Google Fiber Pauses Operations, CEO Leaves, and About 9 Percent of Staff Is Being Let Go (bloomberg.com)
The future of Google Fiber has been shaky ever since Google's parent company, Alphabet, was founded. The original plan was to expand Fiber's blazing fast internet service to more than 20 cities, with the goal of eventually delivering nationwide gigabit service. However, Alphabet hit the reset button on those plans Tuesday. Not only is Google Fiber CEO Craig Barratt leaving, but about 9 percent of staff is being let go. That translates to about 130 job losses, since the business has about 1,500 employees. Bloomberg reports: Barratt wrote in a blog post that the company is pulling back fiber-to-the-home service from eight different cities where it had announced plans. Those include major metropolitan areas such as Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix. Moving into big cities was a contentious point inside Google Fiber, according to one former executive. Leaders like Barratt and Dennis Kish, who runs Google Fiber day-to-day, pushed for the big expansion. Others pushed back because of the prohibitive cost of digging up streets to lay fiber-optic cables across some of America's busiest cities. "I suspect the sheer economics of broad scale access deployments finally became too much for them," said Jan Dawson, an analyst with Jackdaw Research. "Ultimately, most of the reasons Google got into this in the first place have either been achieved or been demonstrated to be unrealistic."
People think it should be cheap and easy to get high speed broadband internet to everyone. They think we should have a dozen different companies doing it and they all can compete and prices will fall through the basement. What they don't understand is how fucking expensive it is to run wires around the country. I don't know why Google, in all their arrogance, thought they could do something on the cheap that people a lot cheaper than them have been trying to do for decades. All I can do is smile and laugh at their hubris, and listen to everyone on /. bitch about 'monopolies' when as you can see there is a very good reason there are very few broadband providers in most areas - you can't divide the customers up that many ways and expect anyone to make a profit. And if there is no profit, no private business is going to attempt it.
Dammit! How hard is it to dig a trench and lay a cable in it? I know the trench-digging part at least is easy, because where I live they manage to knock out at least one vital utility a year digging around at random.
Do I have to do it myself? Because me and at least 20 people I know would gladly volunteer to buy a spool of fiber and dig a mile of trench each with hand shovels if we knew for sure they wouldn't arrest us for it.
The real question, of course, is how hard it is for local politicians not to take bribes from incumbent telecom providers to slow things down. And the answer is, apparently, pretty hard.
What this means is there really isn't ever going to be any meaningful competition in internet service providers in the foreseeable future. If Google with all it's cash can't feasibly put a competitive service together then no one can. If anything, competition is disappearing, with AT&T/TimeWarner's merger and all. Although we still need to see if that gets approved.
Dammit! How hard is it to dig a trench and lay a cable in it?
It's challenging. Not in the sense that they don't know how to do it but rather that it's expensive and unless you already have customers it's financially risky. To build a whole network is enormously expensive.
I know the trench-digging part at least is easy, because where I live they manage to knock out at least one vital utility a year digging around at random.
Umm, that would be evidence that it is NOT easy.
Do I have to do it myself? Because me and at least 20 people I know would gladly volunteer to buy a spool of fiber and dig a mile of trench each with hand shovels if we knew for sure they wouldn't arrest us for it.
I don't think you have the foggiest idea what you are proposing. I have immediate family that has been in the business of laying underground cable. There is a lot more to it than digging a trench and dropping a cable to the bottom of it.
Why the fuck could the entire country be electrified (rural electrification), stringing heavy cables to every small town. Why the fuck could the entire country have telephone access (rural telephony), stringing twisted to every small town. Now in the 21st century they can't run a damned glass fiber (cheap compared to copper) in the most dense areas, never mind stringing it along mostly empty telephone poles. Give me a fucking break. I suppose the telcos took the money and run.
I live in a GF area and love it. There are three tiers, 5 Mbps for $0 (yes, free broadband), 100 Mbps for $70, and 1 Gbps for $90. They have been absolutely bulletproof, the speeds are for real when tested, and the online system and the way that it integrates with their WiFi router is awesome.
I have had multiple providers over the years, including Comcast and Verizon, and Google Fiber's product and service are easily better than the others.
If Google can't make this work, there may be no hope for anything better for a long time to come. I just hope I don't lose it here!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Even if they built it, how long would they keep running it before killing it like so many of their other failures?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Minor advantage, at least here in Jacksonville: the prospect of GF arriving scared AT&T into stringing more fiber. I was able to get it at my place this summer, and already having DirecTV meant no data caps, a lower bill than the combined Comcast/DTV/Vonage bills I had been paying, and a jump from 75/12 Mb to 940 symmetric. And being able to call up Comcast and tell them to DIAF didn't hurt my well-being either. Only problem now is what to do in two years when the contract expires and I won't have GF to threaten them with....
I live in Seattle, and the best I can get is a carrier pigeon delivering an illegible scrawl of slashdot postings on a crumpled up Halls lozenge wrapper.
I was curious if anybody had implemented RFC 1149. Now I know!
Have you read my blog lately?
Same here in Austin... if a house has access to Google Fiber, it can add $20,000 to the value, from what a real estate agent told me.
FTA....
Moving into big cities was a contentious point inside Google Fiber, according to one former executive. Leaders like Barratt and Dennis Kish, who runs Google Fiber day-to-day, pushed for the big expansion. Others pushed back because of the prohibitive cost of digging up streets to lay fiber-optic cables across some of America’s busiest cities.
'Others', as in SHORT SIGHTED 'ACTIVIST' SHAREHOLDERS who want that quarterly price target hit, were the ones who pushed back.
