Live data from Hacker News

Advancing our amazing bet

googlefiberblog.blogspot.com

61–70 of 221 posts

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#61

I feel like Google set the wrong goal. Most people don't need symmetric 1Gbps connections, and won't need them for decades. They could have started with something like 200Mbps down / 50 Mbps up, and covered way more customers for the same cost. That would still be very disruptive. It would also be great if some high speed / high bandwidth wireless tech took off to eliminate laying fiber altogether. Like that Japanese…

its really the same cost. the actual fiber itself is cheap compared to the costs of laying it.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked briefly on the Fiber team when it was very young (basically from 2 weeks before to 2 weeks after launch - I was on loan from Search specifically so that they could hit their launch goals). The bottleneck when I was there were local government regulations, and in fact Kansas City was chosen because it had a unified city/county/utility regulatory authority that was very favorable to Google. To lay fiber to the…

It's very interesting that you say the biggest hurdle was regulatory capture, that is certainly depressing. This leads me to another question that maybe you or someone else can answer, although I understand if you can't for various reasons. There seems to be a ton of very smart people working at Google and I can't imagine that they would go about trying to set up their own ISP without taking into account the huge pus…

I'm not sure, exactly - most of the discussions about whether Fiber would be viable happened long before I was on the team, and in any case I wasn't privy to them. Here is Milo Medin's (Google Fiber's "founder") testimony before the House Oversight Committee on regulatory issues in ISPs:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testi...

(From Apr 2011, over a year before Google Fiber actually launched.)

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#63
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked briefly on the Fiber team when it was very young (basically from 2 weeks before to 2 weeks after launch - I was on loan from Search specifically so that they could hit their launch goals). The bottleneck when I was there were local government regulations, and in fact Kansas City was chosen because it had a unified city/county/utility regulatory authority that was very favorable to Google. To lay fiber to the…

> "Here's a box, a wire, and a map of other customers' locations. Plug into their jack, and if you can convince others to plug into yours, we'll give you a discount on your monthly bill based on how many you sign up." How would that break any laws? It's essentially doing a commercial mesh-net of sorts, like many are already doing in Europe and elsewhere. If instead, they gave you a box and a map - and that box suppor…

The box wouldn't be WiFi. That doesn't have enough bandwidth for the target results. It would be a wire or optical fiber, and it probably won't be a continuous stream of direct neighbors: people would run it across the street through storm sewers, string it up on utility poles, bury it an inch deep across the local park or unknowing intermediate neighbors, or even renting a trencher or pipe layer and installing it like a utility would... However they can get it. The data finds a way. Legally, those require permits.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#64
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked briefly on the Fiber team when it was very young (basically from 2 weeks before to 2 weeks after launch - I was on loan from Search specifically so that they could hit their launch goals). The bottleneck when I was there were local government regulations, and in fact Kansas City was chosen because it had a unified city/county/utility regulatory authority that was very favorable to Google. To lay fiber to the…

> "Here's a box, a wire, and a map of other customers' locations. Plug into their jack, and if you can convince others to plug into yours, we'll give you a discount on your monthly bill based on how many you sign up." How would that break any laws? It's essentially doing a commercial mesh-net of sorts, like many are already doing in Europe and elsewhere. If instead, they gave you a box and a map - and that box suppor…

Wouldn't surprise me if there are some local regulations about how wires or cabling can be run and who can do the installation, but I'm not aware of any specific laws.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out saying "we failed and are canceling a product, again" hurts the stock price more.

No, that's not how the stock market works. If a company's project/product were failing and/or losing money, then investors would have priced the loss into the stock price long ago. If a company announces that it is ending a money-losing effort, then investors will value the company more highly. In theory, therefore, this announcement should raise the stock price. In practice, who knows.

Failing/losing money in what time frame? That makes all the difference. If the time frame is "now", you might be right, but investors typically want some type of return....

