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.

4 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Captain Obvious by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. It's a dumb strategy... by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Rather, run fiber optic to all neighborhoods. Than broadcast over a wireless signal to the last mile.

  3. Disappointing but unsurprising.... by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Roads, electricity, water, gas, telephone: All of these things could only be built with significant involvement/investment/regulation from the government. It should be blatantly obvious that no amount of "free market" magic by itself is going to get fiber infrastructure built to every home in the country which currently already has the aforementioned infrastructures; most of which are much more expensive to build out than fiber lines. This is what I find most aggravating about the whole broadband mess. 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.

    1. Re:Disappointing but unsurprising.... by swb · · Score: 4, 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".