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
The Bergen Linux User group have actually done this for real (for all of 9 packets though), and it was also discussed here. Or course, that's now old hat as it doesn't implement QoS or IPv6oAC.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
When Google first announced their gigabit fiber plans I predicted this would happen, although I thought it they would actually finish a couple of cities before they gave up.
You won't see widespread fiber to the home in your lifetime. Running all new wiring, to every house, in every neighborhood, in every city, was never a good idea. Would I like gigabit fiber? Of course. Who wouldn't. But the U.S. is too big, it costs too much, and it takes too long. Instead, we should be pushing for something that would benefit everyone, not just the 1% of the population lucky enough to be blessed by Google.
End restrictions on municipal broadband.
Local loop unbundling. Make the phone/cable oligopoly open their networks (that were built with government subsidies) to real competition. Speed will go up, price will go down and stupid bullshit like data caps will disappear overnight.
If you read the actual blog, the only cities where "operations" are being paused are those classified as "potential" Fiber Cities. Existing Cities (KC, Austin, Nashville) and Upcoming Cities (Irvine, CA; Huntsville, AL; San Antonio) are still going to have Google Fiber.
I'd be surprised, but this is such a common pattern with Google/Alphabet (which I will refer to as Google for the rest of this post) when they try anything that's not Ad/Search related that it's more of a *meh*.
Google Health, that Energy project that they seem to have wiped from search results, Google+, Google Glass, and so on. They put a huge amount of upfront capital into these projects and hype to hell out of them only to abandon them when they realize that it takes effort to build new, ground breaking businesses. Not everything will be handed to them like ads/search was. From that I can tell, it also seems to be a function of internal champions - one person drives these projects and when they lose interest, the projects die.
From the tech eco-system's perspective, this is frustrating. As soon as Google announces one of these projects, everyone assumes they'll succeed and competition is stifled. Investors don't want to compete against Google. I run a genomic informatics company. Google Genomics is making noise in this space and every time we talk to investors or customers, we inevitably spend 5-10 minutes talking about Google. My stock response is to walk them through Google's past efforts with non-Ad/Search products and ask them if they're willing to risk Google losing interest.
Google has an important place in the tech world, but they still act like a tween trying to fit in.
-Chris
It seems like more and more over the years, nothing from Google is immune from abandonment syndrome.
It's like the guy who came with with Google Fiber did it as a 20% project and decided recently VR was cooler. "Sell off the trencher Fran, I'm getting' a Vive!"
If it's anything but placing ads for search I'm not sure I would trust Google with anything again. I host my domain mail with Google and frankly I'm thinking about shifting away from them for that...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can see paying a 5% premium to be in a neighborhood where FTTH is installed. Where the cable company isn't just competing with DSL and satellite, but with a comparable technology. We've all heard that the incumbent ISP drop their prices as soon as google moves into the neighborhood, so I might even imagine recouping some of that purchase premium through lower ISP rates.
I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas of the USA. Like pretty much all US metro areas, the number of people who actually live within the city limits of the major city we are named for is a lot lower than then entire metro area. Roughly 10% of the metro residents live with the city limits and 90% live outside it. In fact, the county where I live has more than double the population of the city itself, but no parts of my county are within the city limits. Google negotiated a deal with the city only in our metro area to keep their costs down. So nobody in my county can get Google fiber. The problem with Google's deal is that they didn't study the demographics here. Very roughly speaking, there are only two kinds of people who live within city limits because of outrageous property prices - the very poor and the very rich. The poor don't buy Google fiber. The rich can afford whatever they want to pay so there's no real reason for them to get Google fiber unless they really want to. Google advertises a surprising amount on local TV. Well, I'd love to be a customer, Google, but you didn't want to deal with my county, so you're out of luck. Maybe if you had instead offered it to my entire county instead of only the metro's city limits, you'd have had more business. Believe me, many of us would love to leave Comcast and AT&T but they are the only games where we live.
Same here in Austin... if a house has access to Google Fiber, it can add $20,000 to the value, from what a real estate agent told me.
Living in Austin, can confirm. Homes around here are around $250K-$400K depending on size. When Google or AT&T come through and install fiber to the home in various neighborhoods, the property value jumps about $20K.
That is on top of the already skyrocketing home costs of over 10% per year. Great time to have already been a property owner, terrible time to buy.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
You won't see widespread fiber to the home in your lifetime. Running all new wiring, to every house, in every neighborhood, in every city, was never a good idea. Would I like gigabit fiber? Of course. Who wouldn't. But the U.S. is too big
Comes up every time someone discusses the sorry state of internet in the US. Size has nothing to do with it. We don't need to run fiber to every square mile of death valley. 3% of the united states land is urbanized. We don't need to cover even all of THAT. If you live in Lander WY, you accept you're not going to have great internet offerings. Farmer Brown in western kansas isn't going to start a rebellion if LA gets fiber and his cows don't. But how many cities aside from the three that Google Fiber did have sensible fiber?
The issue is exclusively oligopolies and their ability to lobby. Verizon proved as much with New York.
End restrictions on municipal broadband.
It's a start, but Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and the other big guys undoubtedly have other strategies to undermine those efforts. Suing to stop them for unfair competition is only the first defense. With Google fiber, they engaged in misinformation campaigns that didn't work, but they'll get better, and IIRC, google had to lobby KC to allow google to touch their phone lines without being shot on sight.
Break up the telecos, seize their copper, and send the executives to Rikers for massive fraud and anti-competitive behavior, and fiber will follow....
You won't see widespread fiber to the home in your lifetime.
Yeah, I know...