Slashdot Mirror
Google Fiber Is a Faint Echo of the Disruption We Were Promised (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Some eight years on and Google Fiber's ambitions are just a pale echo of the disruptive potential originally proclaimed by the company. While Google Fiber did make some impressive early headway in cities like Austin, the company ran into numerous deployment headaches. Fearing competition, incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast began a concerted effort to block the company's access to essential utility poles, even going so far as to file lawsuits against cities like Nashville that tried to expedite the process. Even in launched markets, customer uptake wasn't quite what executives were expecting. Estimates peg Google Fiber TV subscribers at fewer than 100,000, thanks in large part to the cord cutting mindset embraced by early adopters. Broadband subscriber tallies (estimated as at least 500,000) were notably better, but still off from early company projections. Even without anti-competitive roadblocks, progress was slow. Digging up city streets and burying fiber was already a time-consuming and expensive process. And while Google has tried to accelerate these deployments via something called "microtrenching" (machines that bury fiber an inch below roadways), broadband deployment remains a rough business. It's a business made all the rougher by state and local regulators and lawmakers who've been in the pockets of entrenched providers like Comcast for the better part of a generation.
too bad the cost of deployment is more than years of revenue you will get.
But relaxing the existing rules to allow competition would be DE-REGULATION! Nobody wants that, right? It's not like regulatory capture is often used to stifle competition by existing markets or anything.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Yeah, how did "Don't be evil" work out for you?
Why should they. They have their little monopolies. So they are kings of their empires. Better off giving crappy products, but crappy in a different way so you can show how you are better then the competition, compared to everyone being equal and high quality, where you are just competing on price alone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That’s what happens when you rely on a company that always half-asses things and due to its manic ADD it gets bored easily. They were never going to put in the full effort needed to take on Verizon, AT&T or Comcast.
If it's google, and too good to be true, it probably is.
Don't ever trust them to do anything but try to monetize you and your data/
If you buy hardware, expect it to die, with little or no updates, and no extended support.
If you allow them to become your Internet provider, prepare to be disappointed.
The answer to those rural areas is 600MHZ or Band 71 wireless service. This requires some cooperation between providers and those previous users who are abandoning the bands.
OF course there is money involved, as
Note some glitches:
NYC will not get a realistic Band 71 deployment until WRNN-TV abandons the band, and now they plan to move in 2023, though that is not easily independently confirmed.
There is a perception that the money allocated to assist stations in moving won;t cover the expenses for the next 2-3 years. The cell providers are constant pressure to pay more and more to 'force' these existing users off the bands.
T-Mobile was the big winner in the auction, but they may have financial constraints also in deployment.
If you think fiber is expensive in rural areas, however, that dark fiber in metro areas is a valuable asset, and the owners, many being legacy telcos, are reluctant to even rent it. They may be waiting for the government to step in and pay gobs of money to use what has already been paid for.
LEO satellite service is the other option, but it will take time even for Elon to launch all those birds.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Rural areas are much more difficult. Small governments (Where the mayor also works in an auto garage) who cave in towards the might of a big business and cannot deal with the lawyers from these big companies.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There! now you got it more correctly. You are welcome.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Broadband distribution has enormous capital expenses, I was never sure why Google thought they could 'disrupt' their way around the laws of finance and physics, but this is the end result. The only areas where Google had any success were the cities where someone gifted them an existing fiber optic system already in place and they basically just had to light it up. This type of infrastructure is so expensive to build that the competitive free-market capitalist model just simply doesn't work. The minute you have to split revenue among more than a very small number of providers, nobody can make a profit on their massive investment anymore. The only reasonable solutions to this type of service is a regulated monopoly or complete government takeover. Otherwise you'll be complaining about all these shitty companies and their shitty service until the heat death of the universe.
I actually think, in a different way, this is why Google Fiber failed. I believe entrenched telecom interest ended up influencing (effectively controlling) Google from the board & investor perspective, and (with help) forced the creation of Alphabet. That effectively broke up Google allowing investors to have an ala-carte platter of knobs to turn, whereas when Google was monolithic they didn't get to have that level of insight or control. It isn't hard to win investor support on the idea that Google Fiber is a bad short term investment (it's a fact!), and with the facts exposed more clearly as they are now, that put a nail in the coffin.
If you look at how Google bifurcated, its more difficult now for the cash cow (Google) to provided the nearly unlimited funding Google Fiber would take to deploy. There's no question that down the road, Google Fiber would become hugely profitable... but that wasn't allowed to happen and there will be no competition for AT&T/Comcast/etc. I'm not sure Google wanted to have all these shell companies, it just became the political fallout of them having tried to take on a number of really big enemies, and those enemies fighting back hard.
What are these regulations you talk about? What regulations apply to ISP's today in the US?
I don't respond to AC's.
At least all of us hopeful early adopters in the Research Triangle got cool T-shirts. Still waiting for Google Fiber.
Why should they. They have their little monopolies. So they are kings of their empires. Better off giving crappy products, but crappy in a different way so you can show how you are better then the competition, compared to everyone being equal and high quality, where you are just competing on price alone.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to enact legislation rendering internet access essential infrastructure and mandating a 5- to 10-year transition period between private and public ownership. Too bad we're going in the wrong direction with that - we're already ceding things that are and should be public, (schools, prisons, healthcare, etc.), to private ownership and control.
On the whole we're sheep. We're being fleeced - and if it ever becomes profitable or otherwise necessary, we will also be slaughtered.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
/. is not about getting the news first but more about getting a good discussion going which often brings new insights.
Well, that's how we would like to see it...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Yeah, we've not been that in years now.. Sadly.
It's gotten the entrenched providers to upgrade their systems across the country. In Dallas, I have no option for Google Fiber, but have 70 mb/s speeds from Spectrum.
Privatization works when there is competition and choice on the individual level. Issues where if a company fails, then we don't need someone to rush up and give them a helping hand, because there is no alternatives for their services.
If I don't like my ISP, I should have appropriate substitutions to choose from. If I don't then it should be a well regulated industry, where I as a consumer have a place to express my feelings towards the service, Even if it means talking to my elected official.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Um...my other options are Time Warner and AT&T. If you think Google is evil, you really haven't looked into those two.
I've had Time-Warner and AT&T internet service, and Google Fiber is easily the best in terms of speed, uptime, and, importantly, customer service and the customer-facing website that you use to configure the service. As others have stated, Google Fiber has forced the other players in the area (Time-Warner, AT&T, and Grande) to lower their prices and improve their offerings. I've had Google Fiber gigabit Internet now for a couple of years and I haven't contacted tech support even once. So, yeah, Google may be rethinking their strategy, but the actual service is fantastic.
Spot on. Google tipped thier hand by publicly declaring that they wanted to make internet and phone service universal and free. They met the enemy
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
...how much of the US was pretty much given on a silver plate to the current ISP monopolies, and how much ISPs are still paying politicians for things to remain that way... it's just sad.
For anyone thinking this is Google's fault, you really need to search around and read articles that explains it from the company's side.
To put it very simply, it was taxpayer money that paid the entire infrastructure to handle the Internet, rights to it was haphazardly given up to ISPs, now everytime Google needs to pass fiber through existing infrastructure (which sometimes is the only way), it needs to gently ask permission to the likes of AT&T and Comcast to do so, which of course will do everything not to let them, including suing Google when the local government tries to expedite the whole thing.
Google Fiber failed because the government gave US infrastructure on a silver platter to existing ISP monopolies. That's why. It's the same reason why the FCC is working the way it is right now. You guys have an effective telecommunications mafia up there and it's gonna stay that way.
It's why Google caved in and started working on the next high speed transmission technology instead of wasting time and money in something that won't work out. Don't take it from me though, just search around for the information.
I don't know how roads are in the U.S.A. but if you try to bury anything only one inch below roadways in Canada, you can kiss whatever you buried goodbye, it will only last a few months.
#DeleteFacebook
In the majority of the US, the entrenched telecoms have been given government mandated regional monopolies by buying off politicians.
This is actually false.
Monopolies were originally granted in order to get someone to offer service. Most of those those monopolies were granted with a time limit. That time limit has expired in the vast majority of the US.
