Google Fiber's Wireless Internet Service Is Leaving Boston (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fiber's Wireless Internet Service Is Leaving Boston (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @01:25PM from the bad-connection dept.

Webpass, the wireless home broadband company that Google Fiber acquired in 2016, is exiting the Boston market. The Verge received a reader tip on the situation and a quick look around revealed that Boston is no longer listed as a current Webpass market on the company's website. From the report: "As with any acquisition, we've spent some time evaluating the Webpass business. As a result of our analysis, we've made the decision to wind down Webpass operations in Boston," an Access spokesperson said by email. "We'll work with customers and partners to minimize disruption, and there will be no immediate impacts to their Webpass service. We continue to see strong subscriber response across the rest of the Webpass portfolio, including successful launches in Denver and Seattle in 2017."

Before this move, Boston was one of 8 cities served by Webpass, which delivers up-to-gigabit internet speeds for residential and commercial buildings by using point to point wireless. That number has dropped to 7, and old Google search results for Webpass service in Massachusetts now redirect to the main homepage. Webpass internet service is available exclusively in apartment units and condo buildings. It originally came to Boston in 2015 and the company has (or at least had) an office in the city.

63 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Gotta wonder about this move by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-31 13:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Gotta wonder if they got a big fat paycheck from the local cable/telco to pull this BS. I can't imagine how this makes economic sense. Once you sink the money for the hardware, if you aren't profitable, you increase your prices until you are...
That or they negotiated another, bigger city where the local cable/telco monopoly would drop their legal challenges to Google fiber in exchange for this...

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re: Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Increasing prices can lower revenue.
  Of course the fact that Google's known for abandoning projects like a cow drops turds tells anyone not to rely on them.
2. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-01-31 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  My own theory is that when Google's accounting department got expense receipts for the first three seafood dinners from its Boston field staff, it came close to bankrupting the company.
3. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by ksw_92 · 2018-01-31 15:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  [THIS finally made me create an account after many years of lurking]
  I doubt anyone paid off Google since they have enough cash to buy a telco.
  No, this is the problem with so-called "fast innovators". Infrastructure is a long con, played out over 30 years, and companies like Google can't see that far out. Like Google Fiber, which has stalled outright, Webpass requires significant infrastructure outlay for growth and that infrastructure requires significant expense in man-hours to get permits, space leased and palms greased before the first foot of cable can be unspooled at a site.
  ILECs and franchised operators have 40+ years (100+ in some cases) dealing with government entities, property owners and suppliers and have built institutional organs that know how to deal with those animals. It's actually not too hard to build communications infrastructure anymore and the telco resistance to muni-chartered systems is proof of that. It's not the cost of the hardware and installation that's the barrier to entry any more, it's the jurisdictional processes (ROW access, easements, etc. etc.) that kill infrastructure innovation. Google, with all its brainy puzzle-solvers and with all its peeking into billions of lives, can't seem to crack the nut that is your local cigar-chomping county commissioner and the planning board he sits on. It's like they're scared to get into political knife-fights. Too bad; that's the way infrastructure in the US has always been built forever. You think the Interstate system doesn't have a little graft and blackmail on its ledger?
4. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Obfuscant · 2018-01-31 15:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  and that infrastructure requires significant expense in man-hours to get permits, space leased and palms greased before the first foot of cable can be unspooled at a site.
  All it takes is the building owner giving them an access agreement and sign a contract for service. It can't get much easier than that. For fewer than 30 units every unit gets service and the owner gets one bill -- pretty cheap for accounting.
  
  it's the jurisdictional processes (ROW access, easements, etc. etc.)
  There is no ROW or easement issue. The owner of the building says "ok". What rights-of-way do you think are involved?
  
  can't seem to crack the nut that is your local cigar-chomping county commissioner and the planning board he sits on.
  They were already in business in Boston. It seems they had "cracked" the planning board and county commissioner, even with what little authority they had to stop Google from installing hardware in a private building.
  What I wonder is why nobody is flaming google for their stupid excuse for not providing service to single-family homes. "It wouldn't be economical for the consumer". What? It's $60/month for gigabit internet service. That's cheap. Why wouldn't it be economical for someone to have that service? Hidden fees and taxes? What? Compared to Comcast 100Mbps it's absolutely marvelous pricing.
5. Re: Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Lmao. Single family homes? Boston. B O S T O N. Notice, how it isn't Toledo or Jacksonville? Because it's Boston. I get more than a feeling you aren't familiar with Boston.
6. Re: Gotta wonder about this move by Obfuscant · 2018-01-31 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Lmao. Single family homes? Boston. B O S T O N.
  Don't give a crap about B O S T O N. You can't get service anymore in B O S T O N. I am referring to D E N V E R. And no, not J O H N.
7. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by lucm · 2018-01-31 21:03 · Score: 0
  
