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

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: The future of Fiber

#71

Post by twoodfin »

skyebook wrote: post #61
res0nat0r wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VZW stopped rolling out FIOS across the board I believe.

Yeah I've heard/seen this as well, they've done it in favor of expanding LTE coverage [0] I'm astounded at how anyone at VZ thinks this could be a good idea. [0] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-Fi...

There are a lot of folks on forums like this who think networks like FiOS should be regulated into being essentially dumb pipes. Verizon and their investors see some chance of this happening, and even if it didn't, it turns out there aren't a lot of "value added" services you can sell to consumers over a proprietary network; they just want the internet.

You can't make the margins as a "dumb pipe" that Verizon needs to justify the capital investment in FiOS. That's the long and the short of it. They had dreams of selling pay-per-view movies, video chat, and a dozen other applications over their network for big $$$. Instead they're fighting with Comcast over the same $120 in cable and internet bills, while Netflix, Google, and Apple build their high-margin businesses on VZ's fiber.

Re: The future of Fiber

#72

Post by leviathant »

psbp wrote: post #54
JunkDNA wrote: post #41

I know it would be painful, and the local politics certifiably insane, but if Google wanted draw attention to the dysfunctional monopoly of the cable industry, there would be no better place to wire than Philly. Take the competition right into Comcast's back yard. Start with a rollout of the Philly 'burbs where the Comcast execs live and work inward toward the city from there.

You live in Philadelphia, don't you?

I live in Philadelphia, where we have a subway station named after AT&T and the tallest building is the Comcast center (until they build their new Comcast building, which will be even taller), and if Verizon can't get fiber to my house (never mind that free wifi movement that sputtered out six or seven years ago) there's absolutely no hope for Google fiber happening here. Between old infrastructure and big players, decent fiber internet is just something I accept that I'm not going to get in this city. There's plenty of other reasons I like it here, but Comcast domination is not one of them.

Re: The future of Fiber

#73

Post by JonFish85 »

skyebook wrote: post #61
res0nat0r wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VZW stopped rolling out FIOS across the board I believe.

Yeah I've heard/seen this as well, they've done it in favor of expanding LTE coverage [0] I'm astounded at how anyone at VZ thinks this could be a good idea. [0] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-Fi...

I wonder how many people honestly care about what internet provider they have? Do most people want FIOS? Or would more people prefer to have a much better connection on the phone/iPad?

On top of that, as was mentioned above, it's probably cheaper to update to LTE than it is to run fiber everywhere, and on top of that, it's probably worth more money to them on the $x/mo for LTE service since to add another customer in the area is trivial compared to FIOS.

Re: The future of Fiber

#74

Post by wj »

bhousel wrote: post #53
aetherson wrote: post #9

I guess I fundamentally do not understand what makes a city a good or bad candidate for this kind of service. Why is SF or NY not an obvious candidate? Density means that there are lots of customers for a given physical length of infrastructure rollout, they're both wealthy cities with a large proportion of techies who could use faster internet... I'm sure they're both nightmares to deal with permitting processes for…

Doing any kind of utility work in NYC is a nightmare. There's lots of stuff underground (power, telecom, water, steam, sewer) that has been built up over the years and is in various states of obsolescence and disrepair, and in many cases isn't really marked on any utility maps. It's not a trivial matter to just dig a new trench for fiber. Here's a interesting story of what happened when an electrician found a 250VDC…

And here is a cool cross section of what lies underneath New York City:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/nyunderground/

Re: The future of Fiber

#75

Post by abvdasker »

jjallen wrote: post #57

Google Fiber will pass Google Fiber was announced almost four years ago and has only a few tens of thousands of subscribers. While it's fun to get excited about what Google Fiber could be, it will be years before any material percentage of the country has the opportunity to use Google Fiber. Google is still building out small neighborhoods in Kansas City [1] [0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Q-sGUEiuT9VN__V…

Google Fiber has so far only been an experiment. I see it as a very expensive, very ambitious proof of concept the likes of which only Google is capable of creating. This new announcement is evidence that their experiment of the last 4 years has succeeded.

Google can only move so fast with this given the stranglehold Comcast has on the market right now and the regulatory obstacles. There is a killing to be made by undercutting the monopolistic pricing and terrible service Comcast provides right now (not to mention the ways ownership of distribution might benefit Google's content).

TL;DR This is the next step in Google's big, slow play to become a major ISP.

Re: The future of Fiber

#76

Post by teach »

benihana wrote: post #29

I currently live in NYC, and I've lived in Raleigh. It seems pretty clear that tearing up New York City to lay fiber is a much more expensive and tedious process than it would be in Raleigh. The state and local governments also seem much more friendly to that kind of thing.

So far Google isn't "tearing up" anything; they've been targeting cities with overhead power lines they can piggyback.

Re: The future of Fiber

#77

Post by bgilroy26 »

aetherson wrote: post #9

I guess I fundamentally do not understand what makes a city a good or bad candidate for this kind of service. Why is SF or NY not an obvious candidate? Density means that there are lots of customers for a given physical length of infrastructure rollout, they're both wealthy cities with a large proportion of techies who could use faster internet... I'm sure they're both nightmares to deal with permitting processes for…

When major Telco players decide how much to invest in opposing Google, the first place they look for a measuring stick is the potential lost revenue numbers.

The huge customers in cities on the coasts would give them every reason to fight tooth and nail. Going for small potatoes first represents a larger financial risk for Google, but it gives them a better chance to work out the kinks in their product in relative peace.

Re: The future of Fiber

#78

Post by jseliger »

mkaziz wrote: post #52
jseliger wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently live in NYC, and I've lived in Raleigh Howdy neighbor: I live in NYC too. A lot of NYC already does have fiber in the form of FiOS. I'll also observe that NYC's overall Internet situation appears to be much better than many places; right now I'm paying $50 a month for 50 Mbs down / 5 Mbs up through RCN. In Tucson, where I used to live, I was paying $70 for 12 down / 1 or 2 up. Google is presumably targeti…

RCN is a solid provider from what I hear. I'm JUST out of their coverage area and am consigned to Comcast. Tis a terrible fate.

I'm JUST out of their coverage area and am consigned to Comcast. Tis a terrible fate.

That hurts. We're looking for a new place to live and I have been asking landlords if their buildings get FiOS service. It doesn't seem to be an uncommon question, and the ones without it seem somewhat unhappy about the situation.

Re: The future of Fiber

#79

Post by toomuchtodo »

Nrsolis wrote: post #30
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.

YUP. The short answer is: it's much easier to build in a greenfield environment where there is a "helpful" local government, ready access to rights-of-way, and underserved population, easy construction costs, access to labor, favorable tax climate, and a host of other reasons that come before "lots of people who want gigabit speeds". The economics of building (or overbuilding) a gigabit fiber network drive you toward…

> (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes)

WUT.

Re: The future of Fiber

#80

Post by adventured »

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've seen a lot of complaints about the caps (wasn't sure if they were widespread or not). What keeps the caps in place if they're universally disliked? I've always thought of Canada as a fairly responsive democracy.
Post reply on HN