If you are worried, start entering your address... and your neighbor's... and their dog's.... https://fiber.google.com/cities/oklahomacity/ can't hurt to help them get good numbers.

NEW on 8-9-16: Google to likely update its technology before continuing its Google Fiber installations:
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fiber-gets-put-on-hold-in-san-jose/

Google Fiber gets put on hold in San Jose (http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fiber-gets-put-on-hold-in-san-jose/)

Months after city officials approved major construction to bring Google Fiber to the city, Google is delaying the San Jose rollout to explore a more cost-effective strategy.


Months after city officials approved major construction to bring Google Fiber to the city, Google is delaying the San Jose rollout to explore a more cost-effective strategy.

Google Fiber announced more than a year ago that it was exploring ways to bring its super-speedy internet service to San Jose, California.

Now, months after city officials approved the major construction needed to make it happen, the subsidiary of Google parent company Alphabet is hesitating.

According to a report Tuesday in the San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30221848/google-fibers-silicon-valley-rollout-is-delayed-while), officials with Google Fiber informed at least two cities in the Silicon Valley region that they're putting the rollout on hold to explore cheaper alternatives. Those alternatives likely include a stronger focus on aerial installation, especially coming after Google Fiber's purchase of the point-to-point internet service provider Webpass (http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fiber-buys-webpass-to-speed-up-broadband-deployment-in-cities/) in June. Webpass uses a combination of rooftop wireless networks connected to high-speed fiber connections, and promises to deliver speeds of up to 1 gigbit per second, all at a fraction of the time and cost commitment that comes with building a traditional fiber-based network. Webpass serves business clients in cities like San Francisco and New York.

Google Fiber is already up and running in seven US cities, with several more listed as "upcoming" or "potential" expansion sites. San Jose area officials said that Google has assured them that the company remains committed to the deployment, the Mercury News reported, though the delay could push back rollout at least six months.

"We're continuing to work with city leaders to explore the possibility of bringing Google Fiber to the South Bay area," a Google spokesperson told CNET. "This means deploying the latest technologies in alignment with our product roadmap, while understanding local considerations and challenges, which takes time. The cities of San Jose, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have been great partners and we're thankful for the hard work that city leaders continue to do along the way."

Not a good sign that Google is having trouble keeping their costs down. Now it sounds like part of the network won't even use fiber?

I honestly don't care if it is fiber, wireless, or the packets are delivered by magical faeries from the land of Nod, it seems the speed is still there and the price still beats Cox without even trying. And if they want to focus on the wireless part for much of the 'backbone', then that just makes it that much easier. Instead of digging up roads and contractors drilling through water/sewage pipes, all they have to do is go up on the roof and install a small box. I spoke with Mustang's city manager and it seems Mustang really isn't doing much other than 'hoping' Google comes here, but the current process needs a LOT more cooperation than that. If the majority of the install process becomes asking a few local businesses for a couple square feet on the roof and adding yet another antenna to the many cell towers already around then progress will no longer be held up by city officials who don't want to do anything.

Not a good sign that Google is having trouble keeping their costs down. Now it sounds like part of the network won't even use fiber?

I think its the other way around - it isn't that Fiber costs are going up, it's that competing/newer technologies able to provide the same throughput are getting competitively cheaper.

Think about it - fiber optics isn't exactly new, and its always been relatively expensive. Specialized connectors, specific rules about installtions, bend radius to avoid breaks, lots of "finickiness" for lack of a better (or real) term. While that technolgoy has evolved pretty dramatically in the last 20 years, its still boots-on-the-ground installation and infrastructure. On the other hand, wireless technology and capability is growing all-but exponentially. It is almost certainly cheaper in certain instances to roll out a wireless infrastructure if it can bring the intended speeds.

I'm with stile99, the fiber is incidental to the service. I'd *prefer* fiber as it has a huge upside, but wireless does, too, so I'm willing to see how it unfolds.

I think its the other way around - it isn't that Fiber costs are going up, it's that competing/newer technologies able to provide the same throughput are getting competitively cheaper.

