Google Fiber Is Changing Its Strategy as Costs Grow (fortune.com) 160
Google is taking a strategy timeout on its high-speed-internet business. According to WSJ, the Google Fiber unit is -- including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas -- after its initial rollouts proved time-consuming and expensive than anticipated -- is rethinking how to deliver internet connections in about a dozen metro areas (could be paywalled; alternate source). From a Fortune report: Turns out it is very expensive to run wires -- or in Google's case, fiber optic cables -- to each and every house that wants service. Known as the "last mile" problem, the high costs, in turn, make it difficult for companies to earn a solid rate of return on the installation investment. Google's effort, through its unit called Fiber that launched in 2010, is now seeking alternative means to connect to consumers homes or finding other people to pay the cost. Google has sought deals with municipalities and power companies to pay for the connections and is also exploring less expensive wireless technology. Meanwhile, Google has suspended efforts to add new cities such as San Jose, Calif., and Portland, Ore., using its prior strategy of stringing up cables to each customerâ(TM)s home.
TISP (Score:1)
What ever happened to Google TISP, their plan to run fiber through the sewer infrastructure?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google should actually continue to pursue this - no joke. Across the US, most metropolitan areas more than 70 years old with running water systems are due to have their water mains across the system replaced in the next decade or two. Lots of other areas, like mine, are getting a replacement of the natural gas mains. When the street's already torn up and the utilities are already running these lines to the premises, why not add fiber to the mix? Wise municipalities would require this, a forward thinking - r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wise municipalities would add a 4-square-foot prefab box tunnel with ports every couple of hundred feet so that whatever needs to be run in the future can be run without digging up the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
You end up needing much larger tunnels, or you need lift-out panels along almost the entire route; they problem isn't as much along the tunnel, but getting in and out of it.
We had a project needing 12 4" conduits, chilled water, and process water (less than 12" each), and was going to end up being 8' square section in order to allow proper access to everything.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't factoring in water and sewer. Those don't get upgraded that often, typically, and although repairs to pipes certainly suck, they usually aren't frequent, either. But wire infrastructure has to be updated to new tech every few years, whether you're replacing bad phone bundles or failing coax or fiber bundles that have gotten eaten by a mouse or pulling additional fibers to increase capacity or whatever.
When you need to upgrade the wire infrastructure, it is really handy to be able to pull new c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
until you realize that is the perfect transportation mechanism for rats and roaches to infiltrate every part of your city.
Put a wall in the tunnel every 2500 feet or so, requiring a small penetration for each cable passing through, and add a drain to the lowest section of each segment.
There aren't many critters that will live in a small box containing nothing (except cable) to eat, and if all access is sealed under normal conditions, then it's no good as a temporary shelter for most critters either,
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, I'm talking about tunnels that are just big enough for a small robot to crawl through and pull wires, not big enough for a person to walk through. The smaller the tube (and the smaller the entrances to it), the easier it is to seal the access ports enough to keep it reasonably dry.
Also, those cables are designed to go underground, so being in water shouldn't cause problems anyway. And if water does cause problems, that likely means that mice have eaten the jacket, which can happen undergroun
Re: (Score:2)
But because it is in a tube, it is much easier to fix.
Yes.... and because it's a tube, you can probably schedule regular preventative maintenance to help make sure mice don't get in; in the first place.
I'm thinking seal completely; pressurize the tube and maintain a slight pressure at all times with an inert gas which is either not breathable to critters, or contains repellents, or enough pesticides to ensure nothing gets in to chew on the cables.
Re: TISP (Score:1)
I wish municipalities would create junction stations. Cities would maintain fiber connections to the station, and you pick your choice of Internet/cable/phone from that point. So much more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
That plan would kinda suck for people on the outskirts of a town who still have septic systems. Sadly, there are a lot of out of us still out there.
Re: (Score:2)
"That plan would kinda suck for people on the outskirts of a town who still have septic systems"
BUT: these are the places where it is easy to bury fiber along the sides of roads.
