This is no doubt related to the purchase of Webpass and the realization that digging up streets is expensive and beaming signals through the air less so.

Why The Acquisition Of WebPass Could Be Significant For Google Fiber?

Recently, Alphabet Inc.’s subsidiary Google Fiber announced that would acquire Webpass, a 13 year-old company that focuses on providing high speed internet connections for residential and commercial buildings in the U.S., primarily using point-to-point wireless technology. This acquisition is in line with the company’s strategy to focus on new, cheaper wireless technology to beam high-speed internet to people’s homes. This acquisition gives Google Fiber access to a new wireless technology that aims to radically change the way internet is delivered. [forbes.com...]

when the Google Implant eventually becomes available, it will connect your brain wirelessly to Gorg. :)
sound silly? read more: [cnet.com...]

I have a feeling they will get Fiber worked out. It makes sense. Google Dominating everything makes the most sense!

Wires, fiber, chords, et al will eventually phase out from all appliances. It's just a costly burden to install, manage & maintain.

Yes, it's very costly, however, once done it really is a great resource.

On the other hand, I think the single biggest issue has been the lack of signups. They didn't come close to meeting their initial numbers. Turns out, at&t, verizon, and Time Warner are actually able of providing much faster service at a comparable rate. We went from 25mbps to 300mbps at the house on Time Warner when Google fiber came to town.

That said, we are about a week away from getting Google fiber installed at the office. They've wired the building and it is light up - just waiting for final install in suite.

Google Fiber and Google Glass bite the dust. Their driverless car will be next when they realise they can't compete with the big, highly experienced car manufacturers.

Well their driverless car is more about the technology than the car and in that sense, Google has been the pioneer.

Wires, fiber, chords, et al will eventually phase out from all appliances. It's just a costly burden to install, manage & maintain.

You don't understand how this stuff works.

Ever seen a cell tower? walk up to one, you might notice the hundreds of cables the size of your arm that go into the ground.

Physical media is the FASTEST PERIOD, WILL NEVER CHANGE. Wireless getting faster.. sure but its all going to cables and getting hauled around.
You think data servers, routers, and switches etc are all running wifi.

FIBER, you are literally talking about the SPEED OF LIGHT.

CABLES > anything else.

You don't understand how this stuff works.

I do understand "how this stuff works" I have worked on it. You may have missed where I said "eventually."

My statement is more conceptual than what applies currently. New technologies will replace wires.

As long as they finish the build out already in progress (hoping for the Rally for my area by the end of the year).

In my area, as soon as GF announced their intent, the other companies (some, not all) began to build out their own fiber service. I've been on AT&T fiber for about a year - with roughly same price as GF, but price only for 3 years.

Consolidated Communications is offering a similar deal.

So even though GF doesn't have all the customers, it is due to their involvement that many customers now have fiber speed. (Neither AT&T nor Consolidated offered residential fiber service in this area before the GF announcements.)

FIBER, you are literally talking about the SPEED OF LIGHT.

Well, so do microwave signals, wi-fi signals and all the over-the-air technologies except sound.

Personally, I'm with keyplyr - wires are expensive and at scale, tons of telecom traffic is traveling by microwave, not cables. Why? Because increasing capacity by putting up two big towers many miles apart is orders of magnitude cheaper than digging trenches and filling them with cables.

This is also why the high-speed internet research projects of Facebook and Google are mostly wireless (balloons, mini-satellites, solar-powered drones, etc). These technologies have two advantages
- cost once perfected
- ubiquity

Beyond a certain speed, speed becomes irrelevant anyway. We're way, way short of reaching that point, but before the internet went big, most places had plenty of speed in their telephone lines, so we didn't switch to better tech because there was no payoff. There's only so much voice data. At some point, we'll reach those diminishing returns for internet traffic and technology will be chosen for other reasons (e.g. cost, ubiquity, latency).

I think we are going toward a significant percentage of the population having implants barring planetary collapse from climate disruption first (which I think is the more likely scenario on current trajectories). For that to happen, wireless tech will have to rule and it will need to cover places like where I live where there currently is no wired internet (not wires, not fiber, not strings between tin cans).

Since I rank Comcast/Xfinity a few rungs higher up the Ladder of Evil even than Google, I hope not. Til then, I'm stuck.

New technologies will replace wires.

Wires aren't going anywhere, ever. People are even going back to wired keyboards and mouses... you know, they don't have to charge, or take batteries.
and no tech bench anywhere is going to have a wireless device.

Wireless has latency, and interference. wireless is fine for casual, but not for critical.