Think about it - fiber optics isn't exactly new, and its always been relatively expensive. Specialized connectors, specific rules about installtions, bend radius to avoid breaks, lots of "finickiness" for lack of a better (or real) term. While that technolgoy has evolved pretty dramatically in the last 20 years, its still boots-on-the-ground installation and infrastructure. On the other hand, wireless technology and capability is growing all-but exponentially. It is almost certainly cheaper in certain instances to roll out a wireless infrastructure if it can bring the intended speeds.

I'm with stile99, the fiber is incidental to the service. I'd *prefer* fiber as it has a huge upside, but wireless does, too, so I'm willing to see how it unfolds.

Wireless has its limits, if I remember correctly we are running out of frequencies at an alarming rate. It does have a physically limitation -- the air and the frequency of waves it can support is limited.

Wireless has its limits, if I remember correctly we are running out of frequencies at an alarming rate. It does have a physically limitation -- the air and the frequency of waves it can support is limited.

Well, everything has limits...doesn't take away from the possibility Google is finding cheaper ways to deliver its desired throughput without the expense of a fiber plant...that's all. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm still in the "When-I-get-the-notice-that-Google-service-is-available-Ill-drop-Cox-so-fast-the-air-will-crackle" club.

This'll be me the day Google comes to my area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmLfQLFgzHM

I just found Googles fcc filing on this. They are requesting the ability to test this Wireless system in 24 different locations, okc being one of them.

They just acquired Webpass which has proprietary wireless technology.

They were just about to start digging in San Jose then said they will be on a 6-month hold to do wireless testing, but remain committed to rolling out the service. Like OKC, San Jose is still listed as a "potential" GF city but like OKC, there have already been a bunch of agreements ironed out to make this happen.

I suspect this may slightly delay the initial launch in OKC but would probably increase the speed at which they spread the service throughout the community.

As mentioned, OKC is one of the 24 test cities for the new wireless approach, so Google continues to make substantial investment here.

They just acquired Webpass which has proprietary wireless technology.

They were just about to start digging in San Jose then said they will be on a 6-month hold to do wireless testing, but remain committed to rolling out the service. Like OKC, San Jose is still listed as a "potential" GF city but like OKC, there have already been a bunch of agreements ironed out to make this happen.

I suspect this may slightly delay the initial launch in OKC but would probably increase the speed at which they spread the service throughout the community.

As mentioned, OKC is one of the 24 test cities for the new wireless approach, so Google continues to make substantial investment here.

Makes complete sense that they are integrating new technology along with the deployment.

Interesting to note, in the San Jose Mercury News article about this it said that Google had hired a bunch of workers and were set to start digging within a week, then told them all to stand down for 6 months.

San Jose is listed as a "potential" city for GF, just like OKC. So clearly even when they are on the verge of roll-out they still show cities as "potential".

Does anyone know how close to actual deployment we are here? I seem to recall hearing that they wanted to be able to begin serving downtown by the end of the year, but I really don't know how official that was or if that was merely a dream... :P

I don't think we ever really knew and probably will not know until it's almost ready to happen.

They have to hire a bunch of people to do this, apart from the handful they have already brought on board.

I imagine we'll get wind when they start to staff up and at the same time Google will be feeding the Oklahomans denials and claiming they are still in evaluation mode.

Here's a new article posted earlier today from CNET (http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fcc-filing-hints-at-high-speed-wireless-plans/). It doesn't explain much more than the CNET article I posted on 8-9-16.

http://www.cnet.com/news/google-fcc-filing-hints-at-high-speed-wireless-plans/

In the FCC filing (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=180386&x=), Oklahoma City is listed as one of the 24 "potential test locations" for the new wireless internet systems.

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=180386&x=

Oklahoma City should be proud to be listed among the 24 test areas culled by Google. We've been selected from among the most progressive cities in America.

Oklahoma City is listed as one of the 24 "potential test locations" for the new wireless internet systems.

I volunteer. How do I become a trusted tester, Google? I'll do it.

