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

Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 382 posts

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#371

Post by a_thro_away »

refurb wrote: post #339
chimeracoder wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. No, that's not how GDP works. The GDP measurement is independent of whether the action is performed by the private or public sector. > Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing thi…

Surprised you're getting downvoted. It's true, if the gov't performs a service, it's included in GDP. And no, taxes don't increase GDP.

The OECD defines GDP income method as "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident and institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).”

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#372

Post by a_thro_away »

chimeracoder wrote: post #223
a_thro_away wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing things, even your breathing air, increases the GDP - I'd rather it not.

> Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. No, that's not how GDP works. The GDP measurement is independent of whether the action is performed by the private or public sector. > Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing thi…

I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions. If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#373

Post by chimeracoder »

a_thro_away wrote: post #370
chimeracoder wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. No, that's not how GDP works. The GDP measurement is independent of whether the action is performed by the private or public sector. > Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing thi…

Taxes are included in the GDP income method, which is why taxing even air (even if free) would increase GDP. The OECD defines GDP as "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident and institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).”

> Taxes are included in the GDP income method, which is why taxing even air (even if free) would increase GDP. The OECD defines GDP as "an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident and institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).”

GDP is composed of four components. One of those components is government spending, which can be negative (ie, taxes) or positive (subsidies or direct purchasing).

However, government spending doesn't come from nowhere (no, even if the money is printed or issued as debt). A change in government spending is always matched by an equivalent change in consumption, investments, and/or net exports, which are the source of that money.

The secondary effects of tax policies may be to ultimately change the shape of aggregate supply or aggregate demand functions (at least, that's the argument for doing so), but taxation does not directly have any effect on GDP.

So no, taxing air would not increase the GDP.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#374

Post by chimeracoder »

a_thro_away wrote: post #372
chimeracoder wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything that is done at cost by the government is viewed by many as a lost potential profitable and taxable business; one that would drive up the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a well used measure of an economy. No, that's not how GDP works. The GDP measurement is independent of whether the action is performed by the private or public sector. > Problem with using GDP, in my limited understanding, is that taxing thi…

I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions. If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP.

> I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions.

That's an oversimplification that honestly provides a more confusing definition than the real one, which is that GDP is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending (which can be negative) and net exports.

> If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP.

No. Whether a service is performed by the private or public sector has no bearing on how much it counts towards GDP.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#375

Post by a_thro_away »

chimeracoder wrote: post #374
a_thro_away wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions. If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP.

> I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions. That's an oversimplification that honestly provides a more confusing definition than the real one, which is that GDP is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending (which can be negative) and net exports. > If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP. No.…

Thanks you for the reply. Your rigid definition of GDP is only one of many models. GDP(I) and GDP are similar and should be exact but because of statistical and measurement defects, they are not. But GDP(I) does in fact use taxes. I understand (grossly) that to make GDP(I) == GDP, you add taxes to GDP. Regardless, GDP can be modeled in several ways according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. If a government decides to not tax air, no economic activity. If they do, and a company sells you taxable air, there is economic activity. In the former case, it no money is required. In the latter, it generates economic activity, activity that cannot be swept under the rug and must be measured. It does matter, gov vs private industry.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#376

Post by chimeracoder »

a_thro_away wrote: post #375
chimeracoder wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mispoke; GDP == taxable transactions. That's an oversimplification that honestly provides a more confusing definition than the real one, which is that GDP is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending (which can be negative) and net exports. > If it was taxable (privatized), it would increase the GDP, whereas if not (as if the government performed and didnt tax it), it would not increase the GDP. No.…

Thanks you for the reply. Your rigid definition of GDP is only one of many models. GDP(I) and GDP are similar and should be exact but because of statistical and measurement defects, they are not. But GDP(I) does in fact use taxes. I understand (grossly) that to make GDP(I) == GDP, you add taxes to GDP. Regardless, GDP can be modeled in several ways according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. If a government deci…

> Your rigid definition of GDP is only one of many models. But GDP(I) does in fact use taxes. I understand (grossly) that to make GDP(I) == GDP, you add taxes to GDP. Regardless, GDP can be modeled in several ways according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

GDP can be measured in several ways. In a perfectly observable system, all the measurements would be exactly equal. They are not different models and they do not represent different underlying concepts. It is wrong to say that taxes are included in one measurement of GDP and not the other. In some methods, they are measured directly, and in others, they are measured indirectly. In both cases, taxes have the same effect.

> If a government decides to not tax air, no economic activity. If they do, and a company sells you taxable air, there is economic activity. In the former case, it no money is required. In the latter, it generates economic activity, activity that cannot be swept under the rug and must be measured.

Your usage of "economic activity" isn't really well-defined. But the difference between the two situations you're describing is that, in one, air is free, and in the other, air is being sold. The fact that it's being taxed on top of the sale is irrelevant.

This is also a really pointless example because air is mostly a non-excludable resource, so talking about either "selling" it or "taxing" doesn't reveal anything meaningful.

