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

261–270 of 382 posts

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #258
talmand wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by America you mean the citizens, yes we want to do it and have made it quite clear we've wanted it for quite a while. First problem is the cost of the infrastructure for such a huge space. We did offer to subsidize it to a point and the companies took the money without delivering. As usual, no repercussions. Second problem is very few politicians, in office or wishing to run, will listen to the citizens and prefe…

> If by America you mean the citizens, yes we want to do it and have made it quite clear we've wanted it for quite a while. Did you hear anyone talk about broadband during this year's presidential election?

> Did you hear anyone talk about broadband during this year's presidential election?

While it's hard to hear much about policy plans over the personal, historical, and character attacks this cycle, yes, I've heard Clinton promoting her "broadband for all" plan, as well as seen some criticism of and debate about it in the press, etc.

Here's an article from earlier this month: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/hillary-clinton-v...

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#262

Post by amazon2 »

gopalv wrote: post #254
jamesblonde wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal evidence. I live in Stockholm. I talk at a conference about once/month, nearly always outside Sweden. Nearly every industrial conference has problems with wifi. Never in Sweden. Anywhere do we have problems at hotels, venues, massive conferences. We have the bandwidth. Most other countries do not, and leaving Sweden is always like going back in time, tbh. Everybody i know has fibre to the home, irrespective…

> The suburban house people complain that it costs them 1-2k Euro to pay for the fibre, but they pay for it. I think that's the difference - the costs are upfront, not paid by capital/loan with the subscriber having to pay for it eventually. Rationally, most people wouldn't want to pay that much into a US cable/net provider, considering their historical experience with them.

They might pay, if they got to chose their provider freely like they can in Sweden, where they build open access networks where any ISP can provide service.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

Animats wrote: post #260

This is discouraging. I thought that Google Fiber was over-hyped for the number of users actually connected, but didn't think they'd just give up. Perhaps Sonic, which provides gigabit Internet service to parts of San Francisco at a lower price than Google [1], will take over Google's operation there. [1] https://www.sonic.com/sanfrancisco

There is some indication in the article that they aren't giving up on providing broadband, but halting expansion of the current Fiber offering and business model as a vehicle for that, preferring other approaches.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#264

Post by rayiner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #261
rayiner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If by America you mean the citizens, yes we want to do it and have made it quite clear we've wanted it for quite a while. Did you hear anyone talk about broadband during this year's presidential election?

> Did you hear anyone talk about broadband during this year's presidential election? While it's hard to hear much about policy plans over the personal, historical, and character attacks this cycle, yes, I've heard Clinton promoting her "broadband for all" plan, as well as seen some criticism of and debate about it in the press, etc. Here's an article from earlier this month: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10…

Clinton's proposal is the usual appeal to rural voters by talking about the "broadband gap." That has little to do with fiber, which is presumably what 'talmund was talking about.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#265

Post by doctorshady »

briffle wrote: post #185
briffle wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay $63.25 for a 2M/256K rural WISP connection, and i'm in a county with 500,000 people. In fact, i'm only 4 miles south of Madison, WI city limits.. I live in a neighborhood of 100 homes. I would kill for a 10M connection, and more than 2M up..

Should add, ATT has said on their website for the last 9 years that DSL is available at my house.. I sign up once a year, to have a guy 2 days later say its a mistake, and neighborhood is too far from the CO. I have been told 4 times to get a petition around the neighborhood, but of course, the people at the call center can't tell me what to do with that petition, or where to send it, etc. so its just to get me off t…

I wonder if you can get regulators involved here. I know internet is still relatively lightly regulated compared to the phone network, but AT&T has been willingly refusing to do new non-Uverse DSL installs the past couple years.

If you can document that DSL was once available at your house or that your neighbors still have it, you might be able to get somewhere.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#266

Post by mdip »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #4

Can't say I'm surprised. I expect Google fi to have a similar fate in a few years. It's not Google business.

I'm not so sure about Project Fi disappearing.

The fact is, they have a national rollout of Project Fi because they were able to operate in a way that allowed them to resell existing carriers' products as an MVNO. And they were able to offer something unique over existing MVNOs by combining Sprint and T-Mobile's networks, which required a special radio/SIM card combination since the networks are quite different. It had the practical upshot where I live of providing superior service to even the best available networks (which are AT&T and Verizon in my area) and giving me excellent coverage in an area served poorly by each of the networks independently[0].

Ensuring that people have fast, reliable, non-discriminatory access to the internet is within Google's best interest. Assuming the next administration undoes network neutrality, Google could find itself and its products penalized if carriers offer alternatives that don't include surcharges (unlikely, yes, but possible considering many don't have more than one choice for broadband service).

And, speaking personally, working with Project Fi has been wonderful. I've interacted with customer service on three occasions (most recently a month ago due to a software update killing my wife's phone) and they're incredible -- going well over and above what the other carriers have done for me when I've run into trouble. It's particularly nice for me since I have data usage requirements that occasionally balloon in a given month but are often very low -- it's saved me about $80/month as a result[1]. And from what I read, it's a lean business. Since they don't manage the network, all of the phones offered are in-house brands (Nexus and Pixel), there's a lot of overlap everywhere except for customer service[2].