Competition is not being stifled by legal monopolies. It is being stifled by the incumbent ISPs legally and physically getting in the way of competitors. That's why Nashville is in TFSummary - one touch make ready was an attempt to get the incumbents to stop physically blocking competitors. Also, incumbent ISPs have gotten several state legislatures to ban municipal broadband.
Healthcare has been mostly private ownership and control for most of our history. Nothing was ceded to them.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That would seem to be the best argument, but the story says that even in those densely populated cities Google Fiber only has a half million subscribers.
Maybe going to the remote towns across the midwest would give better return after all.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm posting this through my $60 100Mb/100Mb AT&T fiber connection from my small town. Should we not credit Google Fiber for rattling the cages of the giants ISPs through competition threat to get them to move forward on products like these? I do.
Right. CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Security, no I don't know where the other 'M' went to) is private. For very unusual definitions of the word.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The problem is, many of don't have that level of choice with their ISP, or anywhere near that. If we all did, we'd all be bitchin' about how much we had to pay for our paltry 500Mbps download speeds. So we should give them a choice. We give them a reasonable timeframe to surrender their de facto monopolies (both ISPs and the relevant government officials) or they get to spend 5-10 in prison. We present it as a win-win for them. "Hey look, we're being agreeable here. We've decided not to just kill you, yet." Markets that are so inherently anti-competitive simply don't work well, except for the very few who profit from them. A certain portion of getting the internet to us might best be treated like a public utility, because they simply need to be. Not sure quite how to finely structure it. But, political careers should hang on the balance of whether it works well enough. The rest should be left open to actual competition. Where you can just say, "Sorry, not as good as Brand B. I'll try them." That ever-present threat is what makes enterprises do a decent job.
Of course, it would also be instructive for a Google or somebody or the populace to just start killing 'em. That's how civilization has historically solved such problems.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
The topic is how evil the companies are. Not what their service is like.
My service has improved drastically since the transition
They fuck up DNS resolution every other day. Some genius decided that they would shut off their name servers every so often. Probably in an attempt to force people to not hard-code their name servers. Problem is said genius failed to account for the length of DHCP leases when calculating that shutdown schedule. So every other day, DNS resolution breaks until the router fetches a new DHCP lease.
The fix is to use a competent ISPs name server....such as google.
Um...my other options are Time Warner and AT&T. If you think Google is evil, you really haven't looked into those two.
THIS ...
The city is largely bending over backwards to try to help Google Fiber. The problem is our state legislature, which is flaming red and never misses an opportunity to fellate AT&T for more bribes, sorry, "campaign contributions". Our legislature has never seen a broadband bill favoring AT&T that they didn't like, nor a broadband bill helping Google or municipalities/utilities that they wouldn't go out of their way to squash.
The people living in cities are being held political hostage by the people in rural areas who voted (R) without thinking. I'd imagine Kansas is in a similar predicament.
The wires in the ground are mostly owned by the former Telecoms monopoly, but it has to allow ISPs to have boxes in its exchanges, as well as having to allow access to the network. The result is many ISPs competing effectively on price and service.
So while not an explicit monopoly it is effectively a government granted monopoly since no one else can legally provide service in the area...
Anyone else can legally provide service in the area. Anti-competitive behavior by the incumbent ISPs make it impractical to provide service in the area.
Nothing says a new ISP has to use the existing power polls to run their cables. It'll just cost 1000x more to roll out.
Pretty much everything is a "try".
And past some arbitrary point, they just stop trying...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm not interested in Google's definition of "free", i.e. censored.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Why can't we all just get along and all the companies get together to combine their funds to roll out 1 super fibre connection to every home etc between them then sell access to it that way they all get a cut.
We basically had that for a while when ILECs were forced to allow other DSL providers to colocate their equipment at the telco Central Office and resell the underlying line as DSL. Ultimately, the market collapse, however.
Broadband access with different technologies seems fine, but if we're going to re-roll fiber everywhere it probably means a massive government ownership of the lines. That said, the availability of "good enough" broadband over wireless technologies in a large chunk of the US changes some of the equation. Outside of HD media streaming (i.e., Cable TV), you don't really need more bandwidth than you can get through 4G/LTE. And for those needing more, the market will probably end up justifying the cost of a rollout.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
There is no Google Fiber offering where I live, but just the thought of them persuading a city 130 miles away forced local ISPs to step up their game. I'm now on symetrical gigabit fiber from CenturyLink because of what Google pushed. Google wasn't about overtaking ISPs nation wide, they were all about showing that gigiabit internet could be provided and still profitable. They succeeded in this, and forced the hands of ISPs who were lying all along about the cost of doing business. Overall, they did indeed change the market landscape for the better!
