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

231–240 of 288 posts

Re: The future of Fiber

#231

Post by jmgrosen »

JaggedJax wrote: post #60
jmgrosen wrote: post #3

Got my hopes up there for a little bit... if only they came to Santa Barbara -- we have plenty of tech people here willing to pay for awesome internet! (and get away from Cox...) I'll keep dreaming :)

I wish they'll come to Santa Barbara so badly (As I'm sure everyone also does for their cities). We do have lots of tech here and even good connections to Google, but I feel we're probably too small. Even Verizon pulled out from installing FiOS.

At least Cox isn't too bad in comparison with the horror stories I've heard about dealing with Comcast or TWC... still, it is not fun to deal with them. Plus, 1 gbps for $70 sounds a lot more appetizing than 50 mbps for $74.

Re: The future of Fiber

#232

Post by orbitur »

CountHackulus wrote: post #58
adventured wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada related question. Do all the major ISPs in Canada have bandwidth caps on consumer broadband?

Yes, every major ISP has bandwidth caps, some of which are prohibitively small (20GB). Even the smaller upstart ISPs, like TekSavvy are forced to have a cap (though at 300GB) due to wholesale laws. At least they offer unlimited for a reasonable amount of money. Canada is definitely behind the US for internet access, it's even behind many (if not most) third world countries.

I have BellAliant 80Mb/30Mb in NS. No cap.

Re: The future of Fiber

#233

Post by jimmcslim »

robryan wrote: post #214

Would love to see Google, or anyone, come shake up the Australian market. We are still beholden to low bandwidth, almost non existent upload and data usage caps. We also have a national broadband network that most people will never see due to the politics played by the current government.

This +infinity.

The National Broadband Network is the one policy that had reasonably bi-partisan voter support, but the new conservative government has seen fit to abandon the admittedly more expensive, but more future-proof 'Fiber to the Premises' in exchange for what was going to be 'Fiber to the Node' but is now 'Multi-Technology Mix' or more appropriately 'Massive Telecommunications Mistake'...

Re: The future of Fiber

#234

Post by tanzam75 »

mey wrote: post #109
joekrill wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Verizon was finally given approval in 2009 for FIOS in Philadelphia. but they suddenly stopped their FIOS rollout, coincidentally at the same exact time the cable companies gave Verizon a big chunk of their spectrum licenses. Of course everyone involved insists the two are completely unrelated, even though Verizon had been trying for years to get into Philadelphia.

Verizon had started selling off it's Fiber installs before 2009 (which I still scratch my head at). While they may not be directly related, I'm sure it didn't hurt the negotiation. Edit: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPoint_Communications and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Communications

> Verizon had started selling off it's Fiber installs before 2009 (which I still scratch my head at).

Well, it's not like they were trying to get rid of fiber. Verizon sold off all its wireline operations in rural and non-core areas. Fiber simply went along for the ride.

What Verizon was trying to get rid of was the copper. No company would be willing to buy the copper from Verizon and then compete against FiOS. Thus, the only way that Verizon could get any buyers was to bundle the copper together with the fiber.

This would make it more difficult for Verizon to attempt a market entry at a later date, as it would have to start from a position of no infrastructure.

Re: The future of Fiber

#235

Post by mitchty »

kgermino wrote: post #51

Cool to see they're expanding, but I'm disappointed to see that there's no love for the upper Midwest. Wouldn't expect it in Chicago but Milwaukee (where I am), Madison, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, and possibly a few smaller cities would all seem like reasonable candidates (although I acknowledge there's issues with all of them).

Minneapolis kinda sorta not-quite has at least some parts with fibre.

http://fiber.usinternet.com/coverage-areas/

Barely though to be honest. >.<

Re: The future of Fiber

#236

Post by jacoplane »

rufugee wrote: post #56

It always surprises me how excited people get about Google Fiber, yet how up-in-arms they get about GMail, Google+ and other Google services which tend to invade and/or expose your privacy. Do you really think that using a advertising company's fiber as your gateway to the internet is going to offer a private experience? Don't you see how much easier it will make it for them to gather your personal details and habits…

More competition in this space can only be a good thing. Besides, Google has done a whole lot more to protect their users from government surveillance than the telcos have.

Re: The future of Fiber

#237

Post by ck2 »

Google should install their fiber in the cities of corporate headquarters for at&t, time warner, quest, verizon, and cox.

Should have an interesting effect on the top-down mentality of price setting.

FCC also needs to rule ISPs as common carriers.

Re: The future of Fiber

#238

Post by jason_slack »

bicknergseng wrote: post #121
tdees40 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, San Jose has a pretty awful political climate as well. I mean look at VTA.

I'm in San Jose, what's wrong with VTA?

Re: The future of Fiber

#239

Post by jason_slack »

pravka wrote: post #223
mikeevans wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, according to the FAQ: "San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto"

No Campbell. Guess I'm too sticks for Google Fiber. :\

LOL, I'm right on the border of SJ and Cupertino around De Anza and 85. I am so hoping I can get it just to dump Comcast.

Re: The future of Fiber

#240

Post by jader201 »

willidiots wrote: post #16

Full list of cities, from the FAQ: Arizona - Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe California - San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto Georgia - Atlanta, Avondale Estates, Brookhaven, College Park, Decatur, East Point, Hapeville, Sandy Springs, Smyrna North Carolina - Charlotte, Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Garner, Morrisville, Raleigh Oregon - Portland, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, Lake Oswego, Ti…

And with line breaks:

Arizona - Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe

California - San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto

Georgia - Atlanta, Avondale Estates, Brookhaven, College Park, Decatur, East Point, Hapeville, Sandy Springs, Smyrna

North Carolina - Charlotte, Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Garner, Morrisville, Raleigh

Oregon - Portland, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, Lake Oswego, Tigard

Tennessee - Nashville-Davidson

Texas - San Antonio

Utah - Salt Lake City

Post reply on HN