  I can't imagine how this makes economic sense.
  Just another win for net neutrality
  "Under the Massachusetts legislation, any company that violates Net neutrality would be subject to antitrust enforcement by the attorney general's office."
  https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...
  If they can't monetize the pipe, they give up. It's not sexy or romantic or virtuous but that's how business works. Cut your losses is the best answer to sunk cost fallacy.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
8. Re: Gotta wonder about this move by craigwilkie · 2018-01-31 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  > "I get more than a feeling"
  > "Boston"
  Very good.
9. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  You are dead on, but I feel that the real reason you stated so well gets overshadowed by the murk and mire of the politics you describe. The point here that is so important that it should be repeated:
  "No, this is the problem with so-called "fast innovators"."
  Google has a long history (in its relatively short existence) of creating and abandoning. They are like a kid with ADD, as soon as something new an shiny comes along the brain trust moves from 'the last cool thing' to the new one. This is the reason I don't buy Google products and no longer rely on Google services.
10. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by geekmux · 2018-02-01 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  [THIS finally made me create an account after many years of lurking] I doubt anyone paid off Google since they have enough cash to buy a telco.
  No, this is the problem with so-called "fast innovators". Infrastructure is a long con, played out over 30 years, and companies like Google can't see that far out. Like Google Fiber, which has stalled outright, Webpass requires significant infrastructure outlay for growth and that infrastructure requires significant expense in man-hours to get permits, space leased and palms greased before the first foot of cable can be unspooled at a site.
  It's a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP). It's rather difficult to try and compare that to the infrastructure challenges of yesteryear, back when you were fighting to dig up every street and road to install a few million miles of copper lines.
  And you don't get or keep your rank as one of the most powerful companies on the planet by not stocking 55-gallon drums of palm grease in your business inventory. If they were scared of political knife-fights, they wouldn't employ an army of lawyers and lobbyists.
11. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP). It's rather difficult to try and compare that to the infrastructure challenges of yesteryear, back when you were fighting to dig up every street and road to install a few million miles of copper lines.
  How do you suppose the internet gets *to* this WISP?
12. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Our local cigar chewers have been doing everything they can to assist Google with Telco stalling. The telco can muster enough legal firepower and funding to keep the government from being able to apply law to the telco. It's not all government corruption. The legal process in general as well as the telcos can be wholly corrupt.
13. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  What are you rambling about? When they say its not economical they mean they would need to increase the cost ABOVE (say $60) to get a return on their investment. In other words, you don't fucking set the cost of the service to the customer and then try to figure out how to build it. You figure out how much it costs to build then back into how you recover that. How fucking stupid are you.
  Plus, google fiber is >$60 even in markets where they gave 100% free ROW and let them put fiber on telephone poles with cheap midwest labor costs.
14. Re: Gotta wonder about this move by flink · 2018-02-01 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I live in a single family home in Boston (Jamaica Plain). Places like JP, Roslindale, Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, and Southie all have plenty of single families. It's not particularly cheap: we bought our current place on the back of the sale of a condo I had 10 years of equity in, but it's doable.
15. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by bigpat · 2018-02-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  What I wonder is why nobody is flaming google for their stupid excuse for not providing service to single-family homes. "It wouldn't be economical for the consumer". What? It's $60/month for gigabit internet service. That's cheap. Why wouldn't it be economical for someone to have that service? Hidden fees and taxes? What? Compared to Comcast 100Mbps it's absolutely marvelous pricing.
  I think the idea is that you bring wireless to the building and then multiple units in that building sign up and you run wires down to those units so that 1 unit wasn't economical but 2-3 or 10 was worth it. And then there are line of sight issues potentially for smaller buildings.
  Still I wonder if it was one of those things which Google messed up by getting involved with. Smaller companies are willing to live on smaller margins as they have fewer levels of management and investors to feed.
16. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm, or you just offer the service for a profit and stop screwing with the pipe... At the very least you sell your business unit to another concern who will do that.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
17. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the long game. My local cable internet monopoly made all their investment back in the first 5 years and have been laughing all the way to the bank as they screw me over every month with a 500% markup for my "high speed internet" AKA 65Mbps down/10Mbps up service...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
18. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  It's a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP). It's rather difficult to try and compare that to the infrastructure challenges of yesteryear, back when you were fighting to dig up every street and road to install a few million miles of copper lines.
  How do you suppose the internet gets *to* this WISP?
  By using a fraction of the infrastructure as any CLEC or LEC using traditional copper/coax/fiber would need.
  Massively corrupt politics aside, comparing WISP deployment challenges to a CLEC or LEC is comparing apples to Mack truck transmissions. (I've used a WISP for over a decade, and know the business and infrastructure pretty well, and I used to work for a CLEC)
19. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by Obfuscant · 2018-02-01 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think the idea is that you bring wireless to the building and then multiple units in that building sign up
  