Wonder how this affects the TV side of it though. If you can only get internet through it, that's fine. I still want to help test. I can put up with Dish for a little while longer, the main benefit is telling Cox where to shove it, especially since according to my logs there was an outage early this morning. OK, fine, I was sleeping at the time, but still.

tl;dr: Pick me, Google! Pick me! I'm your Mustang Beta Tester.

Google already has signed agreements with all the national cable content providers to provide for its existing customers. Likely, Google will offer its own streaming service to those subscribing to its new wireless technology. You will also be able to pick from two existing streaming services, Sling TV and Playstation Vue. I sampled Sling TV for a free month and now subscribe to Playstation Vue. Both are excellent options and worked well for me. I will probably switch to Sling TV when basketball season arrives, since I've read that it now provides Fox Sports Oklahoma to our state. (It didn't when I sampled it 6 months ago.) Playstation Vue, as of yet, has several Fox Regional sports channels, but not Fox Sports Oklahoma.

I've been able to log into the fox sports go app on my fire tv and fox sports oklahoma is displayed in the app. Hopefully it will still be that way when Football and basketball starts again. For Sooners and Thunder games.

I've been able to log into the fox sports go app on my fire tv and fox sports oklahoma is displayed in the app. Hopefully it will still be that way when Football and basketball starts again. For Sooners and Thunder games.

Thanks for the tip. I also use a Fire TV box to connect to Playstation Vue & now I have Fox Sports Oklahoma (and ESPN 3 live streams). Hurray!

FYI Cox has begun to target google fiber areas - I noticed the Fenwick neighborhood south of 178th and N. Penn is having gigablast deployed, possibly because of the news here about the initial fiber hut location? I live across the street so still hoping to get some side action. lol.

Hoping whatever new wireless technology google is testing will be for rural areas (OKC has a lot of these) and not any of the main customers. Wireless would be a downgrade from DOCSIS 3.0 cable!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-high-speed-web-plans-hit-snags-1471193165

http://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-high-speed-web-plans-hit-snags-1471193165

That's more than a little disappointing to read that story. I really thought Google was allocating the fiber business down to more "boots on the ground" companies that knew how to handle (or at least had the basics of) infrastructure, but it looks a lot more organic than that. And I darned sure don't see a city like OKC being willing to offer to build Google's fiber plant for them, any more than they'd build out one for Cox. Oh, well, I'm holding out hope we'll get it anyway. Cox can't last forever.

FYI Cox has begun to target google fiber areas - I noticed the Fenwick neighborhood south of 178th and N. Penn is having gigablast deployed, possibly because of the news here about the initial fiber hut location? I live across the street so still hoping to get some side action. lol.

Hoping whatever new wireless technology google is testing will be for rural areas (OKC has a lot of these) and not any of the main customers. Wireless would be a downgrade from DOCSIS 3.0 cable!

And another discovery... AT&T is offering gigapower fiber in my neighborhood O_O - Called Cox, they have no timeline for me. So regardless of whatever google fiber does, we are already seeing benefits.

Cox came by and gun some holes in my yard today to run new fiber.

13059

Cox came by and gun some holes in my yard today to run new fiber.

13059

What neighborhood, if you don't mind me asking? Just curious if I'll get it anytime soon in The Village.

Cox has had contractors working in Valencia for the past week. Evidently our house is right next to one of the central points of their network because the crews and some large equipment have not left the area behind our house. I wonder if they will raise the price or if this is just to compete with Google.

I'm in Valencia as well, they've been busy in our neighborhood. Not surprising with the Google Hut planned near 178th & Penn.

Cox has had contractors working in Valencia for the past week. Evidently our house is right next to one of the central points of their network because the crews and some large equipment have not left the area behind our house. I wonder if they will raise the price or if this is just to compete with Google.

February and the annual Cox price hike will be here before you know it.

Cox installing gigapower in Valencia and Copper whatever and Fenwick... I expect Silverhawk would be next, which is why I went month-to-month on my AT&T gigapower install which was just activated. Ha!

Thanks google for the competition :) Lazy AT&T and Cox needed a kick in the head.

:/

https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/25/google-to-pause-its-fiber-rollout/?sr_source=Facebook

Luckily, it doesn't look like OKC will be impacted since it was not listed in the list of cities.


