BF2S Forums UK promised 'super-fast broadband'

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Many are in better positions than Google to undertake these projects. They're typically carried out by local and national utilities with monopolies on critical infrastructure, right of way in the ground, and deployment and development patterns that harmonise. It's easy to throw in a fiber run alongside the power lines or water mains you're digging in.

This is the reason Google has very specific requirements for the communities they are considering. They are trying to expose the bs fcc regualtions and the copper standards that are in place. Google isn't doing this to make money. Their business model is simply "use more internet". They would be quite happy if (other) ISP's provided excellent service.

This exchange is based in a notion you presented contending that Google are doing this to prove that the model works. The model does not work if it cannot turn a profit.

There is so much unexplored area that it is impossible to know this. Give me the specific reasons and examples that led you to this conclusion.

What are you trying to convey here? We're trying to determine whether you're saying that Google is doing this to prove that the concept works, or that Google is doing this to make a point to the FCC.

Kmarion wrote:

mik wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Opposition from other providers maybe. People want this and they are vocalizing it to their political leaders. There is a massive courting going on right now for google. If politicians oppose it you better believe google will let the world know. It would be the end of local political careers if they stand in the way. THAT is influence.

I'm neither talking about political, nor competitive opposition. I'm talking talking about all of the issues that they'll have to overcome that have brought down similar projects in the past. They're technological, and they're content rights-based.

Again, lets talk about specific examples. The point was google has the technical capacity/ability (as well as other advantages) that most don't.

I've worked for a couple of years with delivering content to open networks, and I've done so with some of the best people in the industry. It is not easy to make it work from a technical perspective, but it is secondary to the business challenges. My former employer was barely able to turn a profit on delivering IPTV through open networks. Technical issues aside, we were delivering five different products to five different open networks because of content licensing demands from networks and providers. One open network outright disallowed channels offered by a major content provider after the providers stated demanding licensing fees from the open network operators for the right to even allow third party ISPs to serve their already-licensed content through the open network. There's also a massive issue with lawful interception that none of the major hardware providers were able to get working in a manner that would satisfy government demands.

I'm not claiming that it is impossible. Few things are. What I'm saying is that these deployments have failed time and time again due to legal and technical complexity, and that it might not work for Google either.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

There is so much unexplored area that it is impossible to know this. Give me the specific reasons and examples that led you to this conclusion.

What are you trying to convey here? We're trying to determine whether you're saying that Google is doing this to prove that the concept works, or that Google is doing this to make a point to the FCC.

Exactly what part of give me examples don't you understand?

First you say that Google has one goal, then you say that google has a different goal, then you ask for examples when I ask which of the two you're asking about. If you want examples, ask for them in the part of our exchange that deals with the viability of the design, not the part of our exchange that deals with Google's motivation in investing in it.

Kmarion wrote:

You've stood by the conclusion that this will not work because "similar projects" have failed in the past.

I suspected that this is what you were going at, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I have not stood by a conclusion that this design won't work. I have stood by a suspicion that it might not work.

Kmarion wrote:

I'd like to see some examples. I'm aware of the content providing issue. I have more faith in googles ability to solve these problems than any other company. They've dealt with major players in the past.

I've given you an example. If you want more, consult Google. Yes, I have more faith in Google's ability to solve content licensing issues as well, as I have said in a previous post. That does not mean that they absolutely will be successful.

Kmarion wrote:

mik wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Again, lets talk about specific examples. The point was google has the technical capacity/ability (as well as other advantages) that most don't.

I've worked for a couple of years with delivering content to open networks, and I've done so with some of the best people in the industry. It is not easy to make it work from a technical perspective, but it is secondary to the business challenges. My former employer was barely able to turn a profit on delivering IPTV through open networks. Technical issues aside, we were delivering five different products to five different open networks because of content licensing demands from networks and providers. One open network outright disallowed channels offered by a major content provider after the providers stated demanding licensing fees from the open network operators for the right to even allow third party ISPs to serve their already-licensed content through the open network. There's also a massive issue with lawful interception that none of the major hardware providers were able to get working in a manner that would satisfy government demands.

I'm not claiming that it is impossible. Few things are. What I'm saying is that these deployments have failed time and time again due to legal and technical complexity, and that it might not work for Google either.

Have you read up on the new broadband initiative? This is a constantly developing issue. My original point was that this is not quite the same as past attempts. I'd still like to see documented failure of a plan similar to what google is trying to do. It would be interesting to read.

Why would I need to read FCC politics to understand the nature of open FTTH networks? You continue to ask for documentation and examples, but you provide little to nothing tangible on why Google's plan is different. As far as documentation of failure, you'd be naive to believe that companies have any reason to document their failures for public consumption.

Can you tone down the zeal a little bit? You're arguing this in a pretty hostile tone, and I really have no interest in having to clarify malicious misinterpretations.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-03-24 17:04:39)