Live data from Hacker News

Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

gizmodo.com

41–50 of 190 posts

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#41
post #19
post #6

The failure of Google Fiber paints a very bleak picture of the future of internet infrastructure, or even all communication in this country. If Google cannot compete with the status quo, who can?

Any chance some form of wireless can increase competition?

The "wireless competing with broadband" thing is mostly ISPs trying to claim that the two services compete with each other in order to claim that they have more competitors than they do.

Wireless is slower, has higher latency, is less reliable (interference/obstructions), etc. But you can put in one tower and service every customer for miles under those conditions, which is much cheaper than wiring every building.

It's possible to address those problems with wireless, but the way to do it makes the wireless network look like the wired one. Instead of one tower serving many people, you have very many towers each serving a small number of people. But then the cost benefit evaporates. You need a tower on every street corner which has to be wired with fiber.

At that point you might as well just hook the existing phone or cable wires already going into everyone's houses into that box on the end of the street in order to get the last few meters, and save yourself a few billion dollars in wireless spectrum.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#42
post #6

The failure of Google Fiber paints a very bleak picture of the future of internet infrastructure, or even all communication in this country. If Google cannot compete with the status quo, who can?

I mean, this is almost exactly the kind of massive public project that the government is there for.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#43
post #6

The failure of Google Fiber paints a very bleak picture of the future of internet infrastructure, or even all communication in this country. If Google cannot compete with the status quo, who can?

That's not the lesson I'd learn here. This seems like Google has not yet learned how civil engineering works, which is a crucial component in internet infrastructure. It's unfortunate that Louisville is getting bit hard here.

I would also point to the engineering required to build and operate some of the world's largest datacenter and wan infrastructure.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#44
post #21

Would it be surprising to see Google pivot to 5G for the tech solution? I believe their business goal is still to control the access. Anyone see a realistic unit cost analyis for 5G in urban environments at maturity? On the fiber side, I think cities need to build the infrastructure (and are often in a position to finance via low interest rate bonds etc), and then enable any party to lease/operate/compete on that inf…

I have WebPass (webpass.net) in Denver, which is a company that Google acquired. It's mainly for residential multi-unit apartment buildings, though. I've had it for several years and it works extremely well. It uses point-to-point radios from their main node in the city to the top of your building, then you get an ethernet hookup in your unit.

I almost always get in the ~700-800Mbps up and down range on ethernet connections, regardless of time of day. Never had any issues during snow, rain, fog, etc.

My guess is that Google realized that fiber-to-the-home is the wrong strategy, and too costly, just as Verizon FIOS halted their rollout years before. And I believe even ATT only does fiber to a neighborhood and then coax to the home, right? It's sad to see, but the cost is astronomical and it's a lot harder to get cities/municipalities to let you dig things up.

Especially for America with it having so much sprawl, a wireless solution will probably work better and the rollout will be quicker.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#45

When I interned at AT&T a few years ago, I asked a manager I respected whether they were worried about Google Fiber coming in and eating their lunch. "No", he said. "We'll sue them for every mile of fiber they lay down". I can understand why they would make that play. It's kind of the only play they have. AT&T and Verizon innovate enough to remain...okay...but they're not exactly Google. The only way they would win i…

It did have a positive impact though because AT&T and Verizon started actually building out their fiber networks more aggressively when they saw google entering the space. I live in Orange County, CA and AT&T out here started building out fiber when they saw Google building in Irvine, CA. AT&T knows that if they could just "rope off" google to a small area then their initial investment wouldn't really be worth it.

My concern is whether the ISPs will find expanding and maintaining their fiber infrastructure necessary if Google continues to pull out of the market, or whether it'll end up crushed like the EV-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1).

Is there enough demand already generated in industries requiring significant network throughput (e.g. e-sports, industrial IoT, or elsewhere) that ISPs will shoot themselves in the foot if they collapse the market? I personally don't use enough data to justify a Gigabit connection. My friends who stream video and game online might. Hopefully the latter will pull us into the future, but I don't know for sure.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the lesson I'd learn here. This seems like Google has not yet learned how civil engineering works, which is a crucial component in internet infrastructure. It's unfortunate that Louisville is getting bit hard here.

I would also point to the engineering required to build and operate some of the world's largest datacenter and wan infrastructure.

They don't build the WAN infrastructure, nor is building data centers an exercise in civil engineering. Typically, data centers are located where the least amount of civil engineering is required.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#47

Fiber is probably a dead end and will ultimately be replaced by 5G point-to-point transmission for the last mile.

Fiber offers better reliability, lower latency, higher bandwidth (right now), and it can be reused for even higher bandwidth later (e.g. 1 Gbps fiber can handle 10 Gbps with new transceivers on the same run).

They could still do fiber to some central node, then point-to-point radios for the last mile. I have WebPass (webpass.net) and it's point-to-point, gigabit, and latency is awesome, much better than Comcast ever was for me at the same location, or any location for that matter. My ping to 1.1.1.1 is consistently around 2-4ms. And yes, this is obviously an anycast address, going to a datacenter in my city, but still impressive:

  traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1)  0.394 ms  0.383 ms  0.470 ms
 2  * * * (*)  2.460 ms  1.754 ms  2.599 ms
 3  10.5.1.9 (10.5.1.9)  1.518 ms  1.424 ms  1.614 ms
 4  206.51.46.41 (206.51.46.41)  1.926 ms  2.240 ms  2.138 ms
 5  one.one.one.one (1.1.1.1)  1.756 ms  1.945 ms  2.015 ms
I was skeptical of this over something wired, too, but it's clear that the technology has greatly improved.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#49
post #15
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Municipalities. They are world class experts in running broadband infrastructure if only evil ISPs let them.

Certainly. It took TWO YEARS of negotiating with Louisville before Google could start construction. If the municipalities do it themselves, there’s no small time politicians hands to grease, and the city can start construction immediately.

If the municipalities build the infrastructure and bid out the service in renewable contracts, seems like the politicians would get theirs every 3-5 years.

Re: Visible signs left after Google Fiber abandons Louisville

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiber offers better reliability, lower latency, higher bandwidth (right now), and it can be reused for even higher bandwidth later (e.g. 1 Gbps fiber can handle 10 Gbps with new transceivers on the same run).

They could still do fiber to some central node, then point-to-point radios for the last mile. I have WebPass (webpass.net) and it's point-to-point, gigabit, and latency is awesome, much better than Comcast ever was for me at the same location, or any location for that matter. My ping to 1.1.1.1 is consistently around 2-4ms. And yes, this is obviously an anycast address, going to a datacenter in my city, but still imp…

And in bad weather...?
Post reply on HN