Nor will it impact places where the company has already confirmed Fiber's rollout -- including San Francisco, Irvine, Huntsville and San Antonio. Cities like Chicago, Dallas, Portland, Tampa and San Diego, however, will not be so lucky.

Hopefully OKC had already at least made the short list; just full implementation hasn't yet commenced. I think this might be the case given they have hired staff in OKC who is/has been working with the city and they've already installed fiber hut(s). ....

Is OKC officially listed as U/C? I thought they just left out OKC because it is a smaller city. I thought they had plans to go into a lot of other cites.

Well, this is depressing news. OKC is listed as being part of the layoffs and being put on hold (AKA, not going to happen).

http://gizmodo.com/google-fiber-halts-operations-in-ten-cities-1788214992

https://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-bet.html?m=1

The writing was on the wall once they started talking about pivoting towards wireless technology. At the end of the day they couldn't get the costs under control when their competition has a head start on them and are not afraid to look like the bad guy with their higher costs to the customer. It wouldnt surprise me if Google eventu ally sells off their fiber network in a few years.

Im not really optimistic about their wireless plans either. There is still a lot of work to be done and it's not like Google is the only ones working on it.

The good thing is that it did put some pressure on ATT and Cox to increase their speeds. Too bad that doesn't bring costs down.

Looks like problems for Google Fiber, as they attempt to transition to wireless due to cost....

http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-bet.html

The writing was on the wall once they started talking about pivoting towards wireless technology. At the end of the day they couldn't get the costs under control when their competition has a head start on them and are not afraid to look like the bad guy with their higher costs to the customer. It wouldnt surprise me if Google eventu ally sells off their fiber network in a few years.

Im not really optimistic about their wireless plans either. There is still a lot of work to be done and it's not like Google is the only ones working on it.

The good thing is that it did put some pressure on ATT and Cox to increase their speeds. Too bad that doesn't bring costs down.

I don't know why everyone else calls the aim towards wireless the final nail in the coffin while I consider it the future. Maybe I have a touch of Pollyannaism (something I'm not usually accused of having), but how is it not obvious, in the sense that a bad neon sign is, with the flashing and the buzzing, that this is a good thing? Imagine two options. Google can go to a city and say hey, we want to lay down some fiber. The city, of course, wants money. It is a time-consuming process, one made even longer by the incumbents doing anything and everything they can possibly think of to throw a wrench into the works, including frivolous lawsuits. In areas like OKC, where there is a small workforce, the incumbents can go to the city and make vague threats along the lines of "How many of your residents do we employ? Sure would be a shame to have to close that center...". And I could go on. Or option two. Google can go to a handful of businesses and say "Hey, we'll pay you a stipend to allow us to put this shoebox on your roof.".

And what the hell kind of statement is "There is still a lot of work to be done and it's not like Google is the only ones working on it." anyway? I sure HOPE they're not the only ones working on it, giving the incumbents a de facto monopoly is what has gotten us into this mess. You yourself then follow this statement with the acknowledgement that even the bare threat of competition has forced Cox and AT&T to pretend to care about the customer. We've discussed it plenty already, the local 7-11 stores don't care for years, one company...ONE...comes to the area and forces them to wake up. I just can't stress how much of a good thing it is that Google "isn't the only one working on it" and how fervently I pray that that remains true. If it turns out you are correct, you can kiss those speeds (that AT&T is selling but not delivering, apparently) goodbye, and you better open up your wallet, too. Cox has bucked the tradition of a February raise and is right now increasing rates.

tl;dr: Wireless isn't the death of Google's high speed internet, it is the savior.

tl;dr: Wireless isn't the death of Google's high speed internet, it is the savior.

I *hope* that's true, but I also tend to gravitate toward the middle of two extremes. The reality is that we aren't going to get another *physical* alternative to Cox, ATT, et al. Reality is that wireless has its own issues. Given a choice of comparable bandwidth for more core network connection, I'd darned sure prefer a hard cable (regardless of the media type, be it copper or fiber).