Re: (Score:1)
https://archive.google.com/tis... [google.com]
What in the fresh hell does this mean (Score:1)
"Google is taking a strategy timeout on its high-speed-internet business. According to WSJ, the Google Fiber unit is -- including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas -- after its initial rollouts proved time-consuming and expensive than anticipated rethinking how to deliver internet connections in about a dozen metro areas"
What the fuck, seriously
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Google is taking a strategy timeout on its high-speed-internet business. According to WSJ, the Google Fiber unit is -- including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas -- after its initial rollouts proved time-consuming and expensive than anticipated rethinking how to deliver internet connections in about a dozen metro areas"
What the fuck, seriously
Just RTFA?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its simply what it is is -- remember that it evolving as well. -- sometimes, or maybe not i don't know -- is is pure English, or at least the way we talk it now -++- eggs, bread, milk, just a note for later -++- and the grades have to be good: in America) to keep up with the rest of the world [so this passes school good].
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck, seriously
Google is taking a strategic timeout on its high-speed-internet business. At least they didn't say "One word - strategery."
The last mile... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to run fiber up and down the streets. It's a real bitch to run fiber from the street into the house.
That's covered under your installation fees when you subscribe. That is not the last mile, that's the last 50 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
One of our incumbent ISPs is in the process of installing fibre in our city, and it's supposed to be done by the end of next year.
I saw the main trucks stringing fibre up and down the street last week (all underground in my neighbourhood.)
What they've done is they'll install it for free when the trenching crew is in the neighbourhood, but if you decide not to you will have to pay the install costs (which will probably be hundreds of dollars as everything is underground.)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the last mile, that's the last 50 feet.
The last mile is from the junction box to inside the residence. I couldn't get DSL at one place because the phone line ran longer than the last mile by an extra foot or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of it's just company policy... at my old place, I was across the street from a DSL-compatible local node... I could see it from my driveway. But while Verizon had a pretty big DSL customer base in the area (South Jersey), they were no longer supporting new customers. So I had 16 years of satellite Internet as a result. Just one more reason for leaving Jersey, I guess.
Cable was also in the vicinity, but not close enough. They offered to wire me up for about $60,000...
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to run fiber up and down the streets. It's a real bitch to run fiber from the street into the house.
If that's really the case then don't do it. There are plenty of wireless technologies that can easily cover that distance and a lot more. My dad has his office, his shop, and his house all linked with standard 802.11 wifi antennas. They are easily 5 miles apart and it's covered easily with a roof mounted antenna. Distances shorter than that wouldn't even need a roof mounted antenna. That same town uses 802.11 to sell cheap internet to the whole town. They put the antennas on top of their water towers.
Re: (Score:2)
My dad is using a single channel so is only getting 54mbps but 802.11 supports a lot higher than that and 54mbps is faster than my current "broadband" at home. There is no reason though that google would have to use 802.11. There are plenty of wireless technologies that can reach the last mile. You can likely do line of sight for the last mile but even if you can't if you're talking only needing it for the last mile then there are plenty of high bandwidth "junk" frequencies that would be suitable for sho
Re: (Score:2)
They hit a water line and were up until 11pm fixing that one night.
I remembered when underground cables became more common in Silicon Valley. A backhoe crew ripped up an underground fiber optic bundle — twice. Each time the phone company had two techs splicing 50,000 lines in the bundle overnight. After two consecutive incidents, the phone company had someone supervise the backhoe crew to prevent a third incident.
Wait What? (Score:1)
Natural Monopolies do exist? shocking!
Re: (Score:3)
Many/most of us would probably be willing to pay for the last mile infrastructure, we just do not want AT&T/Google/Comcrap/TWC/Charter to own it. The natural monopoly is primarily because of a bad funding model. These guys will all race to your house if they can be sure of perpetual domination, but are slow if there's competition.
I like the idea of people taking out a bond for last mile telecom. The bond will cover the costs of installation and service of the best your city has to offer, you can choose
Re: (Score:1)
These guys will all race to your house if they can be sure of perpetual domination, but are slow if there's competition.
