Fair Use Policy
frnkblk at iname.com
Thu Aug 23 17:59:31 UTC 2012
This Forbes article
8-billion/) expresses some well-founded skepticism. As someone who works
for a service provider that does both town and rural FTTH, I can assure you
that the $2,500 (per home served?) the FCC describes is on the low side in a
I guess it's profitable to Google if one considers the buildout a sunk cost.
From: Benjamin Krueger [mailto:benjamin at seattlefenix.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:47 PM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fair Use Policy
A unique position? Unlike those poor residential ISPs who only have
literally millions of subscribers to use as leverage in peering
negotiations. Perhaps more accurately, rather than saying "Google can afford
to start almost any project they want" we should say "Google doesn't suffer
the temptation of wringing every last penny out of their aging
infrastructure to ensure maximum profits from minimal investments".
I don't want to turn this into a long-drawn debate, so I'll simply say that
I take Google at their word when they say this is profitable from Day 1 and
I surely take their product offering at its word. I'm not sure who proposed
we require anything, but I suppose we can let the market decide what ISPs
are "required" to do. I can say that I don't know anyone who wouldn't drop
any existing residential service for what Google is selling. Perhaps they
will succumb to some unforeseen boogeyman as you allude to, but to be honest
that sounds a whole lot like the wishful thinking of an industry that has
been deftly out-manueverd at its own game and now finds itself dramatically
behind the curve. Frankly, if I were in the ISP business I would be shitting
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 8/22/12, Benjamin Krueger <benjamin at seattlefenix.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.
> Google can afford to start almost any project they want, and they are
> in a unique position to negotiate peering and access to a ton of
> bandwidth, with their Youtube, Google Search et al. As to whether it
> will be profitable, well, obviously, that is their claim. It's yet to
> be demonstrated.
> I gotta reject the idea that broadband providers should be required to
> follow in Google's footsteps though.
> For now, Google fiber is another risky experiment, that could have a
> great payout if successful, or could be shuttered within a year or so,
> or fees/rate incs tacked on, when they figure out just what a mess
> they have gotten into.
More information about the NANOG