It is clear that Google is discovering that, no matter how technically superior fiber is, laying out a plant still amounts to *lots* of physical, boots-on-the-ground work, dealing with bureaucracies, competitors, politicians, all of which implies cost, and as wireless tech improves, the necessity of the groundwork lessens. So, in that vein, you're right - wireless is an increasingly legitimate alternative to physical. But when it comes to my core connection to the rest of the Internet, I sure have a preference for physical media. Put a different way, wireless works great, until it doesn't. And I think the universe of possible reasons explaining why a wireless net might fail is much larger than that of the physical media variety. My current frustrations with my new wireless webcam are just too much a case-in-point.

Reality going forward will be a combination of the two, but I also think those who need higher reliability will opt for a physical solution for their core service. JMHO.

Looks like problems for Google Fiber, as they attempt to transition to wireless due to cost...


key section imo:


For most of our “potential Fiber cities (https://fiber.google.com/newcities/#viewcities)” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches. We’re ever grateful to these cities for their ongoing partnership and patience, and we’re confident we’ll have an opportunity to resume our partnership discussions once we’ve advanced our technologies and solutions. In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base.

key section imo:

Yup. Digging trenches and negotiating right-of-way and dealing with cranky existing franchise holders is more bureaucratic and political than Google wants to deal with, on top of the boots-on-the-ground expense. Sucks for OKC IMHO. I'm not sold on wireless as the core for my broadband.

I'm not sold on wireless as the core for my broadband.

To be clear, I'm not looking for wireless to be the core for a couple decades, at least. However, it's an all-but-perfect solution to the 'last mile'. A hub, a hut, a dome, a node, whatever you want to call it, will still be the core. This will still require laying down some cable. Copper, fiber, silly string, whatever. But laying the cable to that one site and then delivering the signal via a line of sight 'connection' will be much much easier than tearing up residential neighborhoods.

And remember, wireless delivery of information is not anywhere near a new technology, quite the opposite. Without knowing the average age of the users here, I would dare say the vast majority of the people reading this were watching television before cable became the huge monolith that it is now. Not only that, some have moved past the cable age and gone BACK to getting their TV signal from an antenna. And on top of THAT, some are reading this on a phone or tablet right now.

To be clear, I'm not looking for wireless to be the core for a couple decades, at least. However, it's an all-but-perfect solution to the 'last mile'. A hub, a hut, a dome, a node, whatever you want to call it, will still be the core. This will still require laying down some cable. Copper, fiber, silly string, whatever. But laying the cable to that one site and then delivering the signal via a line of sight 'connection' will be much much easier than tearing up residential neighborhoods.

And remember, wireless delivery of information is not anywhere near a new technology, quite the opposite. Without knowing the average age of the users here, I would dare say the vast majority of the people reading this were watching television before cable became the huge monolith that it is now. Not only that, some have moved past the cable age and gone BACK to getting their TV signal from an antenna. And on top of THAT, some are reading this on a phone or tablet right now.

And cursing that antenna when it wasn't lined up right. :) And cursing even MORE when we realized it was a UHF station rather than VHF. :) ANd folks who pick up HD signals via UHF antennas even today will tell you that it can be very...problematic.

Yeah, I get that part, I see where you're coming from, but keep in mind that the tolerance level for a degraded signal was *drastically* higher then than it is now. A weak signal in 1975 might mean a less-than-ideal picture, but a weak signal now may mean the difference between usable service and no service at all. Just trying to keep it in perspective.

yep, not going to happen. AND not going to happen in more places than JUST Oklahoma City. .See LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-fiber-20161026-snap-story.html



In a statement, Barratt said Google Fiber will continue to provide service in a handful of cities where it's already operating, including Atlanta; Austin, Texas; and Charlotte, N.C.
But it will put further plans on hold in at least eight metropolitan areas where it's been holding exploratory talks with local officials. Those are Dallas; Tampa and Jacksonville, Fla.; Los Angeles and San Jose; Oklahoma City; Phoenix; and Portland, Ore.


Not just OKC peers but metros 4M+ as well (bolded).

Thought this was interesting. Wonder if this was the reason they pulled back, knowing wireless internet was coming. How great would this be? In the communications industry, this would be a HUGE game changer!!! I know that this doesn't put OKC back on the map yet.... but perhaps someday....


https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fiber-gets-new-ceo-sheds-more-staff-1487212944

Unfortunately, I can't read that article as I don't have a subscription. Can you summarize?

Alphabet Inc.’s high-speed internet business Google Fiber got a new chief executive on Wednesday—and shed several hundred employees—as it aims to soon start providing service wirelessly instead of relying on underground fiber-optic cables.

The new CEO of Access, the Alphabet unit that is mostly Google Fiber but also includes some small internet projects, is Greg McCray, a longtime broadband executive who most recently led broadband-technology firm Aero Communications Inc. in Michigan. Former Access chief Craig Barratt stepped down in October amid a shift in the company’s strategy.

A spokeswoman said several hundred Access employees were moving to new jobs at Google or other Alphabet companies. Google Fiber already cut 9% of its workforce when Mr. Barratt stepped down and suspended expansion plans in 11 U.S. metro areas.

The Access cuts on Wednesday affect more employees than the October layoffs, a person familiar with the matter said, and most affected employees are at the company’s California headquarters versus staff in cities where Google Fiber is rolling out.

The moves cap a tumultuous six months for Google Fiber in which it halted growth plans and acquired a competitor, all in pursuit of a new strategy that it hopes would ultimately cut costs and accelerate its expansion.

Google Fiber is now focused on developing a way to deliver high-speed internet to homes and businesses wirelessly, which would save it the trouble of digging up streets and lawns to lay fiber-optic cable. Its rollout of fiber-based internet service in a handful of U.S. cities since 2012 has been more expensive and time-consuming than expected.

“We want to bring Google Fiber to customers faster, so we’re focused on making deployment more efficient and less intrusive,” a spokeswoman said in an email.

However, the company continues to work on ways to lay fiber more efficiently as those cables are likely to be a component of any network.

To aid its shift to wireless, Google Fiber in July acquired Webpass Inc., another high-speed internet provider that mostly uses wireless technology.

Google Fiber and Webpass together serve more than a dozen U.S. metro areas, and a Google Fiber spokeswoman said the companies would continue that service and add new customers there. Google Fiber is also moving forward on previously announced plans to expand service to three other cities: Louisville, Ky.; Huntsville, Ala.; and San Antonio.

Thought this was interesting. Wonder if this was the reason they pulled back, knowing wireless internet was coming. How great would this be? In the communications industry, this would be a HUGE game changer!!! I know that this doesn't put OKC back on the map yet.... but perhaps someday....


https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fiber-gets-new-ceo-sheds-more-staff-1487212944

I think when Google talks wireless internet, their thinking more along the lines of one wireless antenna serving an entire apartment or condo building. This is what webpass the company that Google recently bought currently does. I know people want to be excited about an upcoming potential game changer, but I'm just not seeing it yet.

I'm still thinking the primary reason for dumping fiber is that they didn't care for the economics or having to negotiate with cities.

Thought this was interesting. Wonder if this was the reason they pulled back, knowing wireless internet was coming. How great would this be? In the communications industry, this would be a HUGE game changer!!! I know that this doesn't put OKC back on the map yet.... but perhaps someday....


https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fiber-gets-new-ceo-sheds-more-staff-1487212944

Wireless is great for coffee shops, and retail, but fiber would have been a physical backbone. I find this article very disappointing.

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of them going entirely wireless.

I'll repeat, I don't care what the name or delivery method is, I just want a viable alternative to Cox.

Google Fiber, Google Wireless, Google Fleet Of Trained Goldfish, I don't give a damn, if the service and speed is still as promised I'm still Mustang's first customer.

Same. I'm living in a single-person household, am not home 12-hours a day, and am probably only awake 6 hours of the 12 that I'm home, and I'm sick of paying 74.99 for fractionally used internet. When I look at my cox usage stats, I use 10% or less of my allotted bandwidth each month on average. I wouldn't care as much except that I'm paying $70/mo already for my cell phone which is a "mostly internet device" as it is. $145/mo for "constant internet access" is just too much. I'm seriously considering dropping cox when I move at the end of the month and seeing about rigging up my router to use my mobile internet as it's WAN source...

