3 ms·

Very interesting regarding CapEx and Google blindly writing checks. So it would appear that in addition to the regulatory hurdles Google also made some poor dec

by Inconel 10y ago

Very interesting regarding CapEx and Google blindly writing checks. So it would appear that in addition to the regulatory hurdles Google also made some poor decisions in the rollout and signup process. Would Google have been better served targeting smaller cities that might have been more receptive to Fiber than the ones they ended up building in? Or is there not enough money to recoup costs in smaller cities? Regarding utility pole access being handled at the Federal level, is there any lobbying campaign at the national level to rewrite the rules governing access to make the situation less skewed towards incumbent telcos? In my area here in LA county, it seems most utility poles are on public right-of-ways, I would think it would make a lot of sense to have those poles available for any company that wants to compete to offer services. Is there any meaningful reason this isn't done aside from cronyism on the part of the telcos?

nostrademons 10y ago
I'm suspect of the CapEx arguments. The whole reason for the "fiber rally" procedure, and for offering free 5 MB/s Internet, was to get every house on the block to sign up. The marginal cost of a contractor going next door and wiring their house up is significantly less once they're already out there than if the contractor has to make a trip out to each home; it wouldn't surprise me if Google's CapEx costs were almost an order of magnitude less than Verizon or ComCast. (How much time does the cable guy actually spend installing cable, vs. driving to the place, making sure he got the right house, and context-switching between tasks?)
rayiner 10y ago
> In my area here in LA county, it seems most utility poles are on public right-of-ways, I would think it would make a lot of sense to have those poles available for any company that wants to compete to offer services. That is the law! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 > A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it. There was some dispute as to whether Google Fiber counted as a "telecommunications carrier" for purposes of Section 224, but that is probably mooted now that the FCC has determined broadband providers are all "telecommunications carriers" subject to Title II.

by Inconel 10y ago

nostrademons 10y ago

I'm suspect of the CapEx arguments. The whole reason for the "fiber rally" procedure, and for offering free 5 MB/s Internet, was to get every house on the block to sign up. The marginal cost of a contractor going next door and wiring their house up is significantly less once they're already out there than if the contractor has to make a trip out to each home; it wouldn't surprise me if Google's CapEx costs were almost an order of magnitude less than Verizon or ComCast. (How much time does the cable guy actually spend installing cable, vs. driving to the place, making sure he got the right house, and context-switching between tasks?)

rayiner 10y ago

> In my area here in LA county, it seems most utility poles are on public right-of-ways, I would think it would make a lot of sense to have those poles available for any company that wants to compete to offer services. That is the law! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224 > A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it. There was some dispute as to whether Google Fiber counted as a "telecommunications carrier" for purposes of Section 224, but that is probably mooted now that the FCC has determined broadband providers are all "telecommunications carriers" subject to Title II.