  There is only one "unit" in a single family dwelling. The claim isn't that it isn't economical for Google, it was that it wasn't economical for the consumer.
  I understand that there may be LOS issues, but if you are in the middle of a group of large apartment buildings you'll have those, too. They are also a different excuse than "not economical for the consumer".
  
  Smaller companies are willing to live on smaller margins
  Google has enough inertia that they can operate at a loss for a long time in a small division to grow it into a profit center.
20. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by bigpat · 2018-02-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think the idea is that you bring wireless to the building and then multiple units in that building sign up
  There is only one "unit" in a single family dwelling. The claim isn't that it isn't economical for Google, it was that it wasn't economical for the consumer.
  The claim by Google? Well ya, that's BS. Obviously some people were signing up and it was economical and preferable for them. I was just talking about the price model for Google.
  
  I understand that there may be LOS issues, but if you are in the middle of a group of large apartment buildings you'll have those, too. They are also a different excuse than "not economical for the consumer".
  
  Smaller companies are willing to live on smaller margins
  Google has enough inertia that they can operate at a loss for a long time in a small division to grow it into a profit center.
  With deep pockets they can operate at a loss. Sure, but having more overhead means that it puts the path to profitability farther out... maybe too far for management given the adoption curve and competition ramping up with Gigabit Internet. If they had lower overhead... more like a scrappy start-up then maybe they dig in and compete and lower costs further or improve service further rather than closing up shop in a market.
21. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by lucm · 2018-02-01 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm, or you just offer the service for a profit and stop screwing with the pipe... At the very least you sell your business unit to another concern who will do that.
  that's not how it works. There's all kinds of liability issues that make infrastructure salvage a loser, and these kinds of assets are essentially worthless from an accounting perspective because they are capitalized and exempt of depreciation. It's like trying to make a buck on what finds its way into the sewer because the company offers free coffee to the employees.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
22. Re:Gotta wonder about this move by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I said nothing about infrastructure salvage. Selling the business to someone who will run it as it was run before Google showed up would be using existing infrastructure as was intended and installed to do... And that next company gets to re-start the depreciation from zero on their taxes, so it is certainly not worthless from a tax or cash flow basis. Nice try though.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-01-31 13:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, this is one company that is following right in the footsteps of yahoo, IBM, HP, etc. They had TOP notch ppl and now have a fucking worthless POS CEO that is busy gutting them. Within 2 years, it will be apparent that Google has not only lost the top edge, but will not have ANY chance of regaining it.
In fact, as I pointed out before, the VC should be going inside of Google and gutting them by funding good ideas. There are still ppl there with good ideas that are leaving now, and should be used on start-ups instead.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:Google is now worthless by 110010001000 · 2018-01-31 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  True. But in order for them to lose, there would need to be someone who replaces them. Yahoo had Google. Who is going to replace Google?
2. Re:Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-01-31 13:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, technically, Bing could.
  But, Im hoping that DOJ will break up these companies in a vertical fashion. Google, Facebook and Amazon are all good ones to be broken up. Not sure why they pointed to apple when in fact they have no real monopoly and no longer are considered to be the top dog in anything.
  But, if Google was broken up, vertically into say 3 different googles and all with the same search capabilities, then they would compete against themselves (and perhaps bing, though I doubt it) and we would then see google restored.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
3. Re:Google is now worthless by grasshoppa · 2018-01-31 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  Well, technically, Bing could.
  No really, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
  If anyone is even more fucked up about innovation, it's MS. How many times and how many products have they launched to great fanfare, only for it to die on the vine a few years later?
  
