Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fiber To Cut Staff In Half After User Totals Disappoint, Says Report (dslreports.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the throttled-performance dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: Sources claim that Google Fiber has been disappointed with the company's overall number of total subscribers since launching five years ago. A paywalled report over at The Information cites a variety of anonymous current and former Google employees, who say the estimated 200,000 or so broadband subscribers the company had managed to sign up by the end of 2014 was a fary cry from the company's original projection of somewhere closer to 5 million. Google Fiber has never revealed its total number of subscribers. A report last October pegged the company's total broadband subscribers at somewhere around 120,000, though it's unclear how many of those users had signed up for Google Fiber's symmetrical 5 Mbps tier, which was originally free after users paid a $300 installation fee. Disappointed by sluggish subscriber tallies, The Information report states that last month Alphabet CEO Larry Page ordered Google Fiber boss Craig Barratt to cut the total Google Fiber staff in half to roughly 500 people. That's a claim that's sure to only fuel continued speculation that the company is starting to get cold feet about its attempts to bring broadband competition to a broken duopoly market.

30 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Bring it to my area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll sign up anytime, any day! Get me out of Comcast and I'll be happy!

    1. Re: Bring it to my area by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      They go to the flyover states because there's a lot less red tape shit to put up with. That, and reduced chance of unions. I work telecom and I can't fucking stand CWA.

    2. Re: Bring it to my area by Motard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...a city desperate to serve its public.....

      I, for one, would like to live in such a place.

  2. "broken duopoly market"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe creating an old-school highly capital investment-intensive utility is a little harder than it appears for the new high-tech industry geniuses.

  3. Google Fiber To Cut Staff In Half... by BuckB · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's some pretty strong fiber. So there are worse things than just getting fired.

    1. Re:Google Fiber To Cut Staff In Half... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      its high speed fiber. ie, fiber run at high speed.

      ever see those lawn things that cut those green stalks that appear outside on some areas of the earth? those use high speed fiber.

      looks very dangerous to me. I go nowhere near them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  4. "Dissapointed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how you can be dissapointed in your subscriber numbers while simultaneously restricting your rollouts and walking back planned rollouts even in areas with high demand.

    1. Re:"Dissapointed" by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Easily, they know the number of potential customers in the areas covered by their limited rollout and set their expectations based on that.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:"Dissapointed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but how are they not hitting their numbers. $300 gets me 4 months of Comcast broadband, you have to be a moron not to switch to Google. Granted, we have a robust moron population, but sheesh!

  5. Can't Subscribe by darkain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't subscribe if it ain't available!

    1. Re:Can't Subscribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In focus groups I am sure "everyone" wants google fiber.

      In real life, it costs 2x as much as a typical cable internet connection and while it may be 50x as fast, most of the 50x is not really available. Netflix actually streams just as fast or faster on some cable companies per Nexflix's data.

      I live in an area that has it and I did not sign up because I don't need to pay ~$500 more a year for the infrequent times where I actually use more than a standard connection.

      You all can go on about how YOU use a bunch of data but most people are not you. Most people don't download multiple GB of data every day from servers that will serve content faster than 50mbps. Most people brows the web, check e-mail, watch YouTube and stream Netflix. This can all be done for half the cost with the same experience.

    2. Re:Can't Subscribe by BenJeremy · · Score: 2

      Basically this. It's more about the sluggish speed of Google's rollouts - they give competition plenty of time to cut prices and increase speeds before Google's available, and most people won't switch if they can just stick with their existing service and get, what many consider, the same thing.

      They should have been far more aggressive in getting their service in as many places as possible.

      I still believe Google will make it to my city... sometime in the year 2546, if my calculations are correct.

