CAF? Until recently that was only opened to LECs, and the bar seemed very low for proving "service" in an area.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > LECS in the US generally get pretty low interest loans. And with ROR > regulation you are guaranteed that you can cover your costs. If your > revenue is deficient then the pooled USF and long distance access charges > are split up according to need. But no taxes are touched. Without ROR > regulation there would only be good utilities in cities. > > -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stewart > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:05 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? > > I hear the same thing in Canada all the time about the “taxpayers” funding > the ILEC’s …. yes, there has been subsidy and grants and other stuff over > the years but those phone networks were never actually *built* with > taxpayers dollars - some LEC’s got funding to expand into areas they > wouldn’t normally serve and stuff but that’s different in my opinion …. > > >> On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> Thing is, they are not throwing a wrench into rural ILECs they go only >> after low hanging fruit. >> And nobody has received ANY taxpayer money, the USF is a fee only applied >> to those using the PSTN. >> And that fee replaces the old AT&T line haul payment they got from MaBell >> back in the day. It was a replacement to make them whole. >> >> Rate or return regulation is 100 years old and has built a great nation. >> Just because you did not achieve pioneers preference by starting a railroad, >> gas company, electric company, bus line, truck line, airline, or telco, >> don't be a hater. >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:16 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave? >> >> They just need to generate enough revenue with Apps to keep their >> primary focus going. :) >> >> Wait, you're not in favor of them using their own personal cash to >> throw a wrench in the works of 1Mbps DSL LECs who have received >> billions upon billions of taxpayer money? >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Josh Luthman >> >> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>> >>> Google Apps is great but doesn't generate much money. Now Gmail kind of >>> does but it's mostly the ad revenue (their premier product). >>> >>> They've done decent things otherwise but I have a hard time respecting a >>> company that just uses tons of money to build a network with the >>> intention >>> of destroying other companies business. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2016 6:32 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> You have a very naive viewpoint of what they have accomplished. Look >>>> at how successful many of their projects have been! Not all will be >>>> hits, but the ones that have done well have done VERY well. >>>> >>>> They are also doing a lot of work with robotics, driverless cards, >>>> drone delivery, and a TON of medical research. Google "X" (secret >>>> projects / labs) will. >>>> >>>> Many of their things have spun off into their own Alphabet projects, >>>> so that they require each one to fund themselves. Smart business >>>> strategy. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman >>>> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>> > Who is we? I think Google turned to a garbage generator, look at all >>>> > the >>>> > cancelled projects. >>>> > >>>> > Josh Luthman >>>> > Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> > Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> > 1100 Wayne St >>>> > Suite 1337 >>>> > Troy, OH 45373 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Aug 11, 2016 6:24 PM, "Brian Webster" <i...@wirelessmapping.com> >>>> > 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 >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >> >