Wireless is great for coffee shops, and retail, but fiber would have been a physical backbone. I find this article very disappointing.

There would still be fiber backbone with their wireless approach.

It's not "entirely" wireless, as Panda said.

I would think being able to go wireless would allow them to connect a lot more customers. I'm actually thinking this might help those of us that have no other options than a WISP, especially since it's the same concept just with much great bandwidth potential.

I would think being able to go wireless would allow them to connect a lot more customers. I'm actually thinking this might help those of us that have no other options than a WISP, especially since it's the same concept just with much great bandwidth potential.

Yeah honestly I'm surprised they went the fiber route in the first place. I figured they were going to try to leapfrog and just turn entire cities into a mesh network so you could just get internet everywhere. That way you only need fiber running to a couple of tie-in points.

There would still be fiber backbone with their wireless approach.

It's not "entirely" wireless, as Panda said.So that means they will still lay their own fiber? How will houses get internet?

So that means they will still lay their own fiber? How will houses get internet?

My understanding is the wireless technology used here is a highly targeted point to point connection, not the wide area wi-fi you typically think of when you think of a wireless connection. There would be hubs that would be connected wireless in this fashion. The cable would come out of these hubs into the individual homes.

So, for the end user you probably wouldn't notice a difference as far as that goes. Its the larger network that is affected.

My understanding is the wireless technology used here is a highly targeted point to point connection, not the wide area wi-fi you typically think of when you think of a wireless connection. There would be hubs that would be connected wireless in this fashion. The cable would come out of these hubs into the individual homes.

So, for the end user you probably wouldn't notice a difference as far as that goes. Its the larger network that is affected.tbh, I still don't fully understand it but I get the idea.

My understanding is the wireless technology used here is a highly targeted point to point connection, not the wide area wi-fi you typically think of when you think of a wireless connection. There would be hubs that would be connected wireless in this fashion. The cable would come out of these hubs into the individual homes.

So, for the end user you probably wouldn't notice a difference as far as that goes. Its the larger network that is affected.

Right, which works best in urban areas where you can set up one antenna on top an apartment building and have a network hub setup in that building.

Right, which works best in urban areas where you can set up one antenna on top an apartment building and have a network hub setup in that building.

There are already plenty of WISPs in the area that service rural users using long range wifi and microwave connections. I think they're gone now, but we used to have an in-town WISP that used point to point microwave transmitters to provide faster broadband than cox or AT&T was providing at the time. They had(have?) transmitters on the Chase building, the Valiance building, 50 penn place, etc. I had a fair number of business clients that used them when I started at a local MSP in 2007.

My guess is that Google has either already figured out or is banking on figuring out how to make the client-end equipment more economical than running fiber to the home for the last mile. AT&T has already shown they're willing to litigate and delay every inch of that last mile in Austin and Louisville, so they may see this as a way to just go around the road blocks. Building out backhaul is a fairly straightforward, though expensive process. Branching out from the node the backhaul feeds to hundreds or thousands of residential customers is pretty complex logistically and provides lots of ways for competition to litigate. If your last mile install is just slapping a microwave dish on someone's house, you avoid all that litigation potential.

That being said, radio has its own set of issues. Weather can be much more of a factor(Have to keep the radios from icing up), plus you have to worry about alignment and line of sight if point to point. I'm genuinely curious to see if this is just point to point, or if they're going to try to do some sort of new distribution model. Something like p2p microwave transmission to a neighborhood distribution point, and then wifi from the distribution point to the home. Or some crazy mesh stuff.

Yeah honestly I'm surprised they went the fiber route in the first place. I figured they were going to try to leapfrog and just turn entire cities into a mesh network so you could just get internet everywhere. That way you only need fiber running to a couple of tie-in points.

I used to think that was the ultimate plan, but clearly they think they can make more money the other way.