Google Fiber in Britain?

This article cropped up in the Telegraph -

Google is exploring building ultrafast fibre optic networks in British cities, in a move that would add to pressure on BT to further upgrade its ageing infrastructure.

It is understood that web giant has held detailed talks with a recently listed British company called CityFibre, with a view to extending its Google Fiber project outside the US for the first time.

The discussions broke down amid concerns from CityFibre that an existing partnership with BSkyB would be threatened. BSkyB and TalkTalk are funding a pilot fibre-optic network rollout in to 20,000 homes and businesses in York.

CityFibre feared the satellite broadcaster would see the web giant as a future rival in the pay-TV market and back out, sources said. Google is understood to still be looking to build internet infrastructure in the UK, however.

A source said: �Google historically have always publicly said they would never build fibre outside the US. But in the background they are talking to people here in the UK and looking at projects.

Rest of article...

I think Google Fiber in the UK would initially be somewhat symbolic but would also create a heck of a lot of publicity and perhaps encourage the political parties to support increased fibre rollout.

EDIT:

Not really on topic but this video(wait for advert to finish) shows having Google provide FTTP is not without its problems.

Edited by Spud2003 (Fri 18-Jul-14 15:00:46)

It depends what you mean by "support".

If Google choose to enter the market, thereby increasing the competition, then it is the existing companies that will need to respond, not politicians.

The politicians will just say it shows that market forces work.

Bring it on! We want Google Fiber. Get rid of BT FTTC for good because BT are too greed and old age technology, still using copper to the house. FTTC is not a true fiber!

There would be a number of reasons to not want to go on a Google network:

- I doubt very much they will do fibre to house, considering the network we currently have (which Google Legally cannot overwrite, and wouldn't anyway, they don't do that) and also considering how much it costs to do fibre to house. I mean BT will do it but they say you have to pay for it, £1,200 base.

- Google are already using everything by their means to tax avoid so why would they shell out the needed money to make a decent network? Their software and services also go the same way eventually, not updated and not fixed.

- Google has been known to use their network as a means to illegally gather private information about those who use them, they have been taken to court for it

- Google is a very shady company and have changed their minds many times on many subjects.

BT may not be the smartest, nor the most modern, but they do stick by their users as much as possible and don't do too many illegal things.

Also BT have stated they wish to have fibre to the bx by 2015 at the latest for the entire country. So it is not like they are not putting in the effort.

In reply to a post by Sammaye:

BT may not be the smartest, nor the most modern, but they do stick by their users as much as possible and don't do too many illegal things.

Also BT have stated they wish to have fibre to the bx by 2015 at the latest for the entire country. So it is not like they are not putting in the effort.

You are joking about BT sticking by their users as much as possible, right? Have you actually read the stuff that Snowden has published which, as far the UK goes, heavily features BT?

BT pledged to cover 2/3rds of the UK, another 27% is being covered with taxpayer subsidy, Cornwall's initial build which forms part of the 2/3rds was with taxpayer / ERDF subsidy, and the other 10% there are no plans for beyond a 'minimum' 2Mb to many, again subsidised by the taxpayer.

Google Fibre is fibre to the home, there is absolutely no point in building a new network any other way and Google can most certainly overbuild 'the network we currently have' as can anyone else who puts the money in.

Your post is mostly wrong, I just picked on the a couple of the more ridiculous parts.

Edited by deleted (Fri 18-Jul-14 13:51:09)

Would love some Google Fibre here. They could buy out small-scale providers like WightFibre and expand from that base.

You are joking about BT sticking by their users as much as possible, right? Have you actually read the stuff that Snowden has published which, as far the UK goes, heavily features BT?

If I remember right it features most ISPs, including Search Engines such as Google.

Unfortunately when your government throws a NDA and a National Security threat at you you don't have much choice.

My take is that CityFibre was looking at Google as a source of VC and would probably just result in cities where 152Mbps is available having another faster option

Keep trying to discover number of Google Fiber customers but for some reason never announced

In reply to a post by Sammaye:

If I remember right it features most ISPs, including Search Engines such as Google.

Unfortunately when your government throws a NDA and a National Security threat at you you don't have much choice.

So the difference between that and Google is.....?

Either way GCHQ get their mitts on the stuff; at least Google have a track record of actively resisting surveillance.

I not read as I cant find it anywhere. You have a url?

