Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerryr | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised by your downvotes. While "zero chance" might be a bit dramatic, it seems like this warrants discussion. Does this mean that Google thinks P2P wireless is the way to cover urban areas? Will it disincentivize them from persevering through a city-wide fiber installation because P2P wireless is "good enough"? Or is it a good opening play for fiber in SF because Webpass was already navigating the zoning/regulation/rights and just needed capital to succeed? I'd be very interested to hear others' perspectives on this.

Disclosure edit: I'm a current Webpass P2P wireless customer. I was literally about to switch away from Webpass to another P2P wireless solution (we have a site evaluation next Monday) because Webpass has been unreliable for us lately. I'm really curious what, if anything, this means for Webpass and Google Fiber in SF.

View on HN

I don't really get this phobia of fixed wireless. The technology is improving by leaps and bounds--while the technology for digging up city streets isn't.

The city hasn't been doing a great job of dropping in fiber either. Maybe in SoMA, but up here in the hills I had my street repaved and there was no plans to put in fiber or upgrade sewer while it was being dug up (I checked with DPW). Fixed wireless is the future in SF, even with SF's dig once policy (http://sfgov.org/dt/dig-once).

I'd argue that the technology for digging up city streets hasn't needed to improve (though the politics around zoning/regulation/rights probably could); whereas, the technology for fixed wireless has--by leaps and bounds. But I argue this lightly because it detracts from my original question: Is fixed wireless the future of Google Fiber in SF? I'm not presupposing an answer, nor am I equipped to make a value judgement on said answer. Just curious & felt my parents' question deserved discussion, not downvotes.

The resources needed to widescale deploy fixed wireless are an order of magnitude less than residential fiber. I was counting on Google flexing its muscle to accomplish the fiber that less powerful organizations could not push through.

Google doesn't have the muscle to deploy fiber in SF on terms that make economic sense. If Fiber is profitable, a big part of the business case undoubtedly depends on the conditions Google imposes as a prerequisite for deployment: fast-track permitting and no build-out requirements. It'll take a lot of leverage to get SF to agree to those things.

At the same time it's kind of a huge embarrassment for Google not to offer Fiber in its own back yard. Fixed wireless gives Google a bridge to offering Google Fiber service in SF without taking on the SF government head on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com