Wires aren't going anywhere, ever.

Well, we'll see.

I can tell you that my ISP Cox Communications changed their name a few years ago from Cox Cable to be more inclusive of new technology. They currently spend millions on wireless research, especially microwave connectivity and AFAIK they've stopped laying new cable. I think Turner is doing the same.

My office building, as well as the building I live in, have open WiFi as do many public areas of my city. I currently use optical cable across my music studio but will soon be switching to Bluetooth 5 (as much as I can.)

There will likely be some technologies that will need to retrain wire/cable to reach consumers (especially rural) but for the most part I see it becoming obsolete.

I would think since they were changing their name they would have changed the awful Cox part.

AFAIK they've stopped laying new cable.

In our area, when miles of copper lines were destroyed by fire, they were replaced with a wireless system - I think three microwave towers. Way lower cost, way smaller footprint. I don't see the opposite happening very much these days (existing wireless connections being replaced with lines).

There was a time when the microwave systems of the 1950s were getting replaced with fiber, I only see that now in urban areas with high population densities where you can justify the cost.

On a smaller scale, the iPhone 7 and the next release of Samsung mobile phone are both rumored to have lost the 3.5 wired headphone jack; the standard now wireless bluetooth.

I can tell you that my ISP Cox Communications changed their name a few years ago from Cox Cable to be more inclusive of new technology. They currently spend millions on wireless research, especially microwave connectivity and AFAIK they've stopped laying new cable. I think Turner is doing the same.

My office building, as well as the building I live in, have open WiFi as do many public areas of my city.

comcast really got in early in the game, they were digging digging digging ALLLL OVER, now look at them. New players figured out digging is EXPENSIVE! and they are just stopping.
its not because wires aren't faster, its COST!

Now google is learning about this new burden, they purchased dark fiber but when they gota dig the trench and lay the cable, uh yea never mind. Comcast made a play and it paid off...they spent the cash the layed the cable..and i mean the late 90s and early 00's they were laying it down like crazy.

They out shafted the "bells" and their "line speed" remember suddenly copper phone lines could support DSL speeds? huh what?

They shift to wireless because its cheap and they don't have to put blood in the ground... is that the best quality, NO!, is it the cheapest, YES!
cheapest wins everyt ime because no company is ready to put quality over the bottom dollar, they can't even see past their own nose, 1.00 now vs 100.00 in 10 years.

On a smaller scale, the iPhone 7 and the next release of Samsung mobile phone are both rumored to have lost the 3.5 wired headphone jack; the standard now wireless bluetooth.

Thanks for making the stupidest argument on the block. Apple will shift just to make apple more money, not because its better. If it makes its users start buying apple only approved wireless headsets which only work on apple approved devices, apple makes a whole bank worth of cash....which apple wants.

Just take a look at the replacement screens which apple bricked with an update because.... you didn't use an apple approved device (aka you didn't put $ in my pocket)

WOW samsung cell phone sales are flat and falling...lets adopt apples policy and phase out take and FORCE UPGRADES!

Are you dipped this deep in the cult juice?

"Thanks for making the stupidest argument on the block."

Let's keep the discussion civil

No one is making the point that wireless is "better" only that it is replacing cable.

not because wires aren't faster, its COST!

I believe that's what I said.

The point is, beyond a certain speed, speed doesn't matter. If I can get a car for $5000 that goes 5mph, will I buy it? Of course not. I'll spend another $20,000 and get a car I can drive on the highway. But for the vast, vast majority of people, if I can get a car for $25,000 that is fast enough for the highway and has all manner of comforts like a stereo and cruise control and such, will I spend another couple million dollars for an F1, which has none of those comforts, because it's faster. No, most of us would rather buy a house and retire, which is what most of us do instead of buying an F1.

Same with wires versus wireless. Outside of dense urban and suburban areas, wires are way too expensive. In dense urban areas, if you have to go digging up streets to put in wires, it's still way too expensive.

So, back to my first post (second one in this thread), Google Fiber laid off a bunch of employees and bought a company that has wireless technology Google wants. Because it makes sense.

But if everyone starts "settling" for less won't that make the web start to stagnate?

Look back 10 years ago, look at the speeds we have now and the content the web can deliver, the web today on a T1 would be blow your brains out slow.
Now we are streaming 1080 to many devices in your house.

Google was making the play buying up dark fiber, it was ready, it just looks like they don't have the backbone to see it through.

I wanted google to do it, i wanted verizon to do it, but it doesn't look like these companies can get past the short term cost for long term gains.