    3. Re:Can't Subscribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I signed up for fiber in my town. I had to pay $3,000 and that was a steal compared to the $17,000 my neighbour was quoted for it. The issue is licensing costs and though they had to run a really long fiber line for me all of the poles were already licensed. My neighbour on the other hand was nearer to several junction boxes, but none of the poles between him and the junction boxes were licensed. Now the actually internet speeds I can subscribe to are nowhere near what Google is advertising. At least not yet. However I do get a syncronisys connection which is one of the main benefits in my mind. It's so much better than the 10Mbps ADSL connection I used to have. Not in the download speed as this is the same as my fiber connection. It's the 10Mbps I get upload wise. I can get 100Mbps if I want to pay $200 / month. However that isn't yet justifiable to me. What is justified is the reduced latency and the fact I don't have to subscribe to shitty cable companies. I am also now living too far for ADSL to be sufficient. I would be limited to 3Mbps, or 6Mbps bonded connection. It's really cheap, but I want at least 8-10Mbps down.

    4. Re:Can't Subscribe by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      This is what my biggest problem is. The only options $300 installation and free 5 Mbps service, or $70 a month 1 Gbps service. The first option is too slow, even if there is no monthly bill, and the second option is more than I want to spend for internet. I would love a $40 option even if it was only 50-100 Mbps. 100 Mbps would be enough to have 4 Netflix Ultra HD 4K streams going at the same time, or just have everybody on HD 1080p streams and still have plenty of bandwidth left over. Giving me 1 Gbps internet does not give me any noticeable internet service than giving me 100 Mbps except when I see the bill at the end of the month.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Can't Subscribe by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      In Nashville, Google is being blocked by Comcast and AT&T who are stonewalling on moving their cables out of the way on NES utility poles. It's not that Google doesn't want to offer service, they literally can't because they can't run their cables.

      Bury the damn cables and eliminate those unsightly poles and wires susceptible to storm damage and outages.

      Then it becomes 10x as expensive to service them if there's a problem, or if you want to upgrade them.

    6. Re:Can't Subscribe by SNRatio · · Score: 2

      Who cares about more speed? I'd sign up at 2x the price just to help foster actual competition,

      And what percentage of the broadband market would you say would make the same decision based on that one issue?

  6. Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by Motard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...But I'm really starting to think internet-as-a-municipal-utility is the answer here.

    Well, except for the whole direct government control of my data thing.

    1. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by swalve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If done right, your data would be invisible to the government. Just an encrypted stream between you and your ISP.

    2. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2

      The government already has direct control of your data if they want it. You don't think Comcast bends over double to provide anything they want in the hopes of retaining their monopoly?

    3. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Not internet per say but last mile data as a utility. You get to your ISP your cable tv etc etc etc via them. It's realy not that hard all passive optics fully in the level of what the muni's are good at dealing with basic infrastructure. CWDM keeps them out of bitrates macsec keeps them from peeking at the data. Mind you I dont mind the muni offering there own internet frankly ipv6 makes it pretty easy to allow access to muni resource like police fire schools libraries and the like even other people in your town.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by Motard · · Score: 3

      Besides, I'm more worried about some dillweed Sherriff's deputy's misinterpretations than an NSA super spy.

    5. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...But I'm really starting to think internet-as-a-municipal-utility is the answer here.

      Well, except for the whole direct government control of my data thing.

      I have been on a municipal fiber network (UTOPIA) for the last ten years and I couldn't be happier. As far as I know, the government doesn't have anything to do with my data, they are just responsible for making sure the physical network is operational. My ISP is responsible for routing my data to the internet or other peers. I guess theoretically they could "control" my data if they really wanted to but why would my city care about my data? I'm just not seeing a motive for someone at that level of government trying to interfere with data on the network, I'm way more concerned about the feds snooping on my data and we know for that ISPs like Comcast and AT&T invite them right in. The owner of my (local) ISP has been very outspoken about free speech and net neutrality so I'm pretty sure they would resist any efforts for wholesale data harvest (although the feds can just as easily tap their upstream providers to see what's flowing off the network). And if I quit loving my current ISP, I can easily switch to a dozen others on a whim.

      At least to this point the network has been stable and blazing fast. On the few occasions there have been network problems, my ISP gives full technical details about the cause of the issue and what they are doing to fix it. It's been a lot cheaper and loads faster than my previous ISP, Comcast. With cable there was constant slowdowns and I seldom, if ever, received the advertised speed. With fiber, my symmetric connection delivers exactly the speed I bought at all times of day. Granted, it's been 10 years since I last was on cable and maybe it's improved since then but it's still light years behind judging by the posts about it on Slashdot. Plus, I don't have to deal with Comcast's "Customer Service" or "Technical Support" anymore, which is worth its weight in gold.

