4 ms·

Anybody know what is going on here? This seems like a page out of Verizon's FIOS rollout. Is Google working on their own cellular network (non-MVNO)? Is this

Anybody know what is going on here? This seems like a page out of Verizon's FIOS rollout. Is Google working on their own cellular network (non-MVNO)? Is this due to the FCC reclassification of internet as a common carrier?

dboreham 10y ago
It's due to the fact that building a decent network for residential customers at scale is very expensive and not that profitable unless you have a long-term monopoly.
- coldcode 10y ago
  And the people with the long term monopolies want to keep it that way.
- austinhulak 10y ago
  Ding ding ding! This is exactly it. As a Google Fiber customer in Austin, it honestly wasn't any better than any of the other ISPs. Ironically, the only thing that was better was the DVR and live TV search that came with the TV service.
wrsh07 10y ago
I wonder if they're moving towards something more scalable, like Webpass [http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12009600/google-fiber-webpass-acquisition-gigabit-internet http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12009600/google-fiber-webp...]. There's tons of red tape laying actual fiber, and that probably makes it harder to provide high quality internet to as many customers as they'd like to.
mdip 10y ago
Is this due to the FCC reclassification of internet as a common carrier? I wondered a little bit about this, myself, when Fiber was launched. They have a lot more motivation without network neutrality as a matter of regulation because it'd open up the ability of ISPs to penalize their products[0]. I'm generally of the opinion that government over-regulates, but I was in support of the whole "Network Neutrality" situation because broadband services availability for many/most in the US is limited to one provider and that one company is also usually either AT&T or Comcast, known more for how much they suck than for the services they provide. It's not too hard to believe that if common carrier status were removed, AT&T or Comcast would lower their caps and start offering services that are exempt from those caps (especially Comcast - suddenly Hulu or anything NBCUniversal is all-you-can-consume, but Netflix/Amazon Video/YouTube are not). In a world like that, Google does have more motivation to roll out an ISP that does the opposite with their own services (or more likely just doesn't discriminate with anyone's traffic). Fiber resulted in a sudden expansion by many other ISPs to service with higher performance (and in many areas that are not even on the future Fiber cities list), so they've kind of accomplished the goal that has the greatest benefit to them -- more eyes on their products at a speed that makes them more useful. At the end of the day, though, I'm not so sure that the FCC reclassification is much more than a tiny bullet point in favor of not spending the money required to do a fiber roll out. They are certainly aware that Republicans are itching to dismantle this reclassification and their nominee has promised to do so IIRC. And though the Democrat's nominee has indicated that she'll keep that reclassification, I'm not willing to take her at her word on that. If that were their main reason for allowing fiber to "transition" to whatever new option they're looking at that (hopefully) costs a lot less to roll out but still doesn't exist in the places they want to roll out to, I'd be pretty surprised. [0] I