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

Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 382 posts

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#171

Post by a_thro_away »

E6300 wrote: post #91
mikeash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is that in the US, this sort of thing is seen as government unfairly competing with private industry. Of course, we just get private industry setting up monopolies or duopolies instead, often with the help of local laws prohibiting competition. This is worse, but somehow more acceptable to the American electorate.

I didn't know that! What a stupid position to have. Do they also think that the abundance of air competes unfairly with air salesmen?

Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing things, even your breathing air, increases the GDP - I'd rather it not.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#172

Post by rayiner »

amazon_not wrote: post #160
rayiner wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sweden is not very dense, large parts are uninhabited forests. If they're actually uninhabited, then there is no need to build fiber out there, and you shouldn't count them in the density measure. What you're really interested in is the population-weighted density ( i.e. the density of the places where people live). Compare the list of U.S. urban areas to that of Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_…

What you really are interested in is linear density. The only metric that matters when building a network is linear route miles of cable per subscriber needed to provide service. There is a single metric you can use to approximate this for any country: people per mile of road. Every (on-grid) dwelling and business is on a street or a road, so if you put a fiber cable on every road or street, then you will pass every…

But neither the U.S. nor Sweden puts fiber on every road and street. Only 60% of Swedish households have fiber, and you can reach that figure without serving households outside of relatively dense towns.

Also, it looks like you're counting Sweden's vast unpaved road network, which makes up about 75% of its roads. I bet very few of the 60% of households with fiber live on an unpaved road. If you compare paved roads only, the U.S. and Sweden have the same linear density. And even then, it's much less expensive to connect two dense urban areas at either end of a 100 mile road than to serve sparse suburbs and exurbs along a 100 mile stretch of road.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#173

Post by bdamm »

amazon_not wrote: post #160
rayiner wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sweden is not very dense, large parts are uninhabited forests. If they're actually uninhabited, then there is no need to build fiber out there, and you shouldn't count them in the density measure. What you're really interested in is the population-weighted density ( i.e. the density of the places where people live). Compare the list of U.S. urban areas to that of Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_…

What you really are interested in is linear density. The only metric that matters when building a network is linear route miles of cable per subscriber needed to provide service. There is a single metric you can use to approximate this for any country: people per mile of road. Every (on-grid) dwelling and business is on a street or a road, so if you put a fiber cable on every road or street, then you will pass every…

The Op also pointed out that not all of Sweden is served by this municipal ownership arrangement. It may very well be the case that the Op has his or her own bias and Sweden is in fact not widely services this way.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#174

Post by amazon_not »

logfromblammo wrote: post #152
nickik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are a troll, or maybe you just don't understand how networks work. The relevant factor is not the overall size, but rather the population density. Lower population density means more cable per person (on avg.), so it makes it MORE expensive. Sweden is not very dense, large parts are uninhabited forests. Sweden 24 United States 35 New Jersey 467.2 You are basically saying, "I live in the most densely populat…

I don't think it has all that much to do with population density. I think it has everything to do with Sweden not having AT&T, Comcast, and TWC to establish the ground rules for network deployment with their lobbyists. You can't really treat an entire region like it has a uniform population density, either. Area is not the relevant unit of measure, but total linear distance of the edges of the spanning tree. Maybe a…

Yes, but that's hard to calculate. What you really want to calculate is linear density. My best approximation for this is people per mile of road. This is easy to calculate and this data is readily available.

Sweden has 10 people per mile of road. The US has 30 people per mile of road.

Sweden simply does better, despite having to deploy more infrastructure to provide service.

Sweden used to have a state telecom monopoly which then became the incumbent. You are right that regulatory capture has played a big part in the development of the telecommunications sector. Sweden had a strong incumbent, but that did not stop the municipalities and power companies from building out competing fiber networks, nor stop the regulator from acting in the best interest of the people.