[0] I'm about a year out of date with data since I've had Fi since then, but the thumb area of Michigan had parts that were covered well by T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, but those places were interspersed with a lot of dead areas. Sprint and T-Mobile appear to almost exist in places where the other isn't so as a result of combining the two, I get 4G through every part of the thumb that I spend a lot of time in the summer.

[1] My data usage is almost always under a gig, but I occasionally run into a situation where I need a lot of data for a few days. As a result, I always kept a data plan that was five times what I required "just in case" because the overage charges were extreme on Verizon when I was a customer and it was "just easier". I probably could have managed to keep a lower plan and only called in when I went over, upgrading temporarily (they used to let you upgrade and backdate that upgrade to the previous month a few times), but I didn't like the risk or the hassle.

[2] When I had this problem with my Nexus phone, I was transferred from Fi support to a much more general hardware support group that sounded like it was specific to the Nexus phones. Despite the transfer, this call was the shortest I've dealt with to get to resolution and I was pleased that the CSRs all had a great command of the English language (the hardware guys had accents but they weren't so thick that I had a difficult time understanding them). Getting a replacement sent over night with Saturday delivery at no charge was really great.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#267

Post by espadrine »

markbnj wrote: post #58
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…

When you say "citizens of the US" you're talking about a continent that would take roughly five days to cross at highway speed, driving ten hours a day. You may as well say "citizens of Europe." If you haven't done that drive, by the way, you should. It will add some perspective to these comparisons. A more reasonable comparison would be between Sweden (population 9.5m) and the state I live in, New Jersey (population…

> You may as well say "citizens of Europe.

I have heard that response before, but I don't think it holds.

The culture density in Europe is tremendous compared to the US. European countries are not like US states: in a few hours, I can go to a city where nobody speaks my language. Even within my country, many regions have tremendous accents and even completely different languages that are still in heavy use (Brittany's Breton language, for instance).

Even at a governmental level, passports are issued by countries; US citizens have the same passport, with common federal laws and a single military.

Culture variety drives the number of communities regardless of the size of geographic surfaces.

The US is one big community with fairly common concerns, such as ISP monopolies. In Europe, we have very different ISP markets from country to country — each has different companies and different struggles.

Sure, there are inequalities even within a common culture; you can have good phone coverage in Montpellier but no reception around Millau. Still, when you face the same competitors across the country, you are authorized to characterize their behavior towards the market.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#268

Post by 1_2__3 »

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…

You are falling for Google's PR-speak. This kind of language they've used for literally dozens of dead projects/products over the years. This is the language Google uses when they say "we quit". It's couched in nuance and weasel words.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#269

Post by chimeracoder »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #252
kodablah wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP said "regardless of whether the natural monopoly is municipal or Comcast", i.e. both are bad options. Not sure why you are asking the GP to defend a claim that wasn't made.

Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted). Why not my internet? Why can't it be a regulated utility? Because of fear mongers and corruption. Full steam ahead on municipal bandwidth it appears, and coming for politicians with pitchforks who oppose it.

> Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted).

A monopoly provider is always bad for the consumer. (Occasionally, it is less bad for the consumer than any feasible alternative, but it is always a sign that the consumer is receiving the "short end" of the stick)[0]. For so-called "natural monopolies", the most that regulation can do is reduce that disparity, but it cannot eliminate it - and it does this for a hefty premium (the price of the regulation).

In most (but not all) markets, utility companies are the textbook example of natural monopolies. But there is no reason to believe that the entire supply chain of residential Internet access is a natural monopoly. Furthermore, natural monopolies aren't really a "good" thing; they're just unavoidable in some circumstances. For example, utility companies, whether privately or publicly run, typically do horribly with customer satisfaction ratings, response times for non-emergency services, and so on. The fact that their customers' demand is completely inelastic is the main reason for this.

A monopoly is pretty much inherently bad; it just so happens that sometimes it's unavoidable. But, as OP said, there's no reason to sanction a monopoly provider for an industry (or part of an industry) in which it is avoidable.

> either a small or no profit right is granted

Just because something is nominally run by the public sector or as a "non-profit" doesn't mean that a profit is not being made off the good/service chain. The difference is where that profit is accounted for on the books.

[0] This can be illustrated very easily using cost curves; I'm speaking in colloquial terms like "short end of the stick" specifically to avoid the need for economics jargon, but it's a pretty straightforward and fundamental lemma from basic supply and demand.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#270

Post by amazon2 »

rayiner wrote: post #172
amazon_not wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

> If you compare paved roads only, the U.S. and Sweden have the same linear density

That's a fair point.

> 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.

Not necessarily. Build costs in dense urban areas are high, but there are more subscribers. Suburbs and exurbs are cheaper to build per mile, but have less customers. It averages out fairly well.

Post reply on HN