In reply to a post by rhetherington:

Would love some Google Fibre here. They could buy out small-scale providers like WightFibre and expand from that base.

WightFibre is a cable network, not full fat fibre. Google would have to overbuild the infrastructure regardless.

One difference is when it comes to Hollywood and other greedy mits compared to BT.

They recently fought tooth and nail to try and stop law passing causing them to reveal user identity to these companies.

They did lose but they still tried. More than Google has done in similar situations.

Remind me again which ISP was going to implement Phorm ?

Google have done massively more than BT to fight against having to disclose user data.

In reply to a post by Sammaye:

One difference is when it comes to Hollywood and other greedy mits compared to BT.

They recently fought tooth and nail to try and stop law passing causing them to reveal user identity to these companies.

They did lose but they still tried. More than Google has done in similar situations.

http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-google-team-sue-fede...

Google can't even talk about the requests they receive.

At least you could opt out of thorm.

Same as BT, NDAs are all the rage, but they also do fight very public battles when needed.

Google seems to be causing more trouble normally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24047235

Only if you knew about it. BT ran a secret trial without informing customers!

Ok that is wrong, no question, though they learnt it appears. I haven't seen them try it since.

What gets me about Google is that they just don't quit.

Not sure what your problem is with Google. Yes, they collect personal data about their users in return for providing a multitude of free services. No one has to use them though.

They've also been the driving force behind the development of an open source (so we actually know what it's doing) mobile operating system which has gone on to blow away the competition completely.

BT however are still massively failing to create what's required for a proper 21st century network in the UK.

BT Retail now tops the lists for customer complaints..

BT Retail is not to be equated in that respect with the 100+ other ISPs that use basically the same services via BT Wholesale and Openreach.

The broadband CS at BT Retail appears to be very poor compared to most others. Their throughput capacity I don't know about. Their capacity for cockups such as the many past and current email fiascos seems immense.

This a the link I posted on the other reply: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24047235

Of course there is also a BBC article about Google admitting that they knew of the data all along and were using it for marketing.

I use many google services I don't mind if they pick up what I give them, it is when they pick up what we are not giving them.

Granted that is only two unencrypted wifis but still, what else have they done recently?

As for the OS, I remember how Jobs considered Android to be a complete rip of iOS, and let's face it...it kinda is. And since Android is actually Linux Kernel it hasn't really been a driving force. It is more like taking someone elses OS and then slapping your apps and skin on top and calling it your own.

I mean Android is a good Linux distro but it is exactly that.

It is strange because I know a lot of people on BT, including myself, and the one time I did have a problem with a broken wire in the cabinet they actually fixed it (got the workers out at midnight) within 4 hours. So on that front they have impressed me.

Their customer service sucks, took 1 hour of repeating the same info to get through to the right person past all of the Indian bots but when I did they knew exactly what to do.

I actually have the fastest land connection of all providers in my area I think at about 90MB dl and 40MB upload. It is not as fast as Virgin media but then that's not true, to your home, landed fibre; despite their advertising.

I'm not equating them.

BT Wholesale/Openreach are failing to create a decent 21st network. They've not even got public plans for 21CN rollout to all exchanges, let alone FTTC to all. No provision at quite a few exchanges for more expensive options (eg EFM) for business use.

BT Retail do indeed seem to devise new and interesting ways to break their network every so often.

In reply to a post by Sammaye:

It is strange because I know a lot of people on BT, including myself, and the one time I did have a problem with a broken wire in the cabinet they actually fixed it (got the workers out at midnight) within 4 hours. So on that front they have impressed me.

That sounds like a business line with an SLA.

I actually have the fastest land connection of all providers in my area I think at about 90MB dl and 40MB upload. It is not as fast as Virgin media but then that's not true, to your home, landed fibre; despite their advertising.

Assuming you mean Mbps not MB(ytes), does that means you are on FTTP? Or is it some other sort of connection, maybe Ethernet?

In a way you were. You followed a sentence about BT rollout with one about BT Retail customer complaints, as though the complaints were caused by the rollout.

I was just pointing out those are two very different topics.

That sounds like a business line with an SLA.

Nope a standard domestic line in good ol' Devon.

Mbps not MB(ytes)

Yeah, late in the day.

does that means you are on FTTP?

Nope to the cabinet. My cabinet sits 400m away in terms of wire distance. I got a quote from BT to have to my house, even that short distance cost a bomb so naff that.

