Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fiber Wants To Beam Wireless Internet To Your Home (yahoo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cable-management dept.

An anonymous reader writes: When Google Fiber first launched in Kansas, its main goal was to provide high-speed internet and cable services for reasonable prices. Now, Google wants to beam wireless broadband directly into homes all across America. They haven't figured out all of the logistics, but the technology would solve the "last mile problem," which is typically addressed by the slow, pricey process of connecting a series of cables into homes. Google Fiber is currently working on connecting wireless towers to existing fiber lines by experimenting with different wireless technologies. Alphabet, Google's parent company, will be able to build a nationwide network able to compete with ATT, Verizon and Comcast -- if it develops such a solution. Google Access CEO, who oversees Fiber, said the plan is to develop "abundant and ubiquitous networks" that will provide "some real benefit to the internet as a whole."

41 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. On What Spectrum? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for a disruption of the current ISP landscape. But this seems to be another pie in the sky Google idea at the moment.

    Above everything else, I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using. The less desirable 2GHz+ bands are all but full, never mind the stuff below that. Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

    1. Re:On What Spectrum? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I'm all for a disruption of the current ISP landscape. But this seems to be another pie in the sky Google idea at the moment.

      Above everything else, I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using. The less desirable 2GHz+ bands are all but full, never mind the stuff below that. Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

      I have this vision of an army of Google driverless cars roaming aimlessly through streets as mobile signal extenders; all with a stuffed animal version of the Android thing in the driver's seat. As they roam around various ads appear on the sides of the car, all targeted at the demographics of the neighborhood they are in.We can all hail our new Google ISP overlord...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:On What Spectrum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is just another example of trying to solve the wrong problem. Gigabit fiber is great for businesses and universities, but massive overkill for the average consumer. Running all new wiring to every house in every neighborhood in every city makes no sense when we already have wiring in place that can easily provide what people need. The obstacle is not the wires, it's the cable/telephone oligopolies.

    3. Re: On What Spectrum? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      The obstacle is not the wires, it's the cable/telephone oligopolies.

      That's exactly why they're running new connections of their own - so they can compete with the incumbents. Fibre just happens to be the most future-proof way to do it.

      And while broad wireless is great for low-bandwidth, low-cost, and mobile links, it's no substitute for the data firehose that is fibre, so they'll still be rolling out that. But maybe large-scale wireless will let them compete with existing ADSL providers at minimal cost.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:On What Spectrum? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      This is just another example of trying to solve the wrong problem. Megabit cable is great for businesses and universities, but massive overkill for the average consumer. Running all new coax to every house in every neighborhood in every city makes no sense when we already have wiring in place that can easily provide the dial up that people need.

    5. Re:On What Spectrum? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

      An interesting perspective, but it might just be that competing with the likes of AT&T and Verizon is exactly what Google wants to do. It's been speculated that one of the intended purposes of Google Fiber is "...to keep vendors, distributors and regulators on their feet." Mobile providers sell fairly expensive metered bandwidth, and their many of their policies haven't always been customer-friendly. Introducing unmetered wireless gigabit internet might just be a way to keep the mobile providers in check. Besides, wireless infrastructure would likely be far less expensive than FTTP.

      --

      -Turkey

    6. Re: On What Spectrum? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      But you could carry a old style mobile home phone

      Let me guess; that would be a phone made with 1Ã--2's and particleboard, and roofed-over with rusty corrugated sheet metal and lots of blue tarps?

    7. Re: On What Spectrum? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Megabit cable is great for businesses and universities, but massive overkill for the average consumer.

      i, for one, definitely feel over privileged with my two multi-megabit connections...

    8. Re:On What Spectrum? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history)

      I'm not sure what you mean by that. I had fixed point wireless for several years; it worked fine and was cheap.

      Above everything else, I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using. The less desirable 2GHz+ bands are all but full,

      The obvious choices are 2.4GHz, 5GHz and laser. For directional communications, whether the "bands are full" doesn't matter.

    9. Re:On What Spectrum? by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using

      I would imagine that they're thinking about using some old television broadcast spectrum. It's able to travel long distances and penetrate walls.
      The FCC’s upcoming broadcast-TV spectrum auction

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    10. Re: On What Spectrum? by Vairon · · Score: 1

      What you are describing does not match my experience with Google when my ad-blocking plugin uBlock Origin is turned off. Ads on google search are still very small, unobtrusive and I've never seen them highlight words in the result page. If you are running Windows, I would suspect you had some adware installed on your PC that is causing this behavior.