Comcast did, now look at it.

In dense urban areas, if you have to go digging up streets to put in wires, it's still way too expensive.

You don't have to dig up streets to run new cable... its already under the street ready for more.. ever seen a telco manhole, the paths are already under the streets all you gota do is put cable in it.

[en.wikipedia.org...]

Often times its up on poles, the electric companies all share with phone and cable, its not hard to string cable on poles.

OSPs are shared, and where they aren't you just put in your own if poles are not around.

Now we are streaming 1080 to many devices in your house

My cable company could only handle 1080 unless I paid for premium. Cancelled cable 2 years ago. I now stream 4k UHD (4096 x 2160) free over wifi.

BTW - we don't have "poles" any longer in my city. Haven't seen those in many years.

You don't have to dig up streets to run new cable

Understood. You're right of course that generally you can pull new and better cables. I just mentioned that as the extreme case. The rural problem is the more common one and the one I deal with. Because of the low population density in my area and the sensitive habitats, I will *never* see high-speed wired technology. They can never pay off that infrastructure in a place like mine. High-speed wireless is my only hope.

But if everyone starts "settling" for less won't that make the web start to stagnate?

Again, overall speed is only one metric. I can go back to my car analogy. The automotive industry didn't stagnate because we decided that consumer cars were mostly fast enough. I want my next car to be electric and self-driving. I couldn't care less if it goes faster than my current car.

Or look at electricity. The current grid can send more juice into my house than I can use. There's no advantage to increasing capacity. What I want is a smarter, more robust, distributed grid.

Again, I agree that we have not reached that point on the internet. I am not trying to dispute your point there at all. I'm merely saying that both wired and wireless tech will allow us to reach that level. So at that point, the extra speed of wired does me no good. Just like making my Subaru go twice as fast - it doesn't have the suspension, steering and brakes to handle it anyway. I can't use that speed. I can use the self-driving features though.

So all I'm trying to say is that you are saying wired is "better" but you're only looking at maybe two metrics (speed and reliability). Those ARE important. Yes, you are right. But if you can get *adequate* (not better) speed and reliability out of wireless, then the other advantages start to accrue.

Of course, there are always applications that will need every bit of throughput and every millisecond of uptime, and those will pay a massive premium, sort of like an F1 car. And yes, in those cases, you're quite right. I just don't think most of us have those needs.

BTW - we don't have "poles" any longer in my city. Haven't seen those in many years.

Yep they are phasing them out in residential areas and putting it underground for greater protection but poles are bringing the power in, and transferring it to the ground. You might not see the poles around those areas but if you look around at main roads you'll probably spot concrete poles. Transmission lines run from the plants, and generally follow RR tracks if they can. Long haul stuff is always on a pole.

[en.wikipedia.org...]

I will *never* see high-speed wired technology. They can never pay off that infrastructure in a place like mine

I really think they COULD and they WOULD, but its easy to let you die on the vine and struggle with "hugesnet" LOL

In reality its a trenching machine it only puts the cable just below shovel distance.

I could totally run and maintain an underground rural network easy cheezy even with me digging and laying cables.

So all I'm trying to say is that you are saying wired is "better" but you're only looking at maybe two metrics (speed and reliability). Those ARE important. Yes, you are right. But if you can get *adequate* (not better) speed and reliability out of wireless, then the other advantages start to accrue.

On premise wireless is fine, I run hybrid gigabit and 5Ghz wifi setups all over. But I don't want internet coming TO the building over the air. Run a cable to each site.

They've tried and failed over and over trying to deliver interent over the air, and they failed because people got so pissed with unreliable interent

I've also deployed WiFi interent for communities and the only proper way to do it was to run a wired high speed line in, and broadcast to the area, site survey it and pepper the area DENSELY with WiFi and 15dB antennas. We were digging cable and running cat6 all over the place because we had to stick a hotspot up every 50 to 75 feet, depending on the site survey. Trees suck up wifi fast. So does rain, and fog.

Its not easy, and when its done right, you've run cable all over the flipping place.

All this 5G cellular based stuff is a joke, it gets saturated soooooo fast which is why they cap and throttle users constantly, that is fine for your cell phone but not a whole NETWORK!

Hopes and dreams, they want it fast and they want it cheap, in the end its just going to be cheap.

Im not anti wireless, I'm anti half assed.

Balloons. It's in the balloons. The answer is in the balloons. If not that, then it could be drones. You can sign up to have one hover over you home on a monthly basis. Wires? LOL. It's in the balloons folks. Order one, your neighbors will thank you.