Interesting People mailing list archives
re Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:25:53 -0500
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 mustbegin. 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 thecost 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 freeservice 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, eventhough 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 expectstheir 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 veryaccepting 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 callsand 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 tomaintain the value of their services and their bits. Google incentivesare 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 thatanalysis assigns a monthly charge to VoIP – very old school. This goesright to the points I made in http://rmf.vc/?n=IPTelecomCosts.If Google isn’t constrained by carrier architectures it could be v erycreative in finding ways to reduce costs and improve performance. Forexample it needn’t build a home-run distribution architecture. I canthink of a number of ways to reduce the costs of providing bit pathsamong homes and to reduce the cost of operating such facilities. If itisn’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 subscribemodel 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 amongthemselves.If we’re talking $5K/mile for example – is that the cost of 1 strand or100 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 thefactor 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 onthis 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 trenchesall 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 backhaulplus $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 berbuild) 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 plantcosts about 7 times more money and this is one of the majorreasonsQwest is avoiding fiber because 3 quarters of their homes useunderground plant while Verizon has the opposite ratios. Google is going to cherry pick fewer than 1% of homes that will be thecheapest/shortest aerial runs and communities with the leastonerousregulations. Then they’re going to turn around and cl aimthat 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- SpeedBroadband Networks* Dave,I’d add the following to Chuck’s points. Suppose Goo glegoes big andends up serving 500,000 people. At 2.5 people/household that’s200,000 customers. I don’t have the numbers handy but I suspect anetwork with 200,000 customers would put them in the top 20networkoperators in the country. (Numbers fall off pretty steeplyafterVerizon-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, thatwould be very interesting information for the industry as awhole (notto say regulators) to see. (Cf. /The Innovator’s Dilem ma/).It wouldimply that Chuck’s back-of-the-envelope cost estimates arehigh by a nontrivial factor.As another example, I have heard some strong network neutralityproponents argue that over a reasonable planning period, thecost 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 cheaperthan the cost of deploying the systems needed to monitor, limit,and/or bill for their usage. This has always struck me as aninteresting, if a bit implausible and counterintuitive, assertion. A 1 Gbps network might well provide a test of it. (I am reminded hereof the survival approach of the 17-year cicadas that we gethere inthe mid-Atlantic. It’s called “predator satiation.” Withbillions of defenseless cicadas available, predators eat all of them they want,and then get sick of them and mainly leave them alone – withbillions still left. Perhaps with currently available apps there really is an upper limit to how much bandwidth any one person will use, i.e., maybeit is possible to simply satiate the bandwidth “hogs ”.)I have to say – win, lose, or draw, Google’s proposal hereis 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 broadbanddistribution service or significant infrastructure. Rather,theyproposed an experiment. On Google’s blog, they claim t hatthey are looking to offer service to between 50,000 and 500,000 people. If weassume 2.5 people per household, this works out to 20 to 200 Khouseholds. 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 sizedcommunity (100 K pop), with above ground utilities (easy tobuild), outside the snow and hurricane zones (no interruption ofconstruction), and a poor cable TV system and no FIOS, theirservice could easily come out looking golden.Making the experimental network “open” probably costs themlittle 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 onbroadband distribution, fantastic! We’ll let search ad vertisingsubsidize 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 realexperience 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 networkguys know and Silicon Valley guys don’t), not just mone y tothrow atthe problem. When they’ve successfully trenched 5,000 milesof fiberunder city and suburban streets and it actually operates fora 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 forGoogle’sexperiment is not a CLEC (funded by investors trying to gettheirmoney back) but more like “Green Acres” in which Oliver WendellDouglas 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 4Kcustomers—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 NetworksChuck [Dave, I’m happy to have this exchange on IP, if Chuckagrees]--I mis-spoke. I meant experience in running a local distributionnetwork, and was a bit sloppy in not being specific. But running a long-haul network is worlds apart from running a local distributionnetwork. Evidence? Many of the CLECs /circa/ 2000 were run byredundant AT&T operations guys, who thought they understoodnetworks. 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 whilethinking they did understand it. Running Google’s CDN is noexperience 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 zeroexperience in networking. Networking is a very different business from anything Google has done before . . .Google’s Internet backbone appears to be the second or thirdbiggest 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. Seehttp://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 apoorcable company and no FiOS, they should find it easy to lookgolden (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 andwelcomeGoogle 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 providerswhen itcould well have entered the market itself. It certainlyhas thefinancial 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, andtalk ischeap. Let's be cautious about how much we read into this.But let's be serious; Google has never run a carrier-grade localnetworking business (besides its trivial Mountainside, CAWiFi 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 totolerate poorly performing networks. They have also shownthemselves cack-handed at dealing with the politics of localdistribution. 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 FaulhaberWharton 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 toBuild 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 JournalGoogle plans to build and test broadbandnetworksthat could deliver speeds more than 100 timesfaster than what most Americans use. Theplan,announced on a company blog, could expandGoogle's position on the Internet by answering consumer demands for ever-faster connections.<http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertTECH >http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertTECHArchives <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 byListbox] <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
Current thread:
- re Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks Dave Farber (Feb 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- re Google Plans to Build Ultra High-Speed Broadband Networks Dave Farber (Feb 13)