5 ms·

Webpass has only been doing fiber for 10 months [0], as far as I know the bulk of their customers in SF are on fixed wireless. I'm discouraged by this announcem

by gkop 10y ago

Webpass has only been doing fiber for 10 months [0], as far as I know the bulk of their customers in SF are on fixed wireless. I'm discouraged by this announcement - now it seems there's zero chance of widespread Google Fiber in SF. [0] https://webpass.net/blog/fiber-is-here https://webpass.net/blog/fiber-is-here

jerryr 10y ago
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.
- rayiner 10y ago
  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.
  - pdx6 10y ago
    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 http://sfgov.org/dt/dig-once).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jerryr 10y ago
    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.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - gkop 10y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      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.
ShakataGaNai 10y ago
That's not entirely correct. Webpass has been using glass provided by other companies for years, that's how they get the redundancy in the mesh. In 10 months they've been laying down their own glass trunk lines along a VERY small corridor. Last year was ~15 blocks of Howard St. This year was supposed to be Bryant St. So if you were in SOMA you had a decent chance. Google has already stated they were going to use some other providers glass along with deploying their own in the city. This seems like a really good way to jump start things for GF in SF.
- gkop 10y ago
  (I'm not an industry expert) Prior to 10 months ago, were there any Webpass end users without the fixed wireless hop to fiber? What exactly does Webpass mean when they distinguish between their fixed wireless product and their fiber product? I'm not concerned with who owns the fiber, I would just prefer not to have wireless involved because of weather and oversubscription.
  - ShakataGaNai 10y ago
    "were there end users on fiber?" Yes. Not many but yes. A large amount of their wireless backhauls terminated at data centers in SF, but some also "terminated" at buildings. These locations you could use webpass and basically be on fiber direct - though that wasn't the purpose. It was mostly so that they didn't have to backhaul connects ALL the way across the city and should a DC or major link go offline, it could reroute. Yay mesh networking. The difference between that and fiber is who owned the glass. All of what I mentioned above, to my knowledge, is glass leased from other companies (Ex: AT&T). Their fiber product is glass they dug up the street and laid themselves - directly from the DC. If you look at the fiber maps in SF ( https://webpass.net/fiber https://webpass.net/fiber ) they all start at 365 Main ( http://365datacenters.com/ http://365datacenters.com/ ). As a webpass customer, I have to say that weather and oversub have not been an issue for me for the last 3 years. For example this winter there was only 2 days where it rained hard enough (when it was REALLY coming down) to notice latency. In both cases it was for ~10mn and I only noticed because I was on SSH connections. Any muggle's netflix connection wouldn't even flinch.
adamgray 10y ago
I had Webpass fiber in Chicago for over a year. It was nice 1Gbps symmetric too. Back on Comcast now though :(

by gkop 10y ago

jerryr 10y ago

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.

rayiner 10y ago
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.
- pdx6 10y ago
  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 http://sfgov.org/dt/dig-once).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jerryr 10y ago
  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.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gkop 10y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    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.

ShakataGaNai 10y ago

That's not entirely correct. Webpass has been using glass provided by other companies for years, that's how they get the redundancy in the mesh. In 10 months they've been laying down their own glass trunk lines along a VERY small corridor. Last year was ~15 blocks of Howard St. This year was supposed to be Bryant St. So if you were in SOMA you had a decent chance. Google has already stated they were going to use some other providers glass along with deploying their own in the city. This seems like a really good way to jump start things for GF in SF.

gkop 10y ago
(I'm not an industry expert) Prior to 10 months ago, were there any Webpass end users without the fixed wireless hop to fiber? What exactly does Webpass mean when they distinguish between their fixed wireless product and their fiber product? I'm not concerned with who owns the fiber, I would just prefer not to have wireless involved because of weather and oversubscription.
- ShakataGaNai 10y ago
  "were there end users on fiber?" Yes. Not many but yes. A large amount of their wireless backhauls terminated at data centers in SF, but some also "terminated" at buildings. These locations you could use webpass and basically be on fiber direct - though that wasn't the purpose. It was mostly so that they didn't have to backhaul connects ALL the way across the city and should a DC or major link go offline, it could reroute. Yay mesh networking. The difference between that and fiber is who owned the glass. All of what I mentioned above, to my knowledge, is glass leased from other companies (Ex: AT&T). Their fiber product is glass they dug up the street and laid themselves - directly from the DC. If you look at the fiber maps in SF ( https://webpass.net/fiber https://webpass.net/fiber ) they all start at 365 Main ( http://365datacenters.com/ http://365datacenters.com/ ). As a webpass customer, I have to say that weather and oversub have not been an issue for me for the last 3 years. For example this winter there was only 2 days where it rained hard enough (when it was REALLY coming down) to notice latency. In both cases it was for ~10mn and I only noticed because I was on SSH connections. Any muggle's netflix connection wouldn't even flinch.

adamgray 10y ago

I had Webpass fiber in Chicago for over a year. It was nice 1Gbps symmetric too. Back on Comcast now though :(