If Google wants to drive the adoption of high speed fiber Internet then why don't they develop an application that requires it? You don't need gigabit speeds to stream Netflix.
I guess chasing away all the people who were actually developing products in favor of SJWs is beginning to backfire.
If I don't like my ISP, I should have appropriate substitutions to choose from. If I don't then it should be a well regulated industry, where I as a consumer have a place to express my feelings towards the service, Even if it means talking to my elected official.
Your elected representatives, at least the ones who take 'campaign contributions' from the big boys will tell you "You have plenty of competition. Look, you have Comcast cable. Or AT&T u-verse. Or Verizon cell service, because a cell phone connection is totally like home Internet broadband. They're totally the same. So you have T-Mobile and Sprint and all these other carriers. Oh, and look, we found an ISP willing to do some sort of over-the-air point to point thing to your location -- TOTALLY the same thing. Watch the dancing monkey."
It doesn't necessarily require infiltration. Investors focused on short term gains are quite plentiful in USA and have been harming companies here for many years. A number of years ago, I read that companies in Japan can take a longer route to profitability because banks are allowed to be investors there, and the Japanese banks are willing to be focused on the long term. Here, when banks are allowed to be investors, they gamble like drunken 20-year-olds and get bailed out by the government, as they've found that investing in politicians pays off better in the short run than long term planning ever could.
You do realize you're agreeing that existing telecoms have government-enforced monopolies, right?
Does "expired" mean something different in your version of English?
Cable companies and telecoms were given a legal monopoly with a time limit so that they would fork out the capital expense to install service. That time limit expired, so there is no longer a legal monopoly. Anyone can roll out their own fiber and compete. Such as Google.
If there still was a legal monopoly, then Google Fiber could not exist. It would be illegal for them to install their fiber. Since Google Fiber exists, that's a pretty big flag that there is no legal monopoly.
They've bribed officials at every level and essentially own the wires
First, local governments were the ones passing "one touch make ready" regulations in order to stop the incumbent ISPs from being assholes. Local governments were also building municipal broadband networks when their respective states stepped in and made the cities stop. So no, they have not bribed government at all levels.
Second, they do own the wires. And they always have. What they do not own is the power poles that the wires are run on. They use the fact that they're in the way on the power poles to make it far slower and/or more expensive for competitors to roll out. They are required to move their wires to make room, but they are not required to move them quickly. Take two years to move the wires, and you've run up the costs for your new competitor.
And since there's no legal monopoly, everyone has a right to be an ISP. But being the incumbent in any utility (Internet, telephone, water, power, etc) is a huge advantage. You've already paid off your capital costs, so you can slash your prices to kill off anyone who tries to install new wires to compete with you.
Some websites I visit also have an "in your face" section, but they have nothing to do with fiber.
#DeleteFacebook
They like to offer big deals to people as the network is being built if they will agree to being locked into long term contract. They did that in the city I live in as well.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
That's pretty much what we did in my country.
1: Taxpayers funded the national fibre rollout.
2: The dominant network owner/ISP was split up.
3: The new network owner company charges a fee to ISP's per connection, this is set by the regulator.
4: ?
5: Profit!
Seriously though, it has (mostly) worked quite well so far.
I live in Austin, and I do have to say that microtrenching is kind of nasty -- it's all over my neighborhood.
It "scars" the roads and leaves bumps that are getting worse over time as whatever it is that they used to fill them in gets pushed in more. It's not so noticeable in a car, but on a bicycle it is.
And I fear what might happen when they resurface the roads (which they do periodically.) If the fiber really is only an inch or two down, when they scrape off the top of the road it might tear up the fiber too? That would be a huge mess! That said, if it doesn't damage the fiber, resurfacing should fix the "bumpy/ugly" issue completely.
That said, disruptive or not ... I *love* my Google Fiber. Fast, reliable and even the TV service and hardware is good.