No, they will race to your house if they can be guaranteed of a profit. Domination isn't necessary. Competition eats away at profits. There is lots of competition in the ISP marketplace. Profits aren't so readily available, and only a company run by morons leaps into a market where it cannot make a profit.
And Google is proving that fact. They made a big splash and hoped for a lot of water in their buckets at the end of the day. Now it's clear to them that they can't make as much money as they need to, and
Re: (Score:2)
No, they will race to your house if they can be guaranteed of a profit. Domination isn't necessary. Competition eats away at profits.
Not my problem to solve. The problem I seek to solve is the investment factor on the provider end, and distrust of the provider on the consumer end. If there are a dozen service providers all charging X, then very likely that is the cost of the service, the funding model will work. That is not what is happening.
These upgrades are installed by unicorns and the fibers are mad
Re: (Score:2)
Not my problem to solve.
Didn't say it was. I just pointed out that "domination" is not a requirement, only "profit".
Someone will need to take out a large bond to build the infrastructure, maintain it, and upgrade it.
Yes. For municipal infrastructure, that someone is called the "taxpayer". Everyone who pays taxes in that municipality. That's how municipal bond measures work. The municipality promises money, from the taxpayer, to an investment company in exchange for them selling bonds to investors and the expected payback of that money, with interest, to those investors. At the base of the system is a promise that the taxpayers
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. For municipal infrastructure, that someone is called the "taxpayer". Everyone who pays taxes in that municipality. That's how municipal bond measures work. The municipality promises money, from the taxpayer, to an investment company in exchange for them selling bonds to investors and the expected payback of that money, with interest, to those investors. At the base of the system is a promise that the taxpayers will cover any costs not otherwise covered. And when you wind up with a large number of peop
Re: (Score:2)
Many/most of us would probably be willing to pay for the last mile infrastructure, we just do not want AT&T/Google/Comcrap/TWC/Charter to own it. The natural monopoly is primarily because of a bad funding model. These guys will all race to your house if they can be sure of perpetual domination, but are slow if there's competition.
Not so much. They'll race to your crowded neighborhood if they can have the monopoly. Maybe. Verizon froze their FiOS build-out years ago, and may be thawing that a little today, but they didn't want your business much if you weren't already covered. And if you're rural, just fuggedaboudit... they'll leave you to the savagery of the satellite carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Helped that the Govt. eventually forced the main telco at the time - Telecom NZ- to open up home access.
Perhaps you Yanks should try competition? Works well in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
We would have been sittin' pretty with broadband wiring back when there was a government-regulated Telco, the old AT&T, had they gone ahead with the PicturePhone in the 1960s. But these days, there's no main telco, they're all private companies with only the minimal of must-wire controls. And they wouldn't necessarily solve the last mile problem in a way acceptable to any other wired carrier.
Wireless is a better possibility, but the big wireless companies, the ones with the existing infrastructure here,
Already Have Fiber and Broadband at the curb (Score:5, Insightful)
I already have Fiber and Broadband to my house but oh wait, Google can't use those because my local politicians gave certain franchise rights to companies who made the investment in digging up the street. In my case at least it isn't a last mile problem, it's a blocked mile problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Could eminent domain be used to terminate those franchise rights, seize ownership of the wires (with appropriate compensation), and let the homeowner or neighborhood choose the ISP?
Re: (Score:2)
eminent domain was used to acquire the utility right of way, it's possible I guess however you can't seize without compensating. Considering the players involved, it could be a very expensive and protracted legal dispute through the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
and let the homeowner or neighborhood choose the ISP?
What if all your neighbors decided they wanted Comcast as their ISP? Would you think that's a good deal for you? Isn't it better that you can select what ISP you want and let them do what they want? And would you like your landlord telling you what ISP you must use? Isn't it better if you get to choose, like you can now?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't get to choose my cable ISP. So if my neighbors chose the incumbent, I would be no worse off than today, and potentially much better off because it opens up the possibility of new choices in the future. Competition is good, right?
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't get to choose my cable ISP.