I mean they even explained to me, I pay what they would have to pay; that's why I am very skeptical about companies that say they wanna supply to the home connections.

There's no way you are getting 90/40Mbps speeds then unless you have two lines and load-balancing.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 18-Jul-14 16:16:35)

I'd seen that post. I think we all are aware they were capturing unencrypted data over wifi.

Android is a bit more than a ripoff of IOS or just apps on top of Linux! You might want to do a little more research on that. By your logic, then OSX is just BSD with a few apps stuck on top too.

Glad you got BT to fix your cable quickly - took them over 24 hours to fix a problem of their own making (engineer 'tidying up' connections broke a leased line because it didn't have a dial tone!) recently for us.

You're doing well to get 90 down and 40 up - FTTC is max 80/20 . Even FTTP is only 30 upload. Admittedly that's better than my 448k up and 5376k down - the best I can get on our exchange without ADSL2+ or fibre.

I think we need to have some salt nearby to pick up wrt today's newbie .

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 18-Jul-14 16:19:15)

Just a tonne or twenty

Whoops I did say that wrong, sorry I am unsure where I got those number from.

I get 76 dl and 19 up, sorry about that.

Sorry I misquoted my line, I am unsure where I got those figures from.

Though still I mean I get 76 down which is still pretty darn fast.

Well OSX has added a lot on top of the base kernel than Android so far. But then Apple isn't really a driving force in OS', but more in making really cheap items expensive.

Ah I know, I quoted my companies fibre quote from my emails.

Yeah, honest mistake there, I was juggling.

I guess you're right.

Apple have added about $100 and shiny shiny stuff to BSD.

Google added $0 and voice/video calling, proper data connection support, the whole Dalvik VM concept ,etc to linux.

Ok fair enough, I guess Android has come along way since I last checked.

I guess I better change my thinking of it.

You're right that Google would have to overbuild some of the infrastructure if they bought (or partnered with) WightFibre, but there's also quite a bit just sitting there unused.

15 years ago when it was Isle of Wight Cable they dug up a lot of the streets in my town and put in the cabinets and ductwork. They then ran out of money before running any cable through all that infrastructure.

They've been bought out several times since, but the street cabinets and ducting in my town have remained empty for 15 years.

If they were to partner with/get bought out by Google a lot of that infrastructure could be repurposed for a lot less money than digging new in other urban areas.

Their are about 5565 exchanges in the UK, BT wholesale 21CN and TT llu have about 2762/2720 exchanges which is about 90% of all lines, Sky has a few hundred less exchanges. (numbers from sam knows).

2803 exchanges are not enabled for 21CN and the rollout will likely not go much further as the exchanges are too small and not economically viable, unless public subsidy is used.

FTTC rollout will reach 90% by 2015 and 95% by 2017, as its a cabinet based rollout smaller exchanges will have FTTC cabs deployed but the fibre will go back to larger head end exchanges.

With FTTC and FTTRN their will be less need to 21CN every exchange but it depends on each county BDUK project, usc targets will be put back for BDUK 2 funding and further fibre.

BDUK claims 87% for phase 1 in Essex and phase 2 is undefined as yet. I live and work in 3 different parts of Essex, neither of which will be covered by phase 1. Home is a 20CN exchange and work 1 a 21CN but get 2 Meg on a good day (very long line) and cabinet isn't part of any plans.
Work 2 is in the BDUK rollout but it's a exchange only line so no FTTC either.

Personally, I feel BT should have been forced (as maintainer of the core components of the communications network) to upgrade all exchanges, not just those it deems commercially viable.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Keep trying to discover number of Google Fiber customers but for some reason never announced

From what I gather from contacts in Austin, the network takes forever to build, so the number of passed homes is very small, and the number of people taking it up from those homes is equally small. Especially when most people have a cable internet around 30Mbps or faster today anyway.

Have to wait on the BDUK project and their will be a extension to take coverage to 95% between 2015-17 so you could be covered then.

If BT where forced then expect prices to rise significantly to cover the costs, it would all be passed onto the consumer.

Google fiber would be good to see but its only talk at current and unlikely to progress from their.

Google fiber would be good but how long did it take; to build..?

NTL ex CableTel 1993
telewest was Croydon Cable 1984

Edited by francisuk25 (Sat 19-Jul-14 02:52:14)