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

41–50 of 121 posts

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

#41

Post by anigbrowl »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #31

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…

the state of Tennessee effectively has banned [still cat-and-mouse] other cities from implementing Chattanooga's beloved solution

It's bleakly hilarious that politicians of a certain stripe fall over themselves to pass laws against policies that deliver value to the public.

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

#42

Post by WorldMaker »

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…

It fails basic civil engineering on so many levels. Imagine doing that in a city with an active frost line well below 2". How many pothole-related outages would you expect to obviously experience if you were to try such an experiment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line

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

#43

Post by WorldMaker »

kyrra wrote: post #2

Related article from the time: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/googl... Google paid the city $3.8M to the city, for the city to clean up the mess themselves.

That hush money didn't cover how much the tax payers wound up paying for the whole mess. Keep in mind, too, that was also after the city spent a lot of money prosecuting a One Touch Make Ready law through multiple layers of federal courts against AT&T and Spectrum and its own electrical company. (That was supposed to have been the real experiment, if a city could take back a lot of the red tape on its electrical poles. The city won and instead of using just about "blank check" access to city electrical poles, Google Fiber decided to do something much dumber.)

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

#44

Post by bruce511 »

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?

Basically the ISP is doing the soft networking stuff, (DHCP etc), customer support (maning the phones), connecting routes, billing and so on. Think "software". The fibre guys are "hardware".

In my setup I don't think the ISP has any local hardware - they're all national, and run on the hardware provided by the fibre guys.

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

#45

Post by bruce511 »

watson wrote: post #19
aednichols wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The ISP sets up rack-cabinets full of equipment in central buildings where the “last mile” fiber terminates, close to the neighborhoods that they service. Each ISP that provides service to the area needs to have their own equipment there. This is how they differentiate and how one ISP can do 1Gbps while another might be able to do 2Gbps. Simply because they have installed different equipment. The fiber itself can of…

Thats likely true in some places, here though there's no local ISP hardware. (I expect they're in national data centres level).

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

#46

Post by amf12 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #23
amf12 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google has a ridiculous reputation for customer service. Have you tried Comcast customer service? It's shit. I've had better support with paid Google services (both Pixel and Workspace) than Comcast. Google has bad customer service reputation only for its free products, which is not unexpected. If someone values good support, then a different paid service is an obvious alternative over a free Google service.

Pro tip: sign up for business service, not residential. You will get infinitely better support, from first-line on up.

I had looked into it. In my area, I can get 1 Gbps residential service or a 50Mbps business service for the same cost. That speed is ridiculously low.

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

#48

Post by happymellon »

js2 wrote: post #24
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…

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…

We sort of do this in the UK.

British Telecom own Open Reach who provide infrastructure for the country.

There is cable, for a second option in cities, and there are some regional fibre networks that provide a second infrastructure option, but for the most part Open Reach is the only option.

I had massive issues with my line, I had engineers come out and we were able to test the cables and show that there was a fault between my house and the exchange. I don't have a relationship with Open Reach so I had to rely on my ISP opening tickets and it disappearing into a black hole.

After 6 months of basically not being able to use it I had to switch to BT and magically I was able to get an engineer come out and it's all good.

Fuck BT, and the conflict of interest system where the infrastructure is managed by someone who also provides the service.

Luckily an Alt Network is laying fibre outside and should hopefully be able to supply service in the next 6 months and I'll be dropping BT infrastructure as soon as possible.

I don't care whether the system is multiple infrastructure options, or one infrastructure and multiple services over the top but in that case my infrastructure provider should be separate from my service provider.

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

#49

Post by stephenr »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20
stephenr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for one thing, I value my time. Dealing with getting a new service provider because the last one just decided to stop doing business is pretty low on the list of things I'd like to do with my time. For another, Google has a ridiculous reputation for customer service. Even saying that is being generous, because most Google services just don't have customer service, at all. I keep hearing "just go with someone els…

People go with Google Fiber because it's a better product: speeds are faster and prices are lower. Literally every single person I know who has Google Fiber is a huge fan. "For another, Google has a ridiculous reputation for customer service." Uhh, yeah, because Comcast and AT&T are famous for their stellar customer service. Give it a rest, man. I get annoyed as much as anyone with Google's "shiny object" penchants,…

> I get annoyed as much as anyone with Google's "shiny object" penchants, but this isn't one of those cases.

The article is literally about them abandoning it in a given city because an idea that doesn't pass the sniff test worked out terribly. This is very much Google abandoning a shiny object just because.

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

#50

Post by kortilla »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #31

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…

the state of Tennessee effectively has banned [still cat-and-mouse] other cities from implementing Chattanooga's beloved solution It's bleakly hilarious that politicians of a certain stripe fall over themselves to pass laws against policies that deliver value to the public.

Free market proponents don’t want the government competing with industry. It’s not that surprising
Post reply on HN