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#66
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked briefly on the Fiber team when it was very young (basically from 2 weeks before to 2 weeks after launch - I was on loan from Search specifically so that they could hit their launch goals). The bottleneck when I was there were local government regulations, and in fact Kansas City was chosen because it had a unified city/county/utility regulatory authority that was very favorable to Google. To lay fiber to the…

> "Here's a box, a wire, and a map of other customers' locations. Plug into their jack, and if you can convince others to plug into yours, we'll give you a discount on your monthly bill based on how many you sign up." How would that break any laws? It's essentially doing a commercial mesh-net of sorts, like many are already doing in Europe and elsewhere. If instead, they gave you a box and a map - and that box suppor…

> How would that break any laws? It's essentially doing a commercial mesh-net of sorts, like many are already doing in Europe and elsewhere.

I believe—depending on the municipality—if you knowingly and explicitly share internet with others you open yourself up to the sorts of regulation ISPs have to deal with.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#67
There is no good money in delivering bits. That's why AT&T wants to buy Time Warner and that's why Google Fiber is shutting down. The only way to make money is price gauging in areas where there is a competitive market. There is really no way to stand out from the competition other than a better price per bit. Obviously there isn't much money in that. There also is really no way to make your customer actively happy other than pricing. Even if you do anything right the only time you will be noticed is when something is broken which is often times unavoidable (storms, lighting, broken equipment, incompetent customers, etc.). Bottom line it's a shit market to be in. The only reason to innovate is because some competitor was foolish to sink money into better, faster infrastructure that most customers don't care about and now you gotta catch up. So there are only incentives to screw customers one way or another and integrating innovation as much as possible. I'm not sure how this can possibly be turned into a functioning, competitive market.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#68
I think my experiences as a Google Fiber subscriber here in Provo might help illustrate why things haven't gone as well for Google as they (and we) initially expected.

It turns out that delivering gigabit fiber to the home, though a remarkable technical achievement, isn't transformative in the way that all of us living here assumed it would be.

It turns out that almost none of the internet resources commonly consumed in the home are even remotely provisioned for gigabit residential connections. ESPN.com loads about as quickly as it always did. Your Netflix streams don't look any different (the absence of buffering, while nice, is a pretty subtle thing). Even Google services, which you'd expect to be optimized for Fiber subscribers, are no faster than before. Downloads from Google Drive at my home are just as pokey as they are on my Comcast connection at the office.

A few things are amazing (Apple downloads are so fast you feel like you must be on the company LAN in Cupertino) and, if you're the rare person who can make use of it, the fact that Google Fiber also provides 1 Gbps UPSTREAM... well, words don't exist to express what that's like.

But those are the exceptions. And those exceptions are only achievable by the rare person who actually wired the house with Ethernet. Oh, and it turns out that you've also got to upgrade all of your NICs (every technically-inclined person in the city quickly discovered that Ethernet controllers in consumer PC's can't come close to pushing gigabit Ethernet, regardless of what's printed on the box).

If you're on wifi, forget it, especially if you're one of the vast majority connecting solely via the underpowered 802.11n wifi router that Google provided.

It was a source of enormous community pride when Google made the announcement. (And a source of validation for the politicians who years earlier had pushed through the municipal fiber network that Google purchased for a dollar.) Everyone was so excited to sign up, and it was great to celebrate with your neighbors as the blue and white Google Fiber vans slowly moved up your street.

But now, a couple of years in, no one really talks about it anymore. It's definitely nice. The Google folks are great to deal with if you ever have an issue (which, in any case, is exceedingly rare). The pricing is straightforward and easy to understand. But, to your average household here in Provo, on an average evening doing average things on the Internet, it just doesn't seem very different than what we had before.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#69

I feel like Google set the wrong goal. Most people don't need symmetric 1Gbps connections, and won't need them for decades. They could have started with something like 200Mbps down / 50 Mbps up, and covered way more customers for the same cost. That would still be very disruptive. It would also be great if some high speed / high bandwidth wireless tech took off to eliminate laying fiber altogether. Like that Japanese…

its really the same cost. the actual fiber itself is cheap compared to the costs of laying it.

Yes, that's what I said. But you can hook up 5 times the customers at that same cost.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#70
post #7
post #4

For most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches NOOOOOOOOOOOO. Being trapped with either Time Warner or AT&T with max speeds of 40mbps had me really excited as a San Diegan for Google Fiber.

On the plus side, you'll soon be trapped with just AT&T! Oh wait...

TWC was bought by Charter recently.
Post reply on HN