All internet roads end in porn
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave?
What eventually happens to most Internet discussion?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:14:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave?
What happened to this thread
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Aug 12, 2016 8:12 AM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
I haven't, no, because I'm not a teenager or pre-teen looking to show my
genitals to another teenager or pre-teen. That's what Snapchat is... underage
dick pics.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <lists.wavel...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:06:09 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave?
Mike,
Have you ever used Snapchat? I mean for anything other than sending pics of
genitals? lol. Its very addicting, almost like facebook or worse. And theres
alot more on it than genitals. Actually i only seen a genital pic once and that
was a friend of mine was sending it to his girlfriend and accidentally checked
my name instead of hers, (both start with the same letter).
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
"and the way texting/FB/Instagram is compared to Snapchat."
How people communicate is compared to how people send each other pictures
of their genitals?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Travis Johnson" <t...@ida.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:50:22 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google fiber going microwave?
So... Google is going to do what WISP's have been doing for 20 years
(before they were even called WISPs). That's hilarious.
"Fiber! Fiber! Fiber! That is the answer to everything. We are doing
fiber everywhere!"
"Fiber is expensive, and we can never get an ROI with that model...
let's look at wireless."
I'm still laughing... a company that size, with those resources, and yet
they still seem to be clueless sometimes. I'm in agreement, I doubt
Google will even be around in 20 years. I own several e-commerce
companies (multi-million dollar ones), and we don't spend a dime with
Google. One company spends $5k/month with Facebook and it generates
$400k in sales, per month.
Google is becoming "old school"... the same way email is compared to
texting... and the way texting/FB/Instagram is compared to Snapchat.
These companies get big, really fast... but the problem is, that means
someone else can do the same thing.
Travis
On 8/11/2016 6:26 PM, Robert Andrews 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