  --
  Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
4. Re:Google is now worthless by DogDude · 2018-01-31 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  How many times and how many products have they launched to great fanfare, only for it to die on the vine a few years later?
  
  How many times and how many products have the launched to great fanfare, only for them to be the most popular products in their class on planet Earth?
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
5. Re:Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-01-31 14:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  technically, none.
  MS never had a hit on a software product on day 1.
  It took them several decades to create a locked-in monopoly of office and OS. From there, they would do things like release their visual product for cheap, and then give it away for free until borland was pretty much gone. Then and only then did they worry about IP.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
6. Re:Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Fortune 500 companies are usually slow when it comes to innovation, even if they're filled with Ph.D's from top universities. Apple under Steve Jobs was a big exception, and that was because of Steve Jobs. Amazon under Jeff Bezos may be another exception. There aren't many leaders like those two.
7. Re:Google is now worthless by Obfuscant · 2018-01-31 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Google, Facebook and Amazon are all good ones to be broken up. Not sure why they pointed to apple when in fact they have no real monopoly and no longer are considered to be the top dog in anything.
  
  Google, Facebook and Amazon have no real monopoly, either.
  
  But, if Google was broken up, vertically into say 3 different googles and all with the same search capabilities, then they would compete against themselves
  
  Why not bust them up into 100 different "googles"? The more competition the merrier. Multiple the necessary infrastructure to provide the search services by a factor of 100, that will certainly result in better cheaper faster, right?
8. Re:Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  >MS never had a hit on a software product on day 1
  Apparently, you were either in a coma, or too young to remember the worldwide frenzy of the Windows 95 launch.
9. Re:Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Google, Facebook and Amazon are all good ones to be broken up.
  
  Sure, right after they break up AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. You know, actual monopolies.
10. Re: Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  *hold my beer...*
11. Re: Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  from top universities
  You mean arrogant nitwits with rich parents?
12. Re:Google is now worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, this is one company that is following right in the footsteps of yahoo, IBM, HP, etc. They had TOP notch ppl. ...
  They did?
  What did Google ever really do other than make billions and billions of dollars "monetizing" your private life?
  AT&T won Nobel Prizes in physics. Google rolled out Google Fiber and bailed on it a few years later. How many things has Google done and then abandoned? Why does that all seem like window dressing to hide the underlying truth that Google is a fundamentally evil company: there's no private detail in your life they're not scrambling to sell to everyone as many times as possible.
13. Re:Google is now worthless by supremebob · 2018-02-01 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon and Microsoft seem to be chipping away at their some of their business lines, but nobody has really stepped up with a better search option yet. Someone will eventually, though.
14. Re:Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-02-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  been coding since the 70s. I was very much here. Win 95 was NOT that big of deal. It was for the MS weenies, but it was not installed right away on all computers. DOS/Win3.1 ran on new ones for a LONG LONG TIME.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
15. Re:Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-02-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  really?
  So, exactly WHAT search engine competes against Google? This says in the 90s. Another measure claims 75%.
  that is a monopoly. It might be natural (MS and IBM were created and enforced illegally), but still a monopoly.
  
  Facebook ? Who else has more than 50% of the market? Hell, who else has more than 15% of the social networking market?Here shows facebook with ~75% of the social networking market. The LOWEST that I could find was 39%, with you tube have similar so that the 2 of them owned the industry.
  I would call that a monopoly.
  
  Amazon? Don't get me started there. NOBODY competes against them except for Alibaba Group and that is because Chinese gov pretty much blocks Amazon while subsidizing Alibaba.
  
  By breaking these companies up, into just 3 companies each, it would get competition moving forward. It is not as though they are going to shrink. They will simply become hungry and compete against each other.
  