    11. Re:On What Spectrum? by dattaway · · Score: 1

      3.5GHz
      http://www.kansascity.com/news...

    12. Re:On What Spectrum? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      How would that, keeping them in check, benefit Google?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:On What Spectrum? by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      If it's like what I have now, it comes in basically on the 802.11 spectrum. The antennae sit on water towers (cheaper than the rent on cell towers I'm told). I live in a semi-rural area and the tower I point at is like 3 miles away. I'll also point that that you must have line of site to the tower or it's a no go. I can get 5Mb down on a good day. During the busy 6p-9p I'm lucky to get 1.5Mb which makes Netflix rough. Yes, our area is oversold but they won't upgrade. :( They say they have equipment that can do 15Mb, but until the towers support that higher speed, what I have on my roof doesn't matter. FWIW, that comes at $45/month.

      So if Google can come up with a way to compete with this, I would welcome our new wireless overlords. ;)

    14. Re:On What Spectrum? by ForrestWilson · · Score: 1

      3.5 GHz http://www.fiercewireless.com/... http://www.fiercewireless.com/...

    15. Re:On What Spectrum? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      How would that, keeping them in check, benefit Google?

      That is a good question. How does a fair and open internet benefit Google? Let's not forget that residential ISP's have been forcing content providers (e.g. Netflix) to purchase exclusive internet connectivity to their backbones rather than upgrading their backhauls at intermediary providers...effectively double-dipping with their customers. They're trying to go after YouTube (a Google company) as well, and I assume that if Google Play takes off, they'll go after that too.

      Also, due to Verizon and AT&T mobile's metering, Netflix is downgrading video bandwidth for these customers. If Google is able to make end roads into these markets, their competition may force other providers into line, making a better experience for Google customers as well as avoiding nasty double-dipping fees from providers.

      At least, that's just my guess if the original hypothesis is correct. Who knows, maybe Google is trying to turn a buck on building regional ISP's. I just find that harder to believe than the idea that I proposed.

      --

      -Turkey

    16. Re:On What Spectrum? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That seems a rather round-about way to go about it and I'm not sure how effective it'd really be - on a grander scale. It seems like a rather large capital risk for what's probably a fairly minimal gain. There's gotta be something I'm not seeing. I've figured their goal with ISP activities would be to gather information and present adverts inserted into the stream directly at some point. I've expected them to do something like offer free service that's "paid for" by accepting ads being inserted and your browsing habits being monitored - but that doesn't seem to be happening yet.

      There's got to be an end game. They're sure as hell not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There's absolutely a profit motive - even if that profit is goodwill-related. Damned if I can figure out what the end-game is. I've thought through all the various processes (that I can think of) and none of them really make a whole lot of sense. They're a juggernaut, I don't think they're all that worried about the ISPs. I really don't know.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:On What Spectrum? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure, either. However, I can say that in some Google Fiber markets, Comcast is trying to compete with Gb downloads (still crappy 35 Mb/s uploads). I saw the same thing when FIOS came to my neighborhood and my local cable provider began offering faster service. It's a hell of a lot of capital investment, and I'm sure that Google sees an endgame in it. I would be surprised if it involved spewing ads that other ISP's wouldn't, but then again - if enough of us use Google services, I'm sure that they'll turn a buck on it.

      --

      -Turkey

    18. Re:On What Spectrum? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It might be something along those lines... They provision greater speeds and that forces the incumbent/traditional ISPs to up their speeds (and maybe lower costs) which enables Google to deliver "rich" (read necessitating big pipes) content as a regular thing. Basically, if they offer it then others in that market are, as you indicate, forced to compete.

      Google, in the ad business, wants people to have fat pipes - I'm guessing. The fatter the pipes, the richer and greater in number the ads that can be displayed without reducing the end-user's experience. If they can push 4k video ads without degrading the end-user's service and clogging the pipes, imagine how much they can charge the advertisers for such placement? Rich, deep, ads - without slowing down the consumer and without angering them because of service degradation?

      That's kind of far fetched and rather long-term (very long-term considering the strategies displayed by many of the larger publicly traded corporations today) but it is feasible. I really have no idea - which is why I asked. I was kind of hoping you knew. ;-) But, it's feasible and it just might have some impact.

      As you say, and as others have noted and articles have mentioned, the traditional providers seem to shape up when Google comes to town and starts digging trenches for fiber - or threatens to. They also seem to do the same (usually?) when a municipality threatens to do so *and* when they're unable to get some jackass-law on the books that prohibits local municipalities from doing so.

