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

When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#31

Post by ProllyInfamous »

I had Google Fiber installed in my crapbox Barton Hills duplex (Austin, Texas)... I want to say 2015? It was cool, a then-neat-gimmick that I had to wait years for installation.

I now have Chattanooga's public utility fiber, provided by the local electricity provider (EPBfiber, part of the electric fiber board) to EVERY SINGLE ADDRESS SERVICED BY THE POWER COMPANY.

The latter scenario is SO MUCH BETTER that the state of Tennessee effectively has banned [still cat-and-mouse] other cities from implementing Chattanooga's beloved solution to broadband infrastructure AS A RIGHT. I do not even know why Comcast/AT&T/etc. even send out advertisements when nobody in their right mind would choose anything other than the city-provided publicly-subsidized internet.

<3 from Not Your Electrician

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#33

Post by toast0 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #11
stephenr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why people are scared of using services that have relatively low switching barriers, because they may be shut down one day. This suggests there's alternative services available anyway, so why take the risk on Google at all?

What exactly do you think is the "risk" of going with Google in these situations as a consumer? I know people who have Google Fiber, and love it - super fast Internet at reasonable prices. If it got turned off, they would just go with someone else. What exactly do you think the downside is? As a municipality, sure, as the article explains. But as an end consumer, what's the problem?

> What exactly do you think is the "risk" of going with Google in these situations as a consumer?

Where I am, if you relinquish your DSL, you might not be able to get it back, because the telco only has a limited number of ports on their equipment and between new construction and equipment wear and tear, you might not have a port available to serve you. Some places, servicable copper pairs are in short supply too --- my parents have to get switched to a new pair every year or two.

If many people switched away, but then had to switch back, it'd be a mess, and I wouldn't expect to be able to get the same quality dual pair service that I have now.

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#34

Post by merlyn »

toast0 wrote: post #30
js2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. sorta did this in the copper days: the local/incumbent phone company owned the copper from the home to the CO (central office) and then phone service could be handled by either the ILEC or CLEC. And you could dial-in to whatever ISP you wanted. This was intended to provide some amount of competition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car... https://www.bandwidth.com/glossary/competitiv…

> But once you could get voice & data from either the telco or the cable company, this all went out the window. Line sharing in the US extended to DSL served from COs, but faster DSL came from remote terminals that were closer to users and didn't have space for CLEC equipment. Under the US Telecominications Act of 1996, the FCC likely could have mandated more line sharing arrangements for cable and DSL from remote te…

After the Brand-X decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommuni...) all the iLECs shutdown any attempt at line sharing.

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#35

Post by [deleted] »

stephenr wrote: post #10
js2 wrote: post #3

Summary: Google tried to "nano"-trench Louisville, KY using 2" deep trenches (by comparison micro-trenching is typically 6" deep) then use epoxy to cover the trench. The epoxy didn't stand up to tires. Google tried to replace the epoxy with asphalt but that damaged the fiber. Google determined at that point that nano-trenching wouldn't work and didn't want to spend additional money to remedy the situation, so they ab…

I thought you must surely have meant `2'` vs `6'` (i.e. feet) and simply used the wrong symbol. I don't really understand how a 2" deep nano trench is meant to last any serious amount of time (compared to a regular conduit fully buried under the road), given how asphalt roads (particularly in a city where there is a fixed-height curb, and resurfacing works will regularly be ripping up a layer of the asphalt to be rep…

[deleted]

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#36

Post by BLKNSLVR »

bruce511 wrote: post #8
js2 wrote: post #3

Summary: Google tried to "nano"-trench Louisville, KY using 2" deep trenches (by comparison micro-trenching is typically 6" deep) then use epoxy to cover the trench. The epoxy didn't stand up to tires. Google tried to replace the epoxy with asphalt but that damaged the fiber. Google determined at that point that nano-trenching wouldn't work and didn't want to spend additional money to remedy the situation, so they ab…

I'm not in the US, but in my country the fibre-provider and the ISP are unrelated companies. There are multiple fibre companies (typically an area is served by one or another of them although my area has two) and of course a couple dozen ISPs that do the ISP part. This model works -really- well. ISPs compete on price, and service. Fibre folks do the physical stuff. Fibre companies are incentivised to get rolled out i…

I'd guess from your description and alias that you're Australian.