  BTW, when W/O bailed out GM and chrysler, they should have broke them apart into smaller companies and had them competing. Had that happened, we would have seen radically different results in America.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
16. Re:Google is now worthless by geekmux · 2018-02-01 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, this is one company that is following right in the footsteps of yahoo, IBM, HP, etc. They had TOP notch ppl and now have a fucking worthless POS CEO that is busy gutting them. Within 2 years, it will be apparent that Google has not only lost the top edge, but will not have ANY chance of regaining it. In fact, as I pointed out before, the VC should be going inside of Google and gutting them by funding good ideas. There are still ppl there with good ideas that are leaving now, and should be used on start-ups instead.
  Here's the thing about "good ideas" these days that so many people fail to realize. Find me a good idea that isn't already poised to get legally ass-raped by some mega-corp patent whore.
  We had a good couple of decades of good innovation. The world wide web exploded. Porn went to plaid online. The birth of Social Media (OK, I take that last one back, that was more of a curse). In those 20 years, we've also seen patent hoarding become rather fucking obscene. Googles best chance at long-term survival is the same for damn near anyone in their financial position; be a patent whore, and look to buy up as many patent-holding companies as you can. Bottom line is the ride is over. Greed has abused the living fuck out of the patent system to make innovation a nightmare.
  Good luck looking for "good ideas" that don't come with billion-dollar strings attached.
17. Re:Google is now worthless by luis_a_espinal · 2018-02-01 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  technically, none. MS never had a hit on a software product on day 1. It took them several decades to create a locked-in monopoly of office and OS. From there, they would do things like release their visual product for cheap, and then give it away for free until borland was pretty much gone. Then and only then did they worry about IP.
  Dude. Excel has been a hit for years. And PowerPoint, and MS Word. People are typically content with Windows 10. And Windows XP was one of the most popular distributions they ever had. Azure is a solid competitor to Amazon in the IoT sphere. And so on and so on.
  I used to hate MS... back in what 95, 96 when it was a cool fad to check billwatch.net twice a day. I grew the heck out of it. You should too.
18. Re:Google is now worthless by luis_a_espinal · 2018-02-01 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  been coding since the 70s. I was very much here.
  
  Oooooo, a BBS l33t hax0r!
  
  Win 95 was NOT that big of deal. It was for the MS weenies, but it was not installed right away on all computers. DOS/Win3.1 ran on new ones for a LONG LONG TIME.
  You are on drugs. Windows 95 was a hit back then. The moment it came most large companies moved immediately out of Windows 3.1/DOS and onto it. Smaller companies setting up their small offices also got new machines with Windows 95 slapped on them. It was the laggards (or people with serious Unix shops) that didn't make the move back then.
19. Re:Google is now worthless by Obfuscant · 2018-02-01 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  really? So, exactly WHAT search engine competes against Google?
  Bing. Yahoo. Both are valid, active competitors.
  
  Facebook ? Who else has more than 50% of the market?
  
  I'm sorry, but you're making 50% of the market the definition of monopoly? That's silly. And asking "who else has more than half" shows a serious lack of math skills.
  
  Amazon? Don't get me started there. NOBODY competes against them
  
  You need to take the blinders off. There are uncountable numbers of companies that sell stuff, and a still uncountable number of companies that sell stuff on the internet.
  
  By breaking these companies up, into just 3 companies each, it would get competition moving forward.
  You don't need to break anything up, there is already competition. Yes, it is hard for newcomers in a market to gain a foothold, but that's true for every market that is already established. The correct solution to the non-problem is not to punish companies that are successful for being successful. That's looney.
  
  BTW, when W/O bailed out GM and chrysler, they should have broke them apart into smaller companies and had them competing
  Yeah, because clearly GM and Chrysler do not compete against each other, and there is no other competition in the automotive marketplace. Really?
20. Re:Google is now worthless by WindBourne · 2018-02-01 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  yahoo is using bing and bing as a total search has less than 15% of global.
  Monopolies is when 1 group has control.
  
  A monopoly is characterized by a lack of competition, which can mean higher prices and inferior products.
  50% is MORE than enough to control. And I throw out the 50% issue because I suspected that you were not bright enough to figure it out. So far, you have fucked up what a monopoly is.
  