      --

      Enigma

    6. Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Besides, I'm more worried about some dillweed Sherriff's deputy's misinterpretations than an NSA super spy.

      My experience of local and federal officials has been that there's just as much dillweed at the federal level as the local. You've also got some kickass super-sheriffs out there, probably as many or more than the NSA has "super spies."

      Local law enforcement (at an undisclosed location) was hiring sophisticated drone surveillance to pre-scout raids and keep an eye in the sky to help inform as things went down, several years ago. Meanwhile, the federal armed forces were still scratching their heads about how to sign a contract to obtain similar equipment.

  7. The lack of competition by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people are so used to Internet Service being the Monopoly of the Cable provider that they are not aware of alternaties in the few areas where Fiber is available. Not to mention that Cable actually does compete in those few areas where there is legitimate competition from Fiber

    1. Re:The lack of competition by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      The miracle of advertising... does Google know anything about targeted advertising? Do you think they could reach customers in their target markets with a message or two promoting their service?

  8. Slashdot has popup ads with data:text/html;base64 by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Third time this week. I'm reading through slashdot comments on my mobile and get a popup ad with a "data:text/html;base64" url. Here's a couple screen grabs:

    http://imgur.com/a/E4fuR

    first photo shows the URL. second photo shows that chrome thinks the page is still on slashdot's website. The ad pops up and fills the screen on it's own, without me clicking on anything (so it's on some sort of setTimeout or something). It won't let me use the back button either. This crap is very invasive. Slashdot should not be showing these sort of ads

  9. KS by rfengr · · Score: 2

    Been waiting here in Overland Park, KS for over year since they announced it. Their build-out is slow.

  10. Re:Slashdot has popup ads with data:text/html;base by cosm · · Score: 2

    Third time this week. I'm reading through slashdot comments on my mobile and get a popup ad with a "data:text/html;base64" url. Here's a couple screen grabs:

    http://imgur.com/a/E4fuR

    first photo shows the URL. second photo shows that chrome thinks the page is still on slashdot's website. The ad pops up and fills the screen on it's own, without me clicking on anything (so it's on some sort of setTimeout or something). It won't let me use the back button either. This crap is very invasive. Slashdot should not be showing these sort of ads

    Confirmed. I've seen it multiple times in the past few weeks on my Android phone's Chrome browser.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  11. Re:Slashdot has popup ads with data:text/html;base by Teckla · · Score: 2

    Third time this week. I'm reading through slashdot comments on my mobile and get a popup ad with a "data:text/html;base64" url. Here's a couple screen grabs:

    http://imgur.com/a/E4fuR

    first photo shows the URL. second photo shows that chrome thinks the page is still on slashdot's website. The ad pops up and fills the screen on it's own, without me clicking on anything (so it's on some sort of setTimeout or something). It won't let me use the back button either. This crap is very invasive. Slashdot should not be showing these sort of ads

    Not only this, but fucking auto fucking refresh is still fucking annoying us, and if you click Older >> at the bottom of the page, it takes you to the older articles but very frequently puts you at the bottom of the page (wtf?), and the big ads at the top take so long to load that the comments I'm reading are often jumping around as the ad finally loads and adjusts the page height, etc. Ugh.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  12. Did Google ever really take Fiber seriously? by supremebob · · Score: 2

    I'm wondering if Google ever really planned to do more than a handful of city-wide Google Fiber rollouts. I think that they were more concerned about scaring the phone and cable companies into upgrading their broadband speeds than really becoming a serious competitor as an ISP. Now that many areas in the US have faster speeds, they are more likely use bandwidth intensive Google services like YouTube, and probably download more paid content from the Play stores. Even if they decide to purchase that content elsewhere, Google is still serving those users ads!

    With the money that Google has in the bank, they could have installed broadband in 25 mid-size cities by now. At this point, they'll probably abandon their plans to expand soon be looking for a buyer for the few cities where they actually installed service.