Google Fiber doesn't have a wireless alternative because it would require huge technological breakthrough

Google Fiber Broadband Hype Replaced By Delays And Frustration | Techdirt: To be fair, Google's PR folks can't offer answers of what comes next because Google itself doesn't know what the wireless technology that will supplant fiber will look like. But even Google's wireless promises have been decidedly shaky. After acquiring urban wireless provider Webpass two years ago, some of that company's coverage markets have actually shrunk, with the provider simply pulling out of cities like Boston without much explanation. And many of the executives that were part of that acquisition have "suddenly" departed for unspecified reasons. At this point it's certainly possible that once Google Fiber is done with its multi-year, numerous wireless tests it settles on a cheaper (but still expensive and time consuming) alternative to fiber.

There's a simple answer here. It's because Google doesn't have (not yet, as least) an unconventional wireless technology that can replace fiber. That would require breakthrough technology that can get around the physics of radio spectrum that makes it difficult to reliably deliver bidirectional IP data streams to multiple users while penetrating objects and precipitation without interference. In other words, to get fiber's throughput, nothing tops fiber.

Milo Medin, Google's then vice president of access services, said as much at the 2013 Broadband Communities Summit, disabusing the notion that wireless can replace fiber and thus eliminating the cost of building the necessary infrastructure to support it:

Some argue that fiber networks are not really needed because of wireless network growth. As an engineer, quite honestly, this kind of talk makes my brain hurt. Wireless network growth is driven by fiber. All those base stations that smartphones connect to are increasingly connected by fiber because, as speeds go up, fiber is required to carry that kind of traffic.

In other words, wireless needs a lot of what some hope it can more cheaply substitute: fiber.

Public policy likely to shift to regard IP-based advanced telecommunications as a utility, aligning with public expectations

Internet Service Providers have historically regarded their “broadband” offerings as luxury upgrades to basic narrowband dialup service introduced in the early 1990s. Consequently, they upgraded their “last mile” delivery infrastructures to support a range of Internet protocol supported services such as high quality data, video, voice only in select areas where they believed a sufficient number of households would opt for their high end offerings. The working assumption was significantly fewer than half would do so. Hence to hedge their risk, ISPs favored areas with the highest density single family housing and multiple dwelling units (MDUs) to increase the likelihood their investment in upgraded infrastructure would produce a decent return over a relatively short duration in order to satisfy their investors.

Nearly three decades later, ISPs continue to follow this deployment strategy at the same time IP-based advanced telecommunications is increasingly seen as a basic utility service. In the United States, current regulatory policy is aligned with the ISPs “broadband” service-as-luxury business models. ISPs are free of universal service obligations like those that governed voice telephone service of the pre-Internet era, predicated on the policy principle that in a natural monopoly, market forces cannot assure all households requesting service will have their requests honored. That’s consistent with the current public policy that regards advanced telecommunications as luxury and not basic utility service. Why require ISPs to provide service to all requesting it when after all, it’s a luxury? Similarly as a luxury, regulating what ISPs can charge isn’t appropriate. Let them charge what the market will bear. (It will bear quite a lot for a service that consumers see less as a luxury than a basic service.)

The tension between the basic versus luxury service paradigm has been building in recent years and will soon reach a breaking point. As constituent complaints of infrastructure deficits grow more strident, policymakers of every stripe are increasingly describing advanced telecommunications as an essential utility like electric power and water service. Sooner rather than later, public policy will come into alignment with this view. Concurrently, expect a shift away from subsidizing investor-owned ISPs to build the necessary infrastructure to a publicly-led effort. It will be necessary in order to build rapidly enough to cover the persistent infrastructure gaps and to gain a greater degree of control and accountability than has existed in limited subsidy programs for advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

Schumer: Broadband is a Utility That May Require Price Caps | DSLReports, ISP Information

Schumer: Broadband is a Utility That May Require Price Caps | DSLReports, ISP Information: Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer uttered some words this week that likely terrified lobbyists and executives for AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. During his floor argument for a Congressional Review Act resolution that would restore net neutrality, Schumer stated that he believes that broadband should be viewed as an essential utility, and that we may need to eventually explore price caps to prevent monopolies from over-charging for services thanks to limited competition.

Schumer's right. And when it's an essential service, the potential for abusive price gouging is enormous.

Democrats and Republicans alike have traditionally avoided price caps on broadband service, in large part because deep-pocketed campaign contributors in the telecom sector have viciously opposed the idea for obvious reasons.  Even when former FCC boss Tom Wheeler reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecom act he was careful to "forbear" from applying rate regulation onto ISPs.

But Schumer appeared to re-open the conversation of price caps on an uncompetitive broadband market during discussions about net neutrality, even though the likelihood of him actually following through with that isn't particularly likely given historical precedent. "You know, people say, well, let a private company do whatever it wants, let them charge whatever they want," Schumer argued. "But in certain goods which are essential we don't do that. Utilities, highways. The same thing now applies to the internet. It's a necessity and we have to have protections for average folks, for small businesses, for working families." 

Spot on. It's time to end the delusion that a utility market can be a competitive market. After all, how many electric, water and natural gas companies are competing for customers?