I notice that you added a word there, as if "cable" and "ISP" are somehow inextricably linked. You can choose any of a number of ISPs; cable television is just one delivery method.
So if my neighbors chose the incumbent, I would be no worse off than today,
No, because they would leave you with NO choice for ISP. You would then truly be stuck with Comcast as your ISP, instead of only being stuck with them because you want the service they can provide.
Competition is good, right?
And letting your neighbors (or landlord) choose the ISP you have to use is not "competition", it is the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, because I don't have fiber to my home, and DSL has been deregulated such that it's no better than cable.
For a year or so, yes, until it's time to choose again.
So, multiple sellers co
Re: (Score:2)
Probably.
Note that eminent domain could probably be just as easily used to seize ownership of the house, evict the owners, and solve the problem that way.
Note also that the likelihood of anyone deciding to spend money putting fibre into an area where the government is inclined to seize property is very close to zero.
Re: (Score:1)
The *mile* isn't blocked. The ability for multiple ISPs to *use* it is blocked. Use this moment to realize that you don't want the "network neutrality" that has been pushed in the last few years.
You really want neutral last mile infrastructure -- and multiple ISPs with access to that last mile.
Think about dial-up. One last mile infrastructure that could reach many different ISPs. If you ISP didn't treat you well, you voted with your pocketbook, and move to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it will take longer than a couple weeks to install new infrastructure over an entire city. But anyone that moves t
Re: (Score:2)
These companies only lay cable when the tax payer pays for it. There are federal, state and local funds that pay for these wires. If you don't give those incentives, the companies won't bother. The problem is that often these companies have 40-100 year monopoly rights in exchange for increasing services defined in the 90s (what do you ever need 10Mbps to the home for) because you know that won't be abused or reneged on.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily a solution, in many places those utility poles are also regulated by the same corrupt laws that block digging.
Also, while where I live in texas it's mostly below ground, but in places like NYC and the suburbs of Portland, OR it might work.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the exact figures, but above ground wiring is somewhere around 5-6x cheaper on average (and probably more in dense areas.)
Above ground wiring is cheaper, when its electrical wires. That's because moving current to a block of homes generates a lot of heat, which has problems radiating out when its buried underground. Fiber may have incurred costs which makes it more expensive installed underground, but its only going to be half cheaper going above ground, if that.
Re: (Score:1)
What weird place do you live that has underground poles?
Underground Poles? (Score:1)
I'm in the fucking Polish Underground, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
The most expensive neighborhoods in the US. Yup, North Shore Long Island. I'm sure its the same in Connecticut, and many other northeastern regions.
Re: (Score:2)
New development starting as late as the late 90s would mostly have underground wiring.
Towns/Cities are to blame (Score:1)
Re:Towns/Cities are to blame (Score:5, Informative)
No planning of any kind of coordinated/mandated ditch/tunnel to each home.
Sorry but that kind of micromanagement would be a cure worse than the disease and places incredible restrictions on property design.
It's not that expensive to dig in your own house. It's expensive to outsource the problem to over paid contractors. When we broke our telephone line in the house the local telecom company wanted $12000 to run a new line (we live in an easement so our house to the street was 80m). We made a concession, if I dig a trench to the mandated 600mm depth and lay a piece of conduit for them then the repaired phone line only cost $200.
It took 2min to do a services lookup to ensure I wouldn't hit anything. The cost of hiring a trench digger was $140 for half a day. It took 2 hours to learn how to use it and dig the trench. Another 1.5hours or so for cleaning of the machine and pickup / return to the local hire shop. The conduit cost $60 for the extra heavy duty stuff.
How the heck a $200 expense + 4 hours labour turns into $11800 to this day I will never figure out, but man I need to get into the contracting business.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> How the heck a $200 expense + 4 hours labour turns into $11800 to this day I will never figure out, but man I need to get into the contracting business.
Unions.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.homewyse.com/servic... [homewyse.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Towns/Cities are to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
It cost you as an individual 200 bucks because you weren't paying for your time. You as an individual are also not restricted by the same laws that bind a contracting company.