      Meh... It's an interesting thing to ponder, so there's that. I doubt that I'd get a straight answer if I were to contact their press department personally. I'm starting to put together a site that's more or less a blog but more meant to be a community. Doing things like actually taking the time to contact companies directly is on the list of things to actually do. I've a bit of internet infamy so I might as well use it for something constructive. In this case, it's building a bit of a community for intellectual conversation and/or discourse with an aim of civility.

      It has had some issues starting up and it's actually a bit of a wager with a friend of mine. I can't be too specific but we're going against "traditional" social media sites AND it has to be self-funding. So, part of the goal is seeing what you can accomplish for nothing more than effort, learning, and asking politely. So far, I've managed to accumulate domain names, some help, and a whole bunch of bandwidth and server space - including a good sized chunk of a server in France. I'm not even French. ;-)

      But, alas, that's a topic for another day and I'm not really into spamming so if you want the URL you can either email me or just add .gq to the end of my username and put it into the address bar. A move at the start of the month was impetus to rebuild it and not import the older database. It really wasn't worth trying to salvage the database. No, I'd crammed about every plug-in into it that looked interesting. It was a horrid mess and I'd smoked a bit of weed so I'd really installed more plugins than anyone ever should. I'd say I don't know what I was thinking but I know exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking, "Oh, that looks fun."

      *sighs*

      But, I digress.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:On What Spectrum? by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      ...or just add .gq to the end of my username and put it into the address ba...

      Not seeing anything except "various browsers" can't find find server at...

      Sounds very interesting though!

    20. Re:On What Spectrum? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Don't quote Nyquist, quote Shannon. Nyquist only applies to the minimum sampling rate for an unaliased time domain signal, not directly how much information can be transmitted in that bandwidth. There are plenty of encoding schemes that get multiple bits/baud.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:On What Spectrum? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://fi.google.com/

      Since they have their own cell provider, which currently runs on T-Mobile, Sprint and Wifi, maybe this is a way to cut out the T-Mobile and Sprint parts of that and provide their own system.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    22. Re:On What Spectrum? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hmm.... Mobile VOIP?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. [sarc]Innovative[/sarc] by Mycroft-X · · Score: 1

    Wow, so Google is inventing Cell Tower Backhaul?

    http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/products/cell-backhaul

    1. Re:[sarc]Innovative[/sarc] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you're getting the idea they're inventing something. All summary says is they're thinking of deploying.

  3. Very promising technology. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    There are multiple agencies with easement rights and rights of way, and access to homes, offices and factories. Google designed a self driving car. It could design a semi-autonomous robot that trails fiber behind it and swim up the sewer lines and connect homes. Wondering why Google did not think about that.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Very promising technology. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      It could design a semi-autonomous robot that trails fiber behind it and swim up the sewer lines and connect homes.

      For that matter, the fiber could be flushed from inside the home and (ick) grabbed at the City Main in the service right-of-way.

      It would remain viable only until the drain stopped up and the plumber brought the rooter out.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Very promising technology. by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Google's offering was an April Fool, though a strange one given this was already happening.

    3. Re:Very promising technology. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If someone could make a robot that crawled through sewer pipes doing stuff, they could make a robot that crawled through water mains detecting and fixing leaks. We lose many times more water in transport than we lose electricity in transmission!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Basement? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Can the beam reach the basement where I live? I'll go ask my Mom if we can get it...

  5. ABC by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Ah, so that's a good reason for the Alphabet breakup - so not-Google can compete with Google's partners (often hegemonists, so fair game in my book).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. And I very much want them to by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    My crappy WISP (Digital Path) just instituted caps! I had to go up from $70/mo to $80/mo just to get a 200GB cap, there's two of us in this house and we stream TV. My services is "up to 10 Mbps" but I'm lucky to get 7.5.

    It's a shame Google is so shit at web design (seen the G+ redesign? they added MOAR WHITESPACE, which is basically the only thing literally everyone told them not to do) but I'm more than ready for them to become my local WISP.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Son of Clearwire by PPH · · Score: 2

    I expect that this service will be cancelled in due time, leaving it's subscribers scrambling for alternatives.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. So, a large-scale WISP? by leftover · · Score: 1

    Looking at wireless is certainly understandable if you want coverage beyond urban areas. Deploying fiber-to-the-door is daunting in suburbs and really unfathomable in rural areas. Anyone trying to plan such an expansion will eventually reach a level of frustration that makes WISP seem really attractive.