The service is excellent. Google's uptime has been flawless, the original install appointments went smoothly and were kept, the equipment is high quality, and the gigabit service does actually deliver a full gigabit of bandwidth up *and* down in tests. And all for $70/month, which includes 1TB online storage via Google Drive.
Just as cool, you can simply log into fiber.google.com and downgrade to 100mbps ($50/mo.) or 5mbps (free) at will. You can upgrade and downgrade, click, click, click, and it will pro-rate costs for you automatically. Basically, it's a flawless service in every way.
One of the things that I'm convinced hurt Google in this area is that there was already entrenched competition from the usual suspects in national broadband brands.
For decades, it had been 5mbps-10mbps down and a fifth of that upstream as the maximum service tier at every major provider. And for that you paid $50-$70 monthly. As soon as Google Fiber deployed, suddenly *every provider* offered Gigabit for less than $100/mo. plus value adds and promos. I mean, it took weeks max, once Google Fiber started scheduling installations. Just like that. And a lot of people stuck with the devil they already know, particularly if they were already getting TV and/or landline service through them, and particularly if Google had install times a week or two out but their current provider could bump them up within a day or two.
Google broke the market wide open here, but at the same time ended up with scraps in the end. Most of the people that I know stuck with their previous provider and ended up with gigabit speeds anyway at or near their previous subscription cost once Google entered the local market. I worry that if Google were to pull out of the market for some reason, suddenly "market realities" would reduce the offerings of the other providers once again to $70/mo. for 5mbps, as it had previously been.
So I hope Google stays.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
You do realize you're agreeing that existing telecoms have government-enforced monopolies, right?
Does "expired" mean something different in your version of English?...being the incumbent in any utility (Internet, telephone, water, power, etc) is a huge advantage. You've already paid off your capital costs, so you can slash your prices to kill off anyone who tries to install new wires to compete with you.
If anyone could afford to invest in the infrastructure in order to get their product out there and at least start competing, it would be a mega-corp like Google.
Like I said before, if Google is struggling to deploy, no one else stands a fucking chance. Bottom line is it ain't as simple as you make it out to be, no matter how you want to define "expired".
We basically had that for a while when ILECs were forced to allow other DSL providers to colocate their equipment at the telco Central Office and resell the underlying line as DSL. Ultimately, the market collapse, however.
No market collapse. What happened is the presidency changed to a new party, and fiber-to-the-home became profitable to deploy. The line-sharing rules only applied to copper, so phone companies stopped improving DSL, started deploying fiber, and physically removed copper lines whenever someone switched.
The FCC, now stacked with the opposite party, said "free market! And lucrative jobs from telcos when we leave the FCC! W00T!"
What does Google Fiber censor, pray tell? Are you into child porn or maybe you are a Republican?
Not simply freedom of choice but equal and transparent infomation known to all parties.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Everyone wants Google Fiber, but they can't get it, because Google only installed it for people who signed up two years in advance (as it turned out in Austin), and then, only installed for those homes during a brief period before moving on to another region. It's Google's fault for making such a complicated process.
I had a Google Fiber fan blog to get the word out and spread the news. I heard from SO MANY people who pish-poshed the signup and deposit requirement and told me confidently that they would simply wait to hear from their neighbors who got it and then they would order. I SCREAMED that then it would be too late, but they just smirked at silly ole me and told me I was wrong.
Google's Fault Period.
That was always half the point: to provide a convenient lightning rod for customer anger, should the incumbent's lay a heavy hand on their escalating coefficient of customer rape.
Because Google fiber merely exists, incumbents must boil their frogs in the slow lane, everywhere in America, or watch out.
I don know why you bring up the bold text.
But I largely agree with it.
The alternative to government run infrastructure is strong legislation to keep these competing commercial entities in check by enforcing a level playing field.
Like net neutrality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Bottom line is it ain't as simple as you make it out to be, no matter how you want to define "expired".
When the subject is "Is there a government-mandated monopoly", it is extremely simple: No.
How do you tackle it? By having a competitor that doesn't have to quickly turn a profit for its shareholders: Municipal broadband.
That's why the incumbent ISPs fight like hell to stop municipal broadband. It's the only thing they really fear.