> It does matter, gov vs private industry.

No, it does not. Taxation doesn't come from nowhere. From a macroeconomics perspective, the government isn't "special".

Let me try one last time: Remember when I said that GDP = consumption + investment + government expenditures + net exports? Some economists would instead say that GDP is really "just" consumption + investment + net exports. And guess what? Regardless of which school of thought you subscribe to, the end result is exactly the same. It doesn't matter whether you break out government expenditures separately from consumption, investment, and net exports or whether you include government consumption in "consumption", government investment in "investment" and so on. The end result is exactly the same.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#377

Post by z3t4 »

rayiner wrote: post #367
z3t4 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Sweden. The Carriers only own the last mile, then they rent fiber from the backbone. Some carriers have backbone fiber, but most of it is owned by government funded Tier 1 Carrier "Telia" that makes sure all providers and Carriers get equal access.

Maybe that's why there is so much more fiber deployment in Sweden than in the U.S.? The fact that people are willing to pay the infrastructure costs up front? No carrier would be able to get a franchise under those terms in the U.S. What do carriers in Sweden do with people who can't afford to pay the up front fee? EDIT: Looking at Stokab, it looks like they don't require an up-front payment. But Stokab built its net…

You get an offer to pay it off in like three or more years. But if you can't you don't get any fiber. But you can often install afterwards if there is fiber in the area.

Stokab is a municipal and non-profit carrier and almost all cities have one of those, competing with the private carriers. The municipal often requires 70% + coverage, witch is very hard to get in a small non tech village with old people. Stokab is a bit different because they have about 1.5 million people living in their area witch is dense compared to the rest of Sweden.

The private carriers don't even bother if they can't get a few hundred subscribers in the area. So if you live in a small village, but not small enough to get a government grant it can be though.

When you start digging up the streets you must allow competitors to also join, so when one carrier has decided to start digging, you often get offers from other Carriers too, with a slightly lower price. So there's usually many carriers in the same area.

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#378

Post by ckeck »

samfisher83 wrote: post #46
floathub wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, we don't have the original AT&T. They went bankrupt. Cingular Wireless bought the bankrupt assets and changed their name to AT&T. But yes, building infrastructure is hard.

Cingular is descendant of the original AT&T. http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/03/AT&T.jpg

In the early 2000's there was the "original AT&T", a separate wireless company called AT&T Wireless, then Cingular who was the wireless group/division of SBC (Southwestern Bell) and SBC themselves.

Consolidation started with Cingular buying AT&T Wireless. Then SBC bought AT&T and simply kept the AT&T brand. Eventually the Cingular brand went away and they went back to AT&T and AT&T Wireless.

Wheeeee! The AT&T of today is basically SBC with all the old assets rolled in. SBC bought AT&T, not the other way around.

Source: worked there through it all

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#379

Post by sgt101 »

raesene6 wrote: post #220
sgt101 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 330mbs fttp in the UK, and I live in the countryside. 2% have fttp cover now, relatively few take it though. There are very few use cases right now, I had 12mbs vdsl before, and I hardly notice that there is a difference to be honest, although my wife is a photographer and the high speed upload is a god send for her.

Is that the FTTP on demand product? I've asked BT about that one and it looks like it's select exchanges only (even after FTTC has been rolled out), which is a shame as I'd happily pay for it. The only "superfast" option I've got at the moment is a full leased line, whcih isn't a viable prospect for residential Internet..

No, I got it because of BDUK. I'm on a long leg to a hamlet, which makes fttc difficult (dslam is expensive and you have to run the fibre almost all the way in any case). Then it was option 4 infinity. In your case have you looked to an Openreach community build or Gigaclear?

Re: Google Fiber Cutting Jobs and Halting Rollout

#380

Post by exelius »

candiodari wrote: post #312
exelius wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiber's operations and infrastructure will be sold to one of the major telecoms within the year (just like Google did with Motorola once it ceased to be useful). My money is on CenturyLink since Google's approach meshes well with their overbuilding strategy and footprint. It's a 0-5% margin business for the foreseeable future; and best-case scaled scenarios it's a 10% margin business with huge capex. Google shouldn't…

> It's a 0-5% margin business for the foreseeable future; and best-case scaled scenarios it's a 10% margin business with huge capex. Google shouldn't be interested in anything with less than a 20% margin at scale. So from a portfolio standpoint, it was a stupid bet. I know that's standard financial thinking, because a business is assumed to be able to absorb pretty much any amount of capital and invest it at a rate o…

> Definitely. If fiber provides a 10% return on investment, definitely.

Telecoms return about 10% at scale. Startup stage of a telco is incredibly expensive; and you typically won't see positive cash flow until a decade or so later (which is why it's usually financed by debt offerings; not equity or cash). Risk is also high; because if you enter the wrong market as an overbuilder, you can ensure nobody in the market (including yourself) will ever turn a profit.

All in all, overbuilding a telecom is a high-risk, low-reward investment with a very long payoff period. There's a good reason there aren't more companies lining up to do it.

Post reply on HN