Man it took some work to get the model up and running though didn't it? Great idea from one party, totally politically destroyed soon afterwards when the other party got into power, and then slowly, over the course of a decade and a half, has almost reached the original vision.

Inspired this book: https://www.amazon.com.au/Frustrated-State-terrible-deterrin...

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#37

Post by kalleboo »

stephenr wrote: post #10
js2 wrote: post #3

Summary: Google tried to "nano"-trench Louisville, KY using 2" deep trenches (by comparison micro-trenching is typically 6" deep) then use epoxy to cover the trench. The epoxy didn't stand up to tires. Google tried to replace the epoxy with asphalt but that damaged the fiber. Google determined at that point that nano-trenching wouldn't work and didn't want to spend additional money to remedy the situation, so they ab…

I thought you must surely have meant `2'` vs `6'` (i.e. feet) and simply used the wrong symbol. I don't really understand how a 2" deep nano trench is meant to last any serious amount of time (compared to a regular conduit fully buried under the road), given how asphalt roads (particularly in a city where there is a fixed-height curb, and resurfacing works will regularly be ripping up a layer of the asphalt to be rep…

Supposedly while resurfacing, you're supposed to be able to just take the fiber out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvzGqA2b0aw

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#38

Post by MichaelRo »

js2 wrote: post #3

Summary: Google tried to "nano"-trench Louisville, KY using 2" deep trenches (by comparison micro-trenching is typically 6" deep) then use epoxy to cover the trench. The epoxy didn't stand up to tires. Google tried to replace the epoxy with asphalt but that damaged the fiber. Google determined at that point that nano-trenching wouldn't work and didn't want to spend additional money to remedy the situation, so they ab…

>> $70/month for 1 Gbps.

I'm paying $7 / month for 0.5 Gbps. I'd say it's worth the tradeoff.

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#39

Post by butlerm »

aednichols wrote: post #13
bruce511 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in the US, but in my country the fibre-provider and the ISP are unrelated companies. There are multiple fibre companies (typically an area is served by one or another of them although my area has two) and of course a couple dozen ISPs that do the ISP part. This model works -really- well. ISPs compete on price, and service. Fibre folks do the physical stuff. Fibre companies are incentivised to get rolled out i…

Excuse my ignorance, but at that point what does the ISP actually do other than send bills to customers and pay invoices for fiber plant and upstream bandwidth?

It is possible for telcos to provide point to point or point to multipoint layer 2 permanent virtual circuits (PVCs) from customers to providers or branch offices to home offices, and it used to be common. Frame relay and ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) were quite popular technologies for that.

In many if not most areas in the United States DSL (digital subscriber loop) based Internet access was originally delivered over PVCs established through a layer 2 ATM network. There were interesting problems with that so PPP or PPP over Ethernet is more common these days, even when the telco no longer really lets anyone compete with them in the provision of broadband Internet access services at layer 3 over the network they maintain thanks to a rather convenient federal court decision.

Layer 2 mostly Ethernet access over VLANs (virtual local area networks) to a chosen provider does live on in certain mostly municipally owned multi-provider networks though, and in some countries that is normal, although usually with the incumbent telco or ILEC (incumbent local exchange company) installing and maintaining the last mile to homes and businesses rather than a municipal operator as in some parts of the United States. Either way more than one provider can provide layer 3 Internet service on the same physical facilities that way, with layer 2 (e.g. switched Ethernet) virtual lans or virtual circuits operated by one company or municipality.

Re: When Google Fiber abandons your city as a failed experiment (2019)

#40

Post by jeremyw »

js2 wrote: post #3

Summary: Google tried to "nano"-trench Louisville, KY using 2" deep trenches (by comparison micro-trenching is typically 6" deep) then use epoxy to cover the trench. The epoxy didn't stand up to tires. Google tried to replace the epoxy with asphalt but that damaged the fiber. Google determined at that point that nano-trenching wouldn't work and didn't want to spend additional money to remedy the situation, so they ab…

If you run home servers and like having complete control, I recommend staying away from AT&T Fiber. They play lots of network games (port remapping/takeover, routing issues, no limits but limits!).

Google Fiber, on the other hand, has been clean and clear.

Post reply on HN