What would you have done if you slipped with your trench digger and maimed your leg? How much insurance did you have to pay for your job site? How much did you pay yourself for the time you spent, not just driving and cleaning, but also picking up and dropping off the equipment?
While I can't say specifically why the bill would be that ludicrously high, I can see how it *could* get that high. At a minimum, I can see having multiple bonded people on site to satisfy safety regulations. That alone would have run the bill up a couple thousand dollars. Now add the logistics of coordinating those people, both on-site and at company HQ, you've now involved a large number of people for just a half-day job.
You eliminated all that by taking on the work, logistics, and risk upon yourself, and leaving you with only having to pay for the equipment rental.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, GP may not have installed it to the company standards, did not need legal approval, and did all the work solo. The phone company would need a 2-3 person crew to trench and install conduit.
I would have expected the utility cost to be around $100/m, so up to $8,000 wouldn't surprise me. At $0.75/m though, I am bug easing the GP just installed 25mm conduit, when the utility would usually do 50-70mm.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, GP may not have installed it to the company standards, did not need legal approval, and did all the work solo.
The GP in question most definitely did it to company standards since the company needed the trench open for inspection before they would lay the phone cable through. He did all solo work solo where only solo people are required (there's no requirement for a crew to dig a trench and any subcontractor is often by themselves anyway). Oh and the only legal requirement to dig a 600mm trench on any property including the public naturestrip is to check services in the area which you can do online and was done.
Sorr
Re: (Score:2)
It cost you as an individual 200 bucks because you weren't paying for your time.
Yes and the difference in time doesn't make up the cost.
You as an individual are also not restricted by the same laws that bind a contracting company.
My point exactly. The problem of the costs lies elsewhere than where the GP was looking.
What would you have done if you slipped with your trench digger and maimed your leg? How much insurance did you have to pay for your job site?
I'm not in America. These kinds of insurances are socialised. The result of me breaking my leg on a job and on the weekend are identical as is the impact to my work life should it happen.
How much did you pay yourself for the time you spent, not just driving and cleaning, but also picking up and dropping off the equipment?
Clearly more time than you spent reading my post.
While I can't say specifically why the bill would be that ludicrously high, I can see how it *could* get that high.
I can't. I come from a family of property developers. I grew up on building sites, and have dealt with such contractors constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
* Paying the beneifts of the labor doing the job
* Buying the machine and the truck needed to get it to the jobsite
* Keeping the machine and truck maintained
* Insurance of all types: liability, WC, on the equipment and truck, etc.
* Taxes (payroll / business / etc.)
* Accounting / bookkeeping services to take care of the above
* Rent or mortgage for an office / shop to house all of the above
* (Finally) a profit margin
This will get you started, but by adding all
Re: (Score:2)
When you hire a machine you pay for:
* Buying the machine and the truck needed to get it to the job site
* Keeping the machine and truck maintained
* Insurance of all types: liability, WC, on the equipment and truck, etc
* Taxes (payroll / business / etc.) for the hire company
* Accounting / bookkeeping services to take care of the above
* Rent or mortgage for an office / shop to house all of the above
* (Finally) a profit margin for the hire company
The only difference is the labour costs.
Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
"Turns out it is very expensive to run wires -- or in Google's case, fiber optic cables -- to each and every house that wants service. "
Holy cow...did nobody at Google see what happens with similar utilities? Or did they just assume the old rules didn't apply to them since it was "on the Internet"? I thought the 1999 "we'll make it up in volume" rules were already thrown out. I highly doubt Economics 101 courses at Stanford leave out the discussion of natural monopolies.
The only thing I can possibly think that they were thinking is that the value of the data they were able to mine by being plugged _directly_ into your Internet usage habits would be way bigger than the cost to run fiber to thousands of houses.
Why do you think Verizon et al is now trying desperately to get out of the wireline business? They're a public utility and can't raise rates whenever they feel like it, unlike their wireless business. At the same time, you have real physical stuff deployed in the ground that needs to be maintained. It's the same over at the electric company, or worse, the water authority. I can't imagine how much it costs to maintain 100+ year old pipes and clean up after water main failures.