    Having watched this almost-market, (was thinking of starting one) my observation was that most wanna-be players didn't have a way to start with sufficient scale and presence. Technology is no problem, all the pieces are available. Financials are grim at small scale, not enough revenue to fund support staff so service suffers. Local politics are much more of an issue than they should be. With Verizon and Time-Warner/Comcast exerting $influence on local governments, a WISP startup is either an outlaw or treated like one.

    Google could overwhelm all of that. Interesting.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    1. Re:So, a large-scale WISP? by traveller9 · · Score: 1

      Google Access may implement their own 3.5 GHz wireless internet service -or- they might partner with an existing wireless internet service provider (WISP). This approach leverages Google's end user presence and strengthens the WISP serving rural areas, small towns & cities, or the outskirts of a large metro area. It all fits. Google finances the deployment of the fiber backbone (this is the backhaul to an internet), a tower is erected (or leased or shared with a partner WISP), point to point links connect towers, and 3.5 GHz or 5 GHz radios link a tower to the end user business or residence. The end user bandwidth will be better than many end users receive now at a reasonable price. My AT&T dsl line is 5 MB down / 1.5 up for $58 a month for ONLY internet. A speed of 10MB to 50MB meets all my needs; VOIP, video streaming, and gaming. Yes, more speed is great, but for home use, I don't need more. Time Warner offers 300 MB to my location, but not at a price I'm willing to accept. For those that have 1 GB for under $100 a month, consider yourself blessed. Clearwire had the right idea but deployed the wrong technology. Many customers in their homes or business often complained of poor signal quality. Wireless radio designs are far better than 10 years ago. Ubiquiti Networks is on the right path. https://www.ubnt.com/ They may, or may not, have the right mojo, ... but they are working on a piece of the problem. Read more here: http://www.wispa.org/ ...or here: http://www.wirelesscowboys.com...

  9. They are talking about by strstr · · Score: 1

    New phased array systems or similar that dedicate a beam of signal or more to each home. This allows users to share the same spectrum and have full use of the spectrum and bandwidth to themselves. Multiple terabits or greater is possible. Its basically like installing wireless fiber as focused beams of laser light between the receiving and transmitter have The same capacity as fiber. It doesn't even require special installation when done right as The devices can sync up and focus and listen in any direction. The biggest problem is biological health effects of RF- RF is killing The life on earth and damaging DNA, sometimes it takes generations of animals to see all the damage. The technology is ancient and been in use by the military for decades. The public would consider it a high tech solution but it's very old and the publics technology is so antiquated compared to it.
    http://www.drrobertduncan.com/ http://www.obamasweapon.com/

  10. Old news ? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Check out this
    http://www.beamspeed.com/

    They've been in business for quite some time. I've never used them so I can't comment on their actual performance but it is not a new thing.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  11. Already done? by Nethead · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure that's what we did at Clearwire a few years ago. Difference was we mostly built our own microwave backbone, but did use fiber for a few local hubs.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  12. Fixed LTE... by metaforest · · Score: 1

    ...is what Rock Island Communications (rockisland.com) calls it. It comes in two flavors 2100MHz (B12) and 700MHz (B4). With T-Mobile's help they are deploying it throughout the San Juan County, WA. area. The Cell sectors operate at up to 30 watts, and the CPE operates at about 0.2 watts. Throughput is much better than any DSL service available. It fits perfectly into Rock Island's fiber deployment strategy because they gain a foothold in a community using LTE and then later expand fiber coverage in the area to reclaim LTE spectrum. This provides improved communications for EMS, Fire, Sheriff, County and other public services that rely on radio communications in the region for dispatch. It also weans the residents off the incumbent RBOC, and mobile carriers that won't upgrades their core networks, and can't even be bothered to maintain their 911 services to Federal standards. Added bonus: visitors to the region who have T-mobile phones that support B12 and B4 find that they get coverage almost everywhere in the county. A year ago, no mobile provider had passable coverage out side of the population centers in the county.

    Disclaimer: I'm an employee of Rock Island Communications. My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

  13. We oppose it by NewYork · · Score: 1

    We oppose it; They interfere with our drones :)

    --
    Casteism
  14. Cable companies could do the same thing faster by partofthepuzzle · · Score: 1

    The cable companies could do the same thing themselves with a huge added advantage over Google: the wired infrastructure needed to feed the last-mile wireless transmitters is already in place. If Google's main objective is to pressure the existing cable/ISP monopolies into upping their game and lowering their prices, then it's a great idea, as is their gigagit fiber program. Otherwise it seems like a vanity/marketing project.