  As to cars, prior to 2006, GM, Chrysler and Ford had more than 40% of the global market and a lot more of American market. After 2006, we had 2 car makers and thankfully now have 3. Even though most of the regular car makers' sales are dropping, Tesla continues to have demand grow faster than they can produce.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re:Google is now worthless by Rakarra · 2018-02-01 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  If anyone is even more fucked up about innovation, it's MS. How many times and how many products have they launched to great fanfare, only for it to die on the vine a few years later?
  I'm not sure if you want to try that argument as a way of defending Google. They are pretty much THE poster child company for releasing a product, tinkering with it for a year or two, and then dumping it unceremoniously. Google Search, Maps, Mail, Chrome are pretty much the only things that they've been able to stick with (and maybe their ads, though those aren't consumer products). For each of those there are five Google Waves, Google Buzz, Google Plus, Google Chat, Picasa, Helpouts, Moderator, their search appliances, Google Glass (dead... but may be resurrected in the future), etc.
22. Re:Google is now worthless by Rakarra · 2018-02-01 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't really matter if Google has a monopoly. This is a frequent mixup that people make in these sorts of arguments: having a monopoly is not necessarily bad. It does not mean a company needs to be broken up. You have to show that companies are using their monopoly position to force out competitors.
  I don't see a way for Google to make people stop using Bing, or Duck Duck Go. There's nothing stopping anyone from releasing a competing mail client or map application either.
23. Re:Google is now worthless by grasshoppa · 2018-02-01 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not defending anyone, I'm just saying MS is, if anything, worse than Google when it comes to "innovation".
  
  --
  Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
24. Re:Google is now worthless by grasshoppa · 2018-02-01 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
  
  --
  Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
25. Re:Google is now worthless by luis_a_espinal · 2018-02-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
  That's what I meant, but perhaps my words weren't well chosen. Big shops were making the transition as well as small biznesses making new acquisition. The "laggards" would be those that had significant assets in old software and for whom making the transition wasn't an option (that includes small offices with computing assets already in place.)
26. Re:Google is now worthless by sydbarrett74 · 2018-02-03 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Win 95 was NOT that big of deal.
  At the Egghead in suburban Richmond, VA, some of us camped out up to 24 hours before the software was made available. You'd think people were waiting for Led Zeppelin tix because Bonzo had suddenly come back from the dead. People in other cities across the country told of similar stories. Queues blocks long. Windows 95's launch was one of the biggest software events in history from the standpoint of the unwashed masses, and certainly Microsoft's most memorable coup.
  
  --
  'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
27. Re:Google is now worthless by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not defending anyone, I'm just saying MS is, if anything, worse than Google when it comes to "innovation".
  Microsoft certainly is not flashy, they don't have events where people get hyped about their products ala Steve Jobs's Apple. They don't take the world by storm, it's more of a sludge that ends up covering everything anyway.
What to do about telcos by AHuxley · 2018-01-31 13:53 · Score: 1

How to support new community broadband and new networks.
How to support new gigabit internet networks moving into more cities and states?
Whats the block been used by telcos to prevent a dynamic innovative rollout of new private sector networks in every state and city?
Time to escape the paper insulted wireline rules and get states and cities to support new gigabit internet networks.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Webpass: A broken business model? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-31 15:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

The business model of Webpass isn't new or novel. Sign a deal (read: kickbacks) with an apartment complex (MDU) and become the "preferred" provider for the captives, er, residents. Same model that Direcpath, Gigamonster, and numerous MDU-only ISPs use. Aside from reducing the amount of fiber laid with line-of-sight radio, Webpass isn't changing the fundamentals of the business model.
Competition showed up not long after Webpass set up shop. Starry has a number of MDUs online, selling service at price points below Webpass. Verizon finally started installing FiOS in Boston proper, and you can bet they're also prioritizing the sweet sweet profits that MDUs provide. Even AT&T is getting into the game, leveraging their DirecTV MDU deals to deploy G.fast via leased fiber outside of their main service areas.
The one advantage that Webpass had was that it could move with the speed and gusto of Google. With ample funding, they could light up the city quickly and really ignite competition from incumbent providers. Too bad that Ruthless Ruth cut off capex. Now, the entire Google Fiber enterprise is slowly suffocating from lack of capital.
Lighting up MDUs with leased fiber isn't a good long-term strategy for Google Fiber for the same reason it's great in the short term: low capex. Just about anyone can pay Zayo or Level3 for a leased trunk line to an apartment building located on a major street. That doesn't move the needle on broadband penetration. What made Google Fiber so novel was they brought a major jump in broadband speed to single-family homes, when everyone else was still milking their aging copper infrastructure. Google Fiber's biggest opportunities lie in the places where noone in their right mind would sell broadband. Unfortunately, that requires massive capex and vision, which clearly isn't coming anytime soon.
Re: You = fake name massive human fail by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-31 17:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gotta love an AC complaining about a well-known user's "fake name". Pot, meet kettle.
fiber wireless ?!?!?!? by geroy · 2018-02-01 00:24 · Score: 1

