It took a long while for MS to hit the slippery slope.... And in worth
at the time, MS was better off than google... Yes search is growing
like crazy still, but they see the scary part of the curve ahead.. It's
a great company but is it IBM great? is it PG great? That is the proof
of decades of success... But that's because I'm old now and respect
success/time a million times more than I did even when I was 40... In
10+ year of serious $$$ outlay they haven't gotten a success 1/10th of
search... and their bigger successes at even that levels have been
purchases...
On 08/11/2016 05:30 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/10/investing/google-alphabet-all-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 <i...@avantwireless.com> 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
www.Broadband-Mapping.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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: af@afmug.com
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
<par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
Wait until they experience ducting ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Prince
To: af@afmug.com
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
