Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#181

Post by briffle » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:47 PM UTC

arenaninja wrote: post #32

SEJeff wrote: post #13

Well google announced they were exploring a fiber rollout in Chicago. Now both AT&T along with Time Warner Cable have 1G service throughout parts of the city. Alternatively, one can look at this not as a failure, but as a success. The point of Google fiber was to force carriers to get faster internet to everyone. It appears that it has been working. This benefits google directly as their properties such as Youtube ca…

That's nice for Chicago, and Austin, but what about LA, Houston, etc.? I pay $75/month for 150Mbps via Comcast... and most days a speed test will say around half of that, and there's infrequent outages (averaging roughly one every month). The only other service where I live is AT&T: 18Mbps for $50/month. And whatever you may think of Comcast, my experience with AT&T's service and customer service has been far, far wo…

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..

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#182

Post by nickysielicki » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

I think it's hilarious how many people think it's consistent to simultaneously hold the opinion that this is a tragedy and that Google Fiber was the ISP that they wish they could have, while also supporting federally-imposed "net neutrality" and the implicit claim behind it, which is that all ISPs are just dumb pipes that are moving bits, and that consumers are agnostic about who does it.

All the sheep on Reddit who got behind FCC mandated "net neutrality" are directly responsible for this. Urbanites get a warped view of this country and vastly underestimate the amount of places where satellite internet is their only option. Yet they have the nerve to bitch and moan about what a tragedy it is that they can't stream 4k video without buffering. The government must fix this! To hell with the rural schoolchildren and their lack of access to wikipedia, I want to watch high-def cartoons!

There was so much innovation taking place behind the scenes to provide a decent web-browsing experience via satellite internet and WISPs. And it's all for naught.

I'm still excited for this next year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViaSat-2

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#183

Post by daveFNbuck » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #159

eddieplan9 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the problem is the sense of good enough. I have the option to purchase 100mbps but I am only paying for 20mbps because it is virtually good enough for everything I do: working from home, video chat, streaming HD videos, backing up to iCloud, etc. When I rent HD movies from iTunes, my wait time is 0. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of cheap super high-speed internet,…

GP did mention that his connection is unreliable, which is true for me as well (suburb of Milwaukee, WI). When it's working, it's fast enough. But there are plenty of days it's slow or not working when I want it. That I'd like fixed.

Yeah, it's great until you want to stream a movie on a 3-day weekend.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#184

Post by SEJeff » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

nickjarboe wrote: post #87

SEJeff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm not saying it is good for users, only that it isn't entirely bad for Google. I want them to succeed and crush Comcast / AT&T. As a consumer of internet service, who doesn't want that? Those companies are terrible. That being said, the other wildcard (that another user did mention) is whenever SpaceX gets all of the spectrum / permits for their internet microsat constellation, it will happen. That will most lik…

I believe it's SpaceX not Tesla that is investigating an internet microsat constellation, but if the Tesla/Solar City merger goes through, you could be right in the long term.

Sorry you're entirely right. Let me rephrase to say:

Musk Industries's satellite internet constellation. Original post updated with credit to you.

:)

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#185

Post by briffle » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

briffle wrote: post #181

arenaninja wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice for Chicago, and Austin, but what about LA, Houston, etc.? I pay $75/month for 150Mbps via Comcast... and most days a speed test will say around half of that, and there's infrequent outages (averaging roughly one every month). The only other service where I live is AT&T: 18Mbps for $50/month. And whatever you may think of Comcast, my experience with AT&T's service and customer service has been far, far wo…

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 the phone.

So fed up, and needing to start working from home soon, that I'm moving in a few months..

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#186

Post by greedo » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #143

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…

That model is useful for environments with high population density living with relatively compact terrestrial coverage. The costs will vary wildly when you apply this model to wire up Arizona, Nebraska, or even greater Los Angeles area.

Allo is bringing fiber to a lot of communities in Nebraska, and the dominant ISPs are freaking out. Six of the seven served locations aren't large towns by any measure.

https://www.allocommunications.com/

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#187

Post by brianmartinek » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

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 San Mateo and also pay $50/month for 100mpbs, which is mostly reliable, and the speed is 'good enough'. I could pay more but the gains in speed aren't worth the extra $$.

The building next door to me is wired for fiber through one provider, Wave, and offers 1gig for $80/month: https://gowaveg.com. I'd love to switch and pay the extra $30 for much better internet but I can't get access to it as a single customer since it is decided building by building.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#188

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #79

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But everyone moving to fiber IS building new infrastructure. Sure, they're continuing to cash in on telephone wire and coax, but fiber is new infrastructure. And Google discovered that you CAN'T just make money deploying Gigabit fiber for $60 a month. Getting even a 50 Mbps fiber circuit around here is hundreds of dollars a month.

Much (most?) "new" fiber is just companies lighting up existing dark fiber infrastructure.

I know in some areas, whole towns are wired up with glass that isn't in use, but around here, I regularly see trenches being dug to run fiber. And nowhere near "to the home" yet even, but along major roads, to industrial parks, etc.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#189

Post by E6300 » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

a_thro_away wrote: post #171

E6300 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, if the service is one that everyone needs or that everyone can benefit from, it makes no sense to privatize it

Everyone --($$$)--> Private enterprise --($)--> Taxes

.......................................--($)--> Actual service

vs.

Everyone --($)--> State --($)--> Actual service

or

Everyone --($$)--> State --($)--> Actual service

Not to mention: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-01-14

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#190

Post by kmicklas » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #136

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…

> 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_…

> No urban area in the U.S. is as dense as Stockholm's (3,500). NYC is at the low end of that range (2,000), and is less dense than a bunch of Swedish cities with just ~50-100k people.

Wat. NYC is over 10k/km^2. Manhattan is over 25k/km^2.