I don't get it. Please explain how fiber internet can be wireless? Something like spiderman is used to wire the wireless internet???
I've lived in the Boston area since the 90's by enjar · 2018-02-01 04:28 · Score: 1

I've never heard of this company via advertising, I've never seen a billboard, I've never heard anyone I know talk about it, I've never heard it mentioned when someone asks about cutting the cable bill, etc. Upon further investigation, they were going after buildings with 10+ units only. That doesn't reflect a lot of the housing stock here. A lot of the housing is composed of 2 or 3 unit dwellings that were originally constructed in the early 20th century, largely centered on public transit stops, and built so someone could afford to own the whole building but rent the other units out (pre condo law). Nowadays, these have a mix of ownership styles, from a live in landlord who rents the other units to being a very small (2-4 unit) condo association. There are, of course, more modern apartment/condo buildings that have more units, but those aren't as common as you might find in other newer cities that had the places to build them. Of course, as you get out from the center of Boston you find more single family homes.
So according to the website, it sounds like the economics of bringing whatever equipment was needed to a triple decker was going to not work out, so that cuts out a huge part of the market for this technology. Given that a large part of renters here are students, who are going to be looking for cheap rent and move yearly, I can't imagine that the landlord is going to do anything beside the bare minimum to rent the units -- so if they are wired for a cable provider already, what's the incentive for the landlord? If they raise their rent they are likely to not be as attractive to the very price-driven college market.
Wireless fiber? by slashmydots · 2018-02-01 06:39 · Score: 1

Wireless fiber? Oh, you mean magic? Because that doesn't exist. There is no wireless fiber. There isn't even a wireless protocol that gets close to fiber speed. It should have been illegal to even call it that in the first place.
Re: You = fake name massive human fail by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 07:18 · Score: 0

Nooooooo, don't feed APK! You're doomed, I tell ya, dooooomed.
Clearing up your misconception w/ fact by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 08:41 · Score: 0

I've got an unidentifiable stalker (months of it now) impersonating me too all due to my blowing him away here https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11679505&cid=56039569/ with fact & truth!
I.E. - He constantly stalks me & keeps telling me he's "so great" in security & writes 'real securityware' & has 'secured systems for 21 yrs' (I've not only done it longer but also write wares others here like & use too praising its quality & efficacy)!
YET WHEN I ASK HE PROVE HIS BS, he RUNS every single time (hence his 'butthurt' childish impersonating me & more).
* Being reduced to impersonating me in every article on /. (in some attempt to make others 'not like me' (big deal - I'm not here to 'comfort people' OR win a popularity contest (that's for FAKEBOOK fools)) by him quoting something I wrote AmiMojo (which was due him/her for wisecracks) is all ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE to evidence his childish butthurt antics.
That & my post link above that 'set him off' (rightfully so - I ask my stalker merely back up his BLOWHARD bluster (& he can't, lol)).
APK
P.S.=> Just stating facts with proof I can provide to back them up... apk
LOAN OFFER by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-01 22:23 · Score: 0

LOAN OFFER
Rescue Team offers loans to help you meet a variety of needs. We’ve provided over $3 Billion USD in Personal, Business and Commercial loans to over 25,000 business owners. Loans are approved within 72 hours of successful application. We offer loans from a minimum range of 30,000 USD/EURO/POUNDS to a maximum of 20,000,000.00 USD/EURO/POUNDS.
WHAT YOU NEED TO APPLY
*Be between ages 22 – 59 years.
*Have a steady source of income that is verifiable.
*Must be confirmed staff in present employment.
*Have a functional current or savings bank account.
*Have valid means of identification.
Contact us today: rescueteamloans@rescueteam.com
Call/Text: +1 (857) 309-9542
We are certified and your privacy is 100% safe with us. Worry no more about your loans or finances.
Get your instant loan approval today.