So, the big difference was that the Swedes had both political support for building fiber networks and a more can do attitude towards getting things done, without excluding large parts of the community.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#175

Post by silverlight »

jgrowl wrote: post #97

Forgive me if I'm incorrect... The way I understand it is that they are halting planning in cities that they marked as potential locations, but that does not mean they are discontinuing the roll out and service in cities that are already in progress. For example in Nashville, they have been trying to roll out fiber in Nashville for over a year now but have only been able to install on less than a dozen utility poles…

I live in KC and they are still rolling out here. Next phase ends Nov 3. I assume they are I'll keep rolling out in the metros they are already in as the leg work is done for the most part.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#176

Post by [deleted] »

jgrowl wrote: post #97

Forgive me if I'm incorrect... The way I understand it is that they are halting planning in cities that they marked as potential locations, but that does not mean they are discontinuing the roll out and service in cities that are already in progress. For example in Nashville, they have been trying to roll out fiber in Nashville for over a year now but have only been able to install on less than a dozen utility poles…

[deleted]

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#177

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #142
rayiner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you can just look at just total population and total land area. The pattern of development in Europe is very different. I just got back from Munich. You go 15 minutes outside the city and it's farmland! In the U.S., it's low-density suburbs for hours in every direction outside a major city. Incidentally, I didn't get LTE service in the farmland between Munich and the airport. That would be quite unusual…

Look at Google maps around say Blacksburg VA or Charleston WV. Which are both is city, city, city, forest. Which is fairly common across much of the US. The eastern seabord being basically one big city is very much an exception not the rule. The US has ~1/3 it's population in ~1/20th of it's land.

The difference is that Blacksburg and Charleston have 50,000 people, while Munich has 1.5 million people.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#178

Post by greedo »

technofiend wrote: post #101
staticelf wrote: post #12

That sucks for citizens of the US. I think the Swedish (Nordic?) model for bringing internet connectivity to it's citizens is superior. The municipalities own (most of) the networks and all the fiber cables, letting companies use them for a small(ish) fee. These companies later sell it to customers. This help people to get the best deals and ensure that the networks are continually upgraded. For example, I have 250/1…

We've tried, man. Billions of dollars were given to Verizon, AT & T, etc to build out infrastructure. They took the money and did little or nothing. We have "regulatory capture" which is where an incumbent lobbies and gets state or federal regulations that blocks competition. A widely cited figure states that the average broadband customer costs Comcast less than $2/month for broadband internet. Yet they charge more…

Imagine if in 2009, instead of ephemeral "shovel ready" projects, we invested in building fiber to every home.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#179

Post by maxerickson »

amazon_not wrote: post #151
oldmanjay wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arguments are now decades old and unresolvable since everyone is trying to extract a meaningful comparison from a single dimension of a complicated metric. I'm pretty over them. Can we call a halt?

If you want to use a single metric, why not use people per mile of road? This correlates well with the only network metric that matters, linear route miles of cable per subscriber needed to provide service. Every (on-grid) dwelling and business is on a street or a road, so if you put a fiber cable on every road or street, then you will pass every inhabitant in the country. Sweden has 10 people per mile of road. The U…

That metric works great if you have 100% penetration.

But what if a place doesn't have service on a large portion of roads? I doubt that is particularly true for this comparison, but the metric probably shouldn't reward a place with more unserved areas.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#180

Post by daveFNbuck »

fragmede wrote: post #129
daveFNbuck wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is a bit smaller and more densely populated than New Jersey. Yet I have an unreliable and expensive 20mbps connection. If this issue were about size, Silicon Valley would have world-class high speed internet.

Silicon Valley has 100 or 200 Mbit Internet options available, and for the lucky, gigabit Internet. Funny thing is, like money in the Valley, it's very unevenly distributed. (I pay ~$50/month for 100Mbit) Silicon Valley covers a large number of municipalities, and without specifying which one you're in, all I can say sorry, 20 Mbit is slow these days.

I live in Redwood City, where I have the choice between a slower AT&T connection and a faster Comcast connection. It's partially my fault for being unwilling to pay Comcast, but these are the only choices available just a short drive from Palo Alto.
Post reply on HN