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

Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#211

Post by logfromblammo »

jgroszko wrote: post #210
logfromblammo wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kidding, right? Those are all inspired by actual things Chicago has done.

What's the inspiration for 6? I know it's a running joke that evidence goes missing, but I don't think I've ever seen a news article about a specific instance in Chicago.

Never seen one? I'll fix that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+cop+arrested+for+ste...

This, of course, does not even address the evidence that never even makes it into the lockup. Drug dealer keeps $20000 in cash at home. Raid seizes the $15000. Forfeiture suit filed against the $10000. The $5000 cannot be located in evidence a few months later.

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#212

Post by rayiner »

vdaniuk wrote: post #204
rayiner wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the cost of deploying fiber is labor, and that costs 5-10x more in the U.S. Also, eastern European countries see fast Internet as a competitive advantage. American cities don't see the need. I bet in Kiev, a fiber provider wanting to lay fiber wouldn't be turned down for not agreeing to wife up the poor neighborhoods that couldn't afford it any way. That's what happens here.

Right, that's why Netherlands, Sweden and South Korea have similarly slow data transfer rates and high prices as US. /s Also most high speed connections in Kiev are not fiber but ethernet cables.

Broadband deployment in the U.S. is almost entirely a matter of state and municipal-level rather than national-level policies. For example, Virginia, where my parents live, has significantly faster average speeds than either Sweden or the Netherlands: http://www.amic.media/media/files/file_352_841.pdf (see pp. 18, 32).

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#213

Post by thrownaway2424 »

adventured wrote: post #169
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a valuable exercise. My favorite example is that for the same cost as the Iraq War, the USA could have bought Canada.

That's actually amusing, but of course far off the mark. Iraq has a current price tag of $2 trillion (including benefits owed over time that were caused by the war). Both wars together are now at around $4 trillion, spanning the last 14 years. Canada would cost at least 20 times the Iraq war if you count land, financial + household + business assets and natural resources. Canadian households, including real estate, h…

I wasn't including all of Canadians' refrigerators and riding lawn mowers. Just the real estate (n.b. "real estate" does not include the minerals).

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#214

Post by noelsusman »

elliotec wrote: post #190
Animats wrote: post #171

It's just talk. Google has parts of three small cities wired. Google has never done a big city, or an entire city. Sonic already has parts of San Francisco hooked up with gigabit fiber.[1] [1] https://www.sonic.com/gigabit-fiber-internet

I'm in Salt Lake City, where they announced they've been building a long time ago, and we ain't seen sh*t yet.

I'm in Atlanta and we've seen the trucks out laying fiber already. I'm hoping for the end of next year.

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#215

Post by Lawtonfogle »

ugh123 wrote: post #123
davidf18 wrote: post #121

Congrats to the residents of Chicago and LA for having the local government leadership to work with Google. I wish I could say the same for NYC where I live. Despite the fact that Google owns one of the largest office buildings in the city where many engineers and other staff work, there is no Google fiber here. Sadly, the mayor seems more focused attempting to slow the growth of Uber until the residents vociferously…

> popular horse drawn carriages Popular with whom? The minimal revenue it brings from primarily tourists? Most of the backlash has come from NYC residents who deplore the conditions for the horses. The welfare of the horses should take precedence over the minimal revenue they bring.

>The welfare of the horses should take precedence over the minimal revenue they bring.

Why? Animal welfare isn't important. If it were, we wouldn't commit mass slaughters just for the sake of making our meals tasty.

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#216

Post by mahyarm »

scott_karana wrote: post #41

> Yes, San Francisco has been skipped again and I’m going to go cry into my slow internet from Comcast. I seriously still cannot get over how funny this is. SF pitches itself as the centre of the tech universe, and yet, it still hasn't "disrupted" its own crappy broadband infrastructure. (Much less the rest of the country's!) I'm sure there's many good reasons for Google passing them over, but that doesn't keep it fr…

SF is so wildly incompetent that startups get invented to fix the problems of living in the bay area. They succeed because the govt. alternative is so bad.