Re:Captain Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy cow...did nobody at Google see what happens with similar utilities? Or did they just assume the old rules didn't apply to them since it was "on the Internet"? I thought the 1999 "we'll make it up in volume" rules were already thrown out. I highly doubt Economics 101 courses at Stanford leave out the discussion of natural monopolies.
Google is not interested in ISP business. What Google is interested in is forcing ISPs to react to their plans but hopefully on a larger scale.
It's actually worked really well in my area. Google was looking at Fiber. The city announced a big push to invest in fiber. The ISPs all fought tooth and nail to stop it. And then suddenly started rolling out gigabit to the home as a defensive action. The municipal fiber fell through. Google picked another city. But Centurylink is going door to door selling gigabit to the home.
Re:Captain Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Nashville, the rollout has been hampered by Comcast and AT&T dragging their feet to keep Google Fiber off of utility poles. Dig a few feet anywhere in Nashville, and you'll soon hit limestone, so Google has to use NES (Nashville Electric Service) poles to run their cabling through residential neighborhoods.
The problem is that AT&T and Comcast are already on those poles, so Google has to tell NES which poles they need to use, NES sends a request to Comcast and AT&T to move their cables a few inches to accommodate the Google cable, and Comcast / AT&T send out workers to move their equipment. You can probably guess how slowly Comcast and AT&T act on those work requests. So far Google Fiber has only reached a few buildings downtown, and a couple of public housing projects.
So now Google Fiber is pushing for a "One Touch Make Ready" ordinance, which will allow them to move Comcast and AT&T's cables out of the way themselves, using a contractor approved by NES (the same contractor used by Comcast in many cases), in order to expedite the installation process.
There's going to be a public hearing on the ordinance in the Metro Council tonight. The rumor is that if the ordinance passes, Comcast and AT&T may sue the city next. On the other hand, the ordinance has a huge amount of public support. It should be interesting to see how it plays out with the members of the city council.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon is getting out of the wire line business because, while it is profitable, there is more profit in putting that money into wireless. Verizon used their public utility status to subsidize and develop their wireless network, and now that they've rung all the value out of that privileged position, they don't need it anymore (except in Boston).
It's a strange market distortion... Profitable is never profitable eno
I Told Them (Score:2)
I said it years ago when this shit started up. Google doesn't have the money to become a national ISP.
The major telcos are worth far, far more than Google is because they have infrastructure in place which simply cannot be replicated today without trillions of dollars or a huge "fuck you, get it done" from Congress. It's not just about last mile costs, it's about the "franchises", crooked politicians, existing lobbyists, landlords on the take, etc. for nearly every city and town in the country.
Hint: They
But who says Google ever wanted to be your ISP? (Score:2)
From everything I read when Google started rolling out fiber, the idea *really* was never to become the next big nation-wide ISP for broadband. It was more of an attempt to "shake the tree" ... to get existing providers to sit up and take notice that people really did want better, faster connections than they were currently selling.
That's one reason there was always such a big "to do" about Google trying to select where the next city was going to be for a fiber rollout.
I think this was a strategic move to d
Or was it about hoovering data? (Score:2)
I don't know, but do Google Fiber's terms of service indicate whether they can snoop your data or even just your metadata? Some of this could easily be categorized as not even snooping, but operational data that any ISP would be able to collect in the course of running a network operation.
It wouldn't surprise me if the newly-realized "cost" problem isn't really a "cost" problem but a revenue/business intelligence shortfall. Google Fiber was dreamed up pre-Snowden and a renewed push to encrypt a lot more t
Re: (Score:3)
It was more of an attempt to "shake the tree"
No, it was posturing. This is also something I said years ago. Many people did believe that Google was planning "more cities" and was going to be a major telco, buy all sorts of spectrum, etc. Google Fiber has had a moderate impact in the cities it launched in, but overall it's been about as impactful as Verizon FIOS or AT&T Uverse.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you see that happening? They've already got the bandwidth sharing deals in place with the existing cell carriers...
Carrier: Google, get your users and your phones off my network.
