I’m not sure why you needed to interpose another path to the discussion. I haven’t heard of any bribery by Goggle although it may explain some of their excessive overhead. I can’t go there with our proof unless you can provide a link to a story somewhere.
It demonstrates the tremendous cost of construction and the need for expertise.
Look, I’m not disputing your point about the obstructionism. No business will give up a share of their market if it can be prevented. Google is not an infrastructure company and should have hired the right people to run these projects. Instead they created layer up on layer of contracted project management with not much more than computer programming as their expertise.
I’m talking to you from a position of knowledge not speculation. I hope you would take away that there were far more reasons for their failure not just the hand of incumbents and pole attachments in Louisville and Nashville. Its far more fundamental than just that which includes build cost far in excess than they anticipated which has little to do with the incumbents.
I believe your directing this to my point about “competitive wired based infrastructures” know as overbuilders.
There is a lengthy list of others who have tried the same as Google but none the size or political clout. All of whom with the same build problems as Google. This is just a very short list that I can recall;
Sacramento & Dallas – WIN, who simply walked away from their investment Chicago, Detroit, Denver and Ohio – WOW, who still exist but they purchased other over builders at bankrupt dollar values. However, they have expanded very little. Kansas City – Everest, they still exist which would have put Goggle as one of four had they succeeded
I will concede obstruction accounts for the time it takes to acquire an attachment permit. However, Google had been unrealistic in their expectations and submittal process regardless of how they portrayed it. I will say it again, if they had only hired the field expertise they needed on the front-end things may have gone much better.
I had really been hoping they were going to regroup and try again. But appears their leadership has doesn’t see a future in wire based systems and hoping for a wireless solution.
From what I have read the author nor the respondents really have a full understanding of Google’s folly. They like many before them (competitive wire based infrastructure) assumed the design of a better mouse trap was all that was necessary and the world would move over for them. The primary cost isn’t programming but the cost of building and maintaining millions of miles of facility. From my observations Google didn’t take this into account until they were waste deep into it.
The poles are already crowded and space for an addition contact is difficult and expensive to acquire. Then there is the underground facilities which cost 10 X of aerial not to mention that the utility easements are equally crowded and difficult to navigate. Simply put there is little to no physical space available which has contributed to Google’s cost over runs complicated by a lower take rate than they anticipated. Don’t blame net neutrality blame Google for jumping in to a business they knew very little about. Life isn’t all virtual as envisioned by the people in Silicon Valley. From day one they should have been hiring people with the experience and knowledge of building physical plant.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gary.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Look, I’m not disputing your point about the obstructionism. No business will give up a share of their market if it can be prevented. Google is not an infrastructure company and should have hired the right people to run these projects. Instead they created layer up on layer of contracted project management with not much more than computer programming as their expertise.
I’m talking to you from a position of knowledge not speculation. I hope you would take away that there were far more reasons for their failure not just the hand of incumbents and pole attachments in Louisville and Nashville. Its far more fundamental than just that which includes build cost far in excess than they anticipated which has little to do with the incumbents.
Re:
There is a lengthy list of others who have tried the same as Google but none the size or political clout. All of whom with the same build problems as Google. This is just a very short list that I can recall;
Sacramento & Dallas – WIN, who simply walked away from their investment
Chicago, Detroit, Denver and Ohio – WOW, who still exist but they purchased other over builders at bankrupt dollar values. However, they have expanded very little.
Kansas City – Everest, they still exist which would have put Goggle as one of four had they succeeded
Re: Re: Googles true folly
I had really been hoping they were going to regroup and try again. But appears their leadership has doesn’t see a future in wire based systems and hoping for a wireless solution.
Googles true folly
From what I have read the author nor the respondents really have a full understanding of Google’s folly. They like many before them (competitive wire based infrastructure) assumed the design of a better mouse trap was all that was necessary and the world would move over for them. The primary cost isn’t programming but the cost of building and maintaining millions of miles of facility. From my observations Google didn’t take this into account until they were waste deep into it.
The poles are already crowded and space for an addition contact is difficult and expensive to acquire. Then there is the underground facilities which cost 10 X of aerial not to mention that the utility easements are equally crowded and difficult to navigate. Simply put there is little to no physical space available which has contributed to Google’s cost over runs complicated by a lower take rate than they anticipated. Don’t blame net neutrality blame Google for jumping in to a business they knew very little about. Life isn’t all virtual as envisioned by the people in Silicon Valley. From day one they should have been hiring people with the experience and knowledge of building physical plant.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gary.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt