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

261–270 of 288 posts

Re: The future of Fiber

#261

Post by thedufer »

kalleboo wrote: post #220
thedufer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vacancies in NYC are incredibly low, so a landlord doesn't gain much by being able to advertise fiber internet. This, added to the expense of wiring the old buildings, means that its not a worthwhile investment.

> Vacancies in NYC are incredibly low Same in Sweden. Often you need to be on a waiting list for 2+ years to get an rental contract in a large city in Sweden (longer in Stockholm[0]). The impatient among us flit around on 6-month second hand rentals. Or you buy an apartment with an untenable loan and hope the bubble keeps inflating... [0]The wait is currently on average 7 years in Stockholm municipality. 15 years if…

Is there some sort of regulation going on there? In a normal market I would expect rent to rise until the wait time was down to something reasonable. You can always find an apartment within a week or so in NYC - its just going to be really expensive. COL here is about double the national average, largely driven by housing costs.

Re: The future of Fiber

#262

Post by warmwaffles »

Zigurd wrote: post #203
wmf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it the opposite way: Deploying fiber is easy if the city gives you carte blanche as KC did. Doing something easy proves nothing. If Google Fiber wants to prove that their model is replicable they need to deploy it at a profit in a politically hostile environment.

> If Google Fiber wants to prove that their model is replicable they need to deploy it at a profit in a politically hostile environment. Sun Tsu would flunk you out of strategy class. Why should Google engage with an evil, bribery-based, rent-seeking competitor, and their bought politicians, until they run out of relatively easier conquests, and have the revenue from those conquests funding further expansion, and the…

Sun Tzu

Re: The future of Fiber

#263

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

jader201 wrote: post #240
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 Tennesse…

And with frivolous awk formatting:

    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

    cat jader \
      | sed 's/ - /\t/g; s/, /\n\t/g' \
      | awk -F'\t' '{ printf "%-18s%s\n", $1, $2 }'

Re: The future of Fiber

#264

Post by freeasinfree »

pdx6 wrote: post #172
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 agree, this is completely lame until Google can serve the western tech capitol, San Francisco. SF High Speed options: Comcast. Max out at 100/10. Sonic offers fiber in certain blocks of the Sunset, but are deploying painfully slow. I have an ATT U-Verse box permitted to install on my block but it hasn't happened yet, and I'm not thrilled with ATT. Monkeybrains requires LoS to Sutro tower, and permission from the bu…

MonkeyBrains requires LoS to any one of their radios, which aren't all located on Sutro. Permission shouldn't be a problem if the landlord is OK with tenants' satellite dishes on the roof. Even then, you can install any communications antenna (within reason) on areas you control in your lease (e.g. a balcony) thanks to OTARD [1]

[1] http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

Re: The future of Fiber

#265

Post by jseliger »

simoncion wrote: post #129
jseliger wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good answer. I always post this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-... when people ask why SF isn't at the top of the list. Existing telcos already can't easily roll out faster service!

ATT is now rolling out U-Verse in San Francisco: http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm The challenge to ATT's plans was manifold: 1) ATT refused to put their equipment underground. SF's sidewalks don't need more cabinets. 2) U-Verse is DSL service. Sonic.net already offers 40mbps DSL service in SF, so U-Verse is not that much faster. Why does SF need more cabinets to get pretty much the same data service fro…

Putting cabinets on sidewalks still seems like a very minor point and still part of the "People United Against Everything" syndrome affecting so much of America. Maybe U-Verse is not that much faster, but faster is still important!

If Sonic / Monkeybrains can deliver 1gbps, all the better.

Re: The future of Fiber

#266

Post by freeasinfree »

simoncion wrote: post #129
jseliger wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good answer. I always post this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-... when people ask why SF isn't at the top of the list. Existing telcos already can't easily roll out faster service!

ATT is now rolling out U-Verse in San Francisco: http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm The challenge to ATT's plans was manifold: 1) ATT refused to put their equipment underground. SF's sidewalks don't need more cabinets. 2) U-Verse is DSL service. Sonic.net already offers 40mbps DSL service in SF, so U-Verse is not that much faster. Why does SF need more cabinets to get pretty much the same data service fro…

Sonic.net leases the lines from AT&T. 40mbps as far as I remember is a bonded ADSL+ service requiring two phone lines. Even then 20mbps is a theoretical maximum which falls off the further you are from Sonic's DSLAM. The U-Verse boxes brings the DSLAM much closer. In my apartment's case, I can only get 5mbps from Sonic.net while AT&T is able to deliver over 20mbps.

Re: The future of Fiber

#267

Post by twistedpair »

drawkbox wrote: post #171

There is such a high demand for this product because it fulfills a great need and requirement to be competitive, but we are being held back by our providers. Our progress, held back due to lack of innovation. Google Fiber will rule the US as soon as it can get rolled out. Cable companies better be really nice and start being competitive. Please bring it to Chandler, AZ. This article comes to mind, I recently, through…

Think about it. It's not about cable internet getting faster. It's about rent seeking monopoly. Once all their subscribers are belong to you, there is no reason to advance any further. Just erect legislative barriers to progress and charge people to your heart's content. Read Tim Wu's the Master Switch. Communications companies have been doing this since the telegraph 160 years ago.

Re: The future of Fiber

#268

Post by wmf »

Zigurd wrote: post #203
wmf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it the opposite way: Deploying fiber is easy if the city gives you carte blanche as KC did. Doing something easy proves nothing. If Google Fiber wants to prove that their model is replicable they need to deploy it at a profit in a politically hostile environment.

> If Google Fiber wants to prove that their model is replicable they need to deploy it at a profit in a politically hostile environment. Sun Tsu would flunk you out of strategy class. Why should Google engage with an evil, bribery-based, rent-seeking competitor, and their bought politicians, until they run out of relatively easier conquests, and have the revenue from those conquests funding further expansion, and the…

I'd agree completely if Google's goal was to make money from Fiber, but I suspect their goal is to demonstrate that fiber is economically viable and shame other ISPs into deploying it. By that standard, winning on the easiest setting seems unlikely to convince anyone.

See http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-g... http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Many-Realizing-Google-Fib... for Google's motivations.

Re: The future of Fiber

#269

Post by tanzam75 »

ericd wrote: post #255
res0nat0r wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is: local governments can barely pay for essential services (water, power) that most everyone in their district needs. High speed fibre that a small subset of their constituents would use is way down on the list.

I think you're right that that was his point. It wouldn't necessarily come out of their budgets, though, it could be done with debt financing on the project itself, repaid purely from the revenues from leasing access to the network to the customer facing ISPs. I also don't think it would necessarily be used by a small subset of the constituents - it seems as though it could potentially be much cheaper than alternativ…

Large capital expenditures undertaken by municipalities are usually funded by bonds.

A municipality would issue bonds to fund the replacement of their water mains, which are breaking and pouring water into the streets every winter. It would issue bonds to renovate their elementary school, which has a leaking roof, asbestos insulation everywhere, and drinking fountains that dispense leaded water.

Municipalities have limited borrowing power, so muni fiber does have to compete against all those other priorities. And it's been a tough market for muni bonds lately.

What's more, muni fiber would be considered a non-essential revenue bond. These types of bonds carry higher interest rates than essential services bonds, or general obligation bonds.

Re: The future of Fiber

#270

Post by banachtarski »

wmf wrote: post #268
Zigurd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google Fiber wants to prove that their model is replicable they need to deploy it at a profit in a politically hostile environment. Sun Tsu would flunk you out of strategy class. Why should Google engage with an evil, bribery-based, rent-seeking competitor, and their bought politicians, until they run out of relatively easier conquests, and have the revenue from those conquests funding further expansion, and the…

I'd agree completely if Google's goal was to make money from Fiber, but I suspect their goal is to demonstrate that fiber is economically viable and shame other ISPs into deploying it. By that standard, winning on the easiest setting seems unlikely to convince anyone. See http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-g... http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Many-Realizing-Google-Fib... for Google's motiva…

That could be the overarching goal but it makes sense to pilot the technology first so they understand the pitfalls before engaging in a more difficult endeavor.
Post reply on HN