Google: You said they could use your network at our agreed prices!
Carrier: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
The instant Project-Fi becomes anything more than another one of Google's whimsical dalliances, it'll be quashed.
Eminent domain (Score:2)
The cities should eminent domain the poles. They take over doing the wiring and maintenance on the peoples. Companies wishing to use the poles accept the government doing the wiring and maintaining the poles in a neutral manner. They each pay a fraction of the cost of the pole. If 1 company is using the poles they pay 100%. If 2 they pay 50%, 4 25% etc. The more companies offering services using the resource the cheaper it is for all companies doing so.
Re: (Score:1)
You're assuming that having the government taking over an infrastructure as a public trust is somehow better. If anything we've learned that government is not the zero sum game that we were told about back in high school civic and that they certainly aren't neutral. I'm not seeing the winning side of this strategy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically speaking, the best approach for consumers is when the government owns a nonprofit corporation and allows that nonprofit corporation to manage the infrastructure. Example: TVA. This approach takes profit out of the picture and makes it a zero-sum game, while not allowing needed work to get tied up by government bureaucrats who think they need to stick their finger into every pie.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, a large number of states have granted monopoly status to the companies, and cities arn't permitted to interfere that in any way. And when the FCC tried to give power back to the cities, they were successfully slapped down with the argument that the feds were trampling on the rights of the States.
Apparently the rights of the cities within those states don't matter at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Have the city maintain a key piece of your internet connection?
It works pretty well in Douglas and Chelan counties in Washington State. There, the PUD maintains a fiber infrastructure that covers nearly all the homes and businesses in all the various communities. They themselves do not provide the service (be it TV, Internet, etc...). As a customer, you have the choice of 8 or 10 different ISPs who all have access to the fiber. If you're a business you can also get transit through Level 3 or Zayo.
As far as repairs go, the PUDs are just almost as quick to repair any fib
It's a dumb strategy... (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather, run fiber optic to all neighborhoods. Than broadcast over a wireless signal to the last mile.
Re: (Score:3)
You can only group about 4-10 houses and maintain gigabit speeds, at a cost of having non-passive equipment distributed throuout the system. It makes a good starting point and helps get you moving quickly, but the endgame stays about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, most American's would be happy with 100megabit for a reasonable price. Hell, I'd be happy for 10 megabit not to cost me an arm and a leg.
Run it into neighborhoods. WiFi/Cell signal to homes. If someone needs a Gigabit service, let them pay to tap the neighborhood fiber bundle.
Disappointing but unsurprising.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Disappointing but unsurprising.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm imagining an alternate history where Eisenhower was never able to build the Interstate highway system because a bunch of powerful monopolies already had a bunch of bumpy dirt roads with exorbitant toll booths.
That would make for an interesting alternate history story.
Say, Theodore Roosevelt fails to break the Hill/Morgan trusts controlling railroads. The rail companies, fearing the newfangled automobile will threaten their railroad monopolies, use their financial clout to influence automobile and truck development, successfully limiting automotive developments associated with anything other than inner city travel. Further, they boost investment in commuter rail and urban transit rail systems to both reduce the interest in automobile ownership and funnel riders into their rail networks. Cities who gain their transit investments are pressured to pass laws restricting the use of automobiles, leaving them only viable for the very wealthy or government uses.
By the time of Eisenhower's presidency, his push for a national road network fails, as critics cite the highly integrated and widespread transit, commuter and national networks as being a war asset and enabling American industry to more easily meet the needs of the military and reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels.
By the 1960s, automobile ownership is still hampered by restrictions and an anemic road network. LA to NYC is 18 hours by train, but takes 5 days in an automobile due to the chaotic road system.
Americans who have been to Europe heap praise on their extensive system of highways and easy freedom of movement. Renegade capitalist Henry Ford II challenges the rail monopolies by convincing Kansas City to go along with his "Ford to the Home" plan, providing cheap and high speed automobiles and bypassing traditional restrictions on automobile use. Eager citizens in other cities, still slave to the rail networks eagerly await to hear whether their town will be the next "Ford City".
