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

The future of Fiber

fiber.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 288 posts

Re: The future of Fiber

#21

Post by btgeekboy »

malandrew wrote: post #10

Why not San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston and NYC? San Francisco, NYC and Boston because they are big tech hubs where a lot of Googlers live and Washington D.C. because it is the seat of politics in this country and the best way to show what good can happen when we have broadband connectivity. In fact, rolling out Google Fiber in the capital cities of each state makes the most sense in general. You lobby the pol…

1. Sacramento would be an odd choice for California. 2. I believe this would have the opposite benefit you intend - if you want lawmakers to be on your side, they need to feel your pain.

Re: The future of Fiber

#22

Post by mason55 »

malandrew wrote: post #10

Why not San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston and NYC? San Francisco, NYC and Boston because they are big tech hubs where a lot of Googlers live and Washington D.C. because it is the seat of politics in this country and the best way to show what good can happen when we have broadband connectivity. In fact, rolling out Google Fiber in the capital cities of each state makes the most sense in general. You lobby the pol…

NYC at least because each building is like its own little fiefdom that's already wired for at least one competing service. FiOS has the same problems rolling out, a lot of the older buildings would require substantial building-wide upgrades to support fiber, something Google is likely not interested in at this point.

Re: The future of Fiber

#23

Post by jonlucc »

turing wrote: post #19

Woo! Moving to Mountain View in June, so I'm excited to see this. On another note, I wonder if this will have any impact on the Comcast/Time Warner merger. Comcast has specifically called out Google Fiber as a source of legitimate competition in defending the merger[1]. With the announcement that Google could increase the number of Fiber cities 10-fold, that claim might have a little more weight. 1. http://gigaom.com…

I've been hearing that there will be no real threat to that merger. If that's true, then I see this as a real threat to the new Comcast; basically Google saying "you will have real competition even if you are massive".

Edit: Otherwise, why would they announce this at this stage? They've only announced other cities when they were certain.

Re: The future of Fiber

#24

Post by mikeevans »

malandrew wrote: post #10

Why not San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston and NYC? San Francisco, NYC and Boston because they are big tech hubs where a lot of Googlers live and Washington D.C. because it is the seat of politics in this country and the best way to show what good can happen when we have broadband connectivity. In fact, rolling out Google Fiber in the capital cities of each state makes the most sense in general. You lobby the pol…

Fingers crossed that DC is in the next group of cities :)

Re: The future of Fiber

#26

Post by georgemcbay »

Still no San Diego, but still happy to see this as the more Google Fiber expands within different regions the more the dinosaur ISPs in those regions will be forced to compete, hopefully rising boats even in areas not yet covered by Google Fiber.

Re: The future of Fiber

#27

Post by shmerl »

aetherson wrote: post #9

I guess I fundamentally do not understand what makes a city a good or bad candidate for this kind of service. Why is SF or NY not an obvious candidate? Density means that there are lots of customers for a given physical length of infrastructure rollout, they're both wealthy cities with a large proportion of techies who could use faster internet... I'm sure they're both nightmares to deal with permitting processes for…

I wish Google Fiber could be deployed in NY.

However if you consider the cost of deployment, it's much cheaper to do it in a rural area than in the middle of the dense city. I.e. cost per meter of deployed cable can differ a lot.

Re: The future of Fiber

#28

Post by theandrewbailey »

malandrew wrote: post #10

Why not San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston and NYC? San Francisco, NYC and Boston because they are big tech hubs where a lot of Googlers live and Washington D.C. because it is the seat of politics in this country and the best way to show what good can happen when we have broadband connectivity. In fact, rolling out Google Fiber in the capital cities of each state makes the most sense in general. You lobby the pol…

I think that NYC and DC already have Verizon FIOS, as do the suburbs of Boston, but not Boston proper. Why compete with an existing and decent fiber service when you can stick it to Time Warner- sorry, Comcast and AT&T instead?

Re: The future of Fiber

#29

Post by benihana »

I currently live in NYC, and I've lived in Raleigh. It seems pretty clear that tearing up New York City to lay fiber is a much more expensive and tedious process than it would be in Raleigh. The state and local governments also seem much more friendly to that kind of thing.

Re: The future of Fiber

#30

Post by Nrsolis »

tdees40 wrote: post #14
aetherson wrote: post #9

I guess I fundamentally do not understand what makes a city a good or bad candidate for this kind of service. Why is SF or NY not an obvious candidate? Density means that there are lots of customers for a given physical length of infrastructure rollout, they're both wealthy cities with a large proportion of techies who could use faster internet... I'm sure they're both nightmares to deal with permitting processes for…

I suspect they mostly want a compliant political infrastructure and relatively easy construction. NYC and SF aren't really known for either. Also, NYC would probably be biting off more than Google Fiber has any interest in chewing at the moment. They're still scaling up, after all.

YUP.

The short answer is: it's much easier to build in a greenfield environment where there is a "helpful" local government, ready access to rights-of-way, and underserved population, easy construction costs, access to labor, favorable tax climate, and a host of other reasons that come before "lots of people who want gigabit speeds".

The economics of building (or overbuilding) a gigabit fiber network drive you towards areas where you can get a high degree of penetration for your investment. That's not going to happen in a place like NYC or SF. The construction costs (directional boring) and tax regime (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes) mean that SF and NYC are probably going to be the LAST places to get Google Fiber.

Post reply on HN