It's probably not actually true in many cases, but you get that feeling.

For example, if SF cabs weren't so horrible, would Uber gotten it's initial traction? Would it exist today?

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#217

Post by timbo1642 »

touchofevil wrote: post #21

I can't wait for this in LA. I'm currently paying $115 per month for 1Mbps/10Mbps for Time Warner "business class" internet-only service. My company does visual effects work, so I actually have to drive my video files home on a USB drive to upload them since my home connection is 20Mbps/200Mbps for $50 per month. The internet monopoly situation in the US is terrible for businesses here.

You have your numbers mixed up....It actually does make a difference

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#218

Post by notyourwork »

RDeckard wrote: post #192
notyourwork wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh Seattle has fiber offerings already though? For example http://gowaveg.com/

That used to be called Condo Internet and that is in very select buildings. Even out in Redmond, minutes away from MSFT campus, once can only get either Comcast or crappy 3mbit DSL from Frontier.

Comcast is offering fiber in some places and there is a another fiber company south downtown near the stadiums. Point is offerings exist.

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#219

Post by mrpippy »

georgemcbay wrote: post #50
tomjakubowski wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For some reason Verizon Fios has avoided LA proper but laid out Fiber along the outskirts and in Ventura County years ago. Not sure what you mean. I have Fios and I live in Los Angeles proper. The whole city doesn't have Fios, but parts of it certainly do.

Verizon at one point had grand plans of expanding FiOS through all of LA and eventually down through OC/San Diego (which was good news for me as a San Diego person), but about 5 years back they stopped expansion of covered areas. They essentially killed FiOS off, but kept servicing customers in areas they already built out in. So if you're in LA and you have FiOS, lucky you, but those who don't have it never will bec…

There is virtually no Verizon wireline presence (i.e. ex-GTE territory) in San Diego County, SD never had any chance of getting FiOS. See the map: ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Telco/ILEC%20Territories%20in%20CA%202008.pdf I'm surprised how small Verizon's territory is even in OC, some of the beach cities but nothing else.

PacBell had grand plans to install fiber optics in SD ~20 years ago, I even remember our front lawn in Mira Mesa getting torn up. Naturally, they never lit it up. See http://newnetworks.com/californiabroadband.html

Re: Chicago and Los Angeles Are Next Up for Google Fiber

#220

Post by freyr »

arebop wrote: post #137
freyr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing measures that help reduce the housing supply by allowing apartments and condos to serve as short-term AirBNB rentals for non-residents? Certainly, it's pro-growth (for AirBNB), but I don't see how it's pro-housing for anyone else. Unless you expect to live week to week in AirBNB rentals.

Even using wildest estimates of the proponents of the anti-AirBNB measure, AirBNB involves a negligible fraction of the city's housing units. It was only related to housing by political rhetoric. Surely the commenter upthread was talking about the moratorium on development in the Mission.

AirBNB involves a negligible fraction of the city's housing units.

A more relevant metric would be the AirBNB rentals relative to the vacant rental units. A rough estimate indicates:

- There are 300+ "Entire home" units available in SF next week on AirBNB. AirBNB says this represents 15% of the total supply. This would suggest there are 2,000+ such units in total registered on AirBNB (though I presume some of those are occupied units that are only listed when their occupants are out of town).

- The rental vacancy rate in San Francisco is 3.6% of 220,000 units, or about 8,000 vacant rental units total.

- This suggests that the percentage of unoccupied units that are serving as AirBNB units ranges from 3.6% (300/8300) to over 20% (2000/10000) Even at the overly conservative rate of 3%, this is a non-negligible fraction in a city with a rental shortage. Rents tend to jump sharply when the rental vacancy rate falls too low, and SFs vacancy rate is among the lowest in the nation.

Surely the commenter upthread was talking about the moratorium on development in the Mission.

You're likely right.

Post reply on HN