Re: (Score:2)
--Interesting, but I have to question your math a bit.
> LA to NYC is 18 hours by train, but takes 5 days in an automobile due to the chaotic road system.
--According to G.Maps, Los Angeles,CA to NY,NY is 2,778 miles. 2,778/70MPH *nonstop* (unrealistic?) is over 39 hours.
--On the other hand, New Orleans, LA to NY,NY is listed as ~19.5 hours nonstop by car and ~1D3H by train, so which did you mean? They didn't deploy high speed rail in the US until the 30's, and only then on relatively short sections of t
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, it was an alternate history treatment that supposed the rail interests managed to suppress the automobile. The figures I had were totally made up -- I was trying to make the national underinvestment in automobiles seem remotely plausible.
I would imagine that without the interstate highway system and with a chaotic and underbuilt state highway system, a cross-country trip from NYC to LA would take much longer. A 300 mile trip I've made from Minneapolis to Baudette actually takes about 6 hours (Google'
Google already has a solution: wireless last mile (Score:5, Informative)
In June, Google announced that it would acquire Webpass [webpass.net], an urban ISP that delivers ethernet drops rather than requiring cable or DSL modems. WebPass has fiber connections throughout its various cities ("San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, San Diego, Miami, Miami Beach, Coral Gables, Chicago, and Boston") and connects the last mile with a wireless connection to the customer's rooftop using point-to-point [webpass.net] radios.
This is mentioned in TFA [wsj.com] as well:
Webpass already offers 100+mbps (up and down!) for $46/mo ($550/y or $60/mo) at the residential [webpass.net] level, and I'm under the impression the speed is actually bottlenecked by the ethernet switching and cabling within each participating building rather than the wireless signal; they support up to 1Gbps using this model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's a point-to-point link, which means you have two directional antennas pointed at each other. The equipment manufacturer will have a done a link budget over distance, including free space propagation loss, atmospheric losses, and rain fade.
Re-factor the system to invite real competition (Score:4, Insightful)
The "last mile" should be a public utility, like land-lines used to be. The carrier (ISP) should then be relatively easily switchable per what individual customers want in order to finally give us real competition, instead of 2 actual (crappy) choices plus a 3rd fake choice that most places have now
It's not economically efficient (i.e. redundant) for each vendor to lay wires all the way to each house. Centralize the final wiring, but make the up-stream part easily toggle-able between vendors so that many vendors can enter the market without investing an arm and a leg. They'd only have to run (or rent) wiring to the switching stations/nodes, NOT to each house.
That's how Vulcan's would do it. Ferengi-like humans got us our current oligopoly mess. Only the airline industry has worse customer satisfaction ratings than the big telecoms. Comcast et al. are just shy of crying babies, lost luggage, no leg room, and long airport waits.
The G in Google (Score:2)
Once again we are reminded that the G in Google stands for Government.
If you had been paying attention, you would realize they are not really a private company.
Re: (Score:2)
I was around when they set up Google. I don't hate Google - but I know what it is.
Yes - on paper it is a 'private company' - but who do they answer to? Where did they get their initial search algorithms from (leapfrogging the established competition by magnitudes) ? Where did the principals that set it up work for just before? Exactly where did the money come from to set up Google?
There are other 'private companies' run by three letter agencies as well. Some with a single customer. The public is amazin
Seriously? (Score:2)
Gee...REALLY? (Score:1)
"less expensive wireless technology" (Score:1)
Well duh! Paint the town with WiFi and it'll still be fast and allow them to undercut ISPs.
People who want to pay for the last mile or communities where the cost isn't vast will be able to convince them to run fibre maybe.
Would be a much more doable strategy.
I know the point of this whole exercise was 1+Gb FTTH, but perhaps finding a 300mbps happy medium would serve communities well for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Just google trenching permits in many cities in the US and see the elaborate details it entails in the US. If you're crossing multiple jurisdictions and private property, all that requires different permits and more restrictions apply (And A LOT OF FREAKING DRIVING). None of the requiremen