
> >
> >                       <mailto:charles.brownstein () verizon net>>
> >
> >                       *Date:* February 10, 2010 1:18:05 PM EST
> >
> >                       *To:* David Farber <
> >
> >                       <mailto:dave () farber net>dave () farber net
> >
> >                       <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> >
> >                       *Subject:* *Fwd: WSJ TECHNOLOGY ALERT: Google
> >            Plans to
> >
> >                       Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                               __________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >                               Technology Alert
> >
> >
> >
> >                               from The Wall Street Journal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                               Google plans to build and test  
> > broadband
> >            networks
> >
> >                               that could deliver speeds more than  
> > 100 times
> >
> >                               faster than what most Americans use.  
> > The
> >            plan,
> >
> >                               announced on a company blog, could  
> > expand
> >            Google's
> >
> >                               position on the Internet by answering
> >            consumer
> >
> >                               demands for ever-faster connections.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                               <http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertTECH 
> > >http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertTECH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                   Archives
> >            <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> >
> >                   <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                   <http://www.listbox.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >            Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> >
> >            <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            <http://www.listbox.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> >
> >            <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            <http://www.listbox.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> >
> >            <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            <http://www.listbox.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> >
> >        <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>     
> > [Powered by
> >        Listbox]
> >
> >        <http://www.listbox.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.listbox.com>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com