[deleted]
Advancing our amazing bet
101–110 of 221 posts
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#102This announcement needs a little bit of translation from the marketing language it's written in: > And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. "We're not yet profitable." > We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our busine…
Thanks. When I read those thing it is like they are written in a different language. Reading it I got a positive vibe even -- oh look we are growing and are about to just deploy some amazing new technology. The stepping down part was a surprise at the end a bit.
Corporate-speak is a funny thing. I guess it is in a way a test or a filter for good SVPs and CEOs -- can they speak in this language (they better). Talking honestly and plainly would sound so harsh and negative probably.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#103TLDR; Google Fiber is closing down.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#104Earlier 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…
Calling the disputes over utility poles in KC "regulatory capture" is quite a bit of historical revisionism. This ArsTechnica article does a good job of explaining what the dispute was about: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/why-att-says-it-c....
Also, Google got very preferential treatment when it came to pole access in Kansas City: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904438626045780306... ("The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year—compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google.")
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#105This announcement needs a little bit of translation from the marketing language it's written in: > And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. "We're not yet profitable." > We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our busine…
It's possible that > As for me personally, it’s been quite a journey over the past few years, taking a broad-based set of projects and initiatives and growing a focused business that is on a strong trajectory. And I’ve decided this is the right juncture to step aside from my CEO role. could mean "I've been fired because although we're spinning this as a market failure, I didn't have any viable plans to make it succes…
That was the same thing that happened and the same positioning they used for Tony at Nest, right?
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only speaking with knowledge of their first market (Kansas City), I would guess it is a combination of three things: * Buildout costs Google was using the same contracts as everyone else for the fiber infrastructure install. The guys running the trenchers and directional drills where the same guys that do it for AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, whomever. Google built at such a pace they certainly were not getting any deal…
Very interesting regarding CapEx and Google blindly writing checks. So it would appear that in addition to the regulatory hurdles Google also made some poor decisions in the rollout and signup process. Would Google have been better served targeting smaller cities that might have been more receptive to Fiber than the ones they ended up building in? Or is there not enough money to recoup costs in smaller cities? Regard…
> In my area here in LA county, it seems most utility poles are on public right-of-ways, I would think it would make a lot of sense to have those poles available for any company that wants to compete to offer services.
That is the law! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224
> A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.
There was some dispute as to whether Google Fiber counted as a "telecommunications carrier" for purposes of Section 224, but that is probably mooted now that the FCC has determined broadband providers are all "telecommunications carriers" subject to Title II.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Calling the disputes over utility poles in KC "regulatory capture" is quite a bit of historical revisionism. This ArsTechnica article does a good job of explaining what the dispute was about: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/why-att-says-it-c... . Also, Google got very preferential treatment when it came to pole access in Kansas City: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904438626045780306... ("The cit…
My bias in this thread is pretty obvious, but to me, that ArsTechnica article doesn't make AT&T look any better. Their response was basically "Here, you want to be a telecom? Go clear all these regulatory hurdles that we've already done", without at all addressing whether those regulations are worth having in the first place. That's almost the definition of regulatory capture: when regulations exist to create barriers to competitors rather than to protect the public interest.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#108This announcement needs a little bit of translation from the marketing language it's written in: > And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. "We're not yet profitable." > We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our busine…
Pretty much exactly the interpretation a Googler posted earlier:
https://plus.google.com/+PeterKasting/posts/TJwzGb5dt1W
"We have refined our plan!
"We're going to push technology, remain a leader, enhance our focus, and in general optimize our synergistic long-term 'outside the box' thinking for high-impact de-risking of our core vertical integrations for enhanced customer satisfaction.
"Oh, and practically speaking, all these positive things are happening because we're stopping investment and reducing our headcount, and our CEO is stepping aside."
The shit's not even selling on the inside.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#109This announcement needs a little bit of translation from the marketing language it's written in: > And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. "We're not yet profitable." > We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our busine…
This is why I read the comments first, just avoided another painful article. Do people who communicate in spin-speak start to think that way on the inside too?
Oh that's an interesting question. When I speak a different languages I switch to thinking in that language (this goes for human and computer languages). If I talk with a Russian friend, I think in Russian. When use a functional programming language I switch to thinking in functional concepts (maps, folds, list comprehension, closures). When in an OO language think about composition and so on.
So when they write that stuff I imagine for an hour they switch to "CEO mode" and think in those concepts, write things down. Then they become themselves [+].
Also the best propaganda is propaganda that is internalized, people often brainwash themselves, because it makes things easier and is much more effective than pretending to speak one thing but think another.
[+] One can argue there is no such thing as "oneself" and we are all just a sequences of such personas or roles we play. But that's for a philosophical aside.
Re: Advancing our amazing bet
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the disputes over utility poles in KC "regulatory capture" is quite a bit of historical revisionism. This ArsTechnica article does a good job of explaining what the dispute was about: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/why-att-says-it-c... . Also, Google got very preferential treatment when it came to pole access in Kansas City: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904438626045780306... ("The cit…
My bias in this thread is pretty obvious, but to me, that ArsTechnica article doesn't make AT&T look any better. Their response was basically "Here, you want to be a telecom? Go clear all these regulatory hurdles that we've already done", without at all addressing whether those regulations are worth having in the first place . That's almost the definition of regulatory capture: when regulations exist to create barrie…
I think it's actually the opposite of "regulatory capture." It's not about the incumbent getting special treatment, but making sure a new entrant doesn't get special treatment.