Slashdot Mirror
Google Fiber Is Changing Its Strategy as Costs Grow (fortune.com)
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.
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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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 - relatively inexpensive - investment in their future.
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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].