Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Advancing our amazing bet

googlefiberblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#161

Post by briffle »

xenadu02 wrote: post #90
scarmig wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My totally non-professional opinion is this: the problems of there not being good ISPs in the USA isn't a technical or infrastructure problem, where Google excels. They are instead political and organizational problems. Existing ISPs give as little as they can legally get away with while extracting as much money as possible from customers, by hook or by crook. If Google enters a market to provide a better service, Co…

> If Google enters a market to provide a better service, Comcast et al. can easily pretty much flip a switch in that market to start providing a better service to hold onto their disgruntled customers, depriving Google of much of the market it needed to make Fiber profitable. This is why the pure libertarian ideas about a completely free market just don't work for some services. It is a complete waste of human and ma…

To me, the ideal setup is a single entity, whether govt, coop, or nonprofit, to run the 'last mile' to the homes as a utility (gpon or something similar). then let ISP's, telcos, etc run their fiber to the CO, and provide internet, TV, and voice. A bill gets split up, and the utility gets a small percentage for maintenance, repairs, on-site troubleshooting, and upgrades. ISP's no longer need a fleet of techs, and just need to worry about core infrastructure. Competition thrives, as you note just need to connect to a CO to start competing, etc. Actually very similar to how many rural power co-op's with now. Since the utility is small and local, you can actually talk to them about concerns, etc.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#162

Post by rayiner »

Inconel wrote: post #118
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the regulations only serve to protect incumbents by raising the barriers to entry, ignoring whether this is the case here, rather than the public interest, isn't it still valid to argue that this is regulatory capture? I'm genuinely curious here and not trying to be obnoxiously argumentative.

Before claiming "regulatory capture" don't you have to make some facial showing that the regulations only exist to protect incumbents? The regulations at issue are Title II, which everyone here loves.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#163

Post by ryao »

It is a shame that Google Fiber did not build a EPON network like the ones that major ISPs in South Korea, Japan and China either have built or are building. The equipment is cheaper because it is free of legacy cruft. They could have opted for 10G-EPON to have been able to put more users on each node too.

That said, the biggest advantage that fiber seems to have in those countries is that the government is pushing for it. In China for instance, I have heard that all new construction must have fiber available. It is possible to order 200Mbps down and 20Mbps up fiber service in Shanghai even in old constructions. I have only seen the situation in Shanghai firsthand, so I cannot comment much on South Korea or Japan. However, I do know that they deployed EPON technology and are migrating toward 10G-EPON. 10G-EPON is superior to the GPON that we use in the US:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30519466-PON-EPON-or-GPON-o...

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#164

Post by philfrasty »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

This 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…

"I'm getting out of this while it still looks good." MADE MY DAY xD

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#166

Post by rayiner »

Inconel wrote: post #114
rayiner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest hurdle is simply the "physics" of building a fiber network. It's not just expensive to run fiber by every household. That expense is effectively multiplied by a factor of three because you can really only ever hope to get about 1/3 of the market. That's about what Fiber plateaued at, and what Verizon FiOS has plateaued at. So if it costs $1000 to run fiber past a house and $500 to connect a house, and you…

Reading your response as well as others' really illustrates to me how depressingly difficult this task is. I honestly have to give Google a lot of credit for Fiber, even if it ends up being a failure, in fact I now have a bit more respect even for the big telcos, its pretty amazing that such a convoluted system functions at all. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of large government programs, although not fanatically so…

In most places, it's the power company that owns the poles because it's the power company that builds and maintains them. In a few places, the phone company does it. In theory, though, they are supposed to offer non-discriminatory access to the poles.

Re: preferential treatment, Google definitely didn't get away scott free. Building an ISP in any municipality means agreeing to a grab bag of concessions. Build out requirements tend to be the most expensive. Every house you pass that doesn't subscribe means you need to recover $500-1000 from a house that does subscribe. But any municipal cable franchise will be full of stuff like requirements to build fiber to government facilities and schools, payments to support public access TV, etc. Google did get a better deal, though. For example, in KC, it ultimately ended up paying half the pole rent Time Warner does.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#167

Post by avip »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

This 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…

Now that's a professional TL;DR. Thank you. Is there already a good TLDRAAS out there?

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#168

Post by titzer »

mozumder wrote: post #154
Inconel wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

> It's very interesting that you say the biggest hurdle was regulatory capture, that is certainly depressing. Why is that depressing? Do you feel any company should be allowed to build a phone line above your street, instead of being a regulated monopoly? This is what happens when you do that: http://io9.gizmodo.com/photos-from-the-days-when-thousands-o...

You know, returning home to the USA a couple times a year, I am really struck by how many freaking power and phone lines are everywhere. It seems like every single street, except for the very core of cities downtown, and only the very wealthiest neighbors, have buried lines. In Germany, almost every town and every highway is free of these (IMO) ugly poles with lines everywhere. It's really an eyesore when you finally glance up.

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#169

Post by ethanbond »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #140
lifeformed wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right after Google announced they were pulling out of Portland, Comcast immediately raised prices and added a data cap to existing plans.

Just because google fiber had a side effect of helping consumers doesn't mean it was googles motivation.

What reason did google have to believe Comcast was going to "cut off" access to users?

Re: Advancing our amazing bet

#170

Post by jacquesm »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

This 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…

That title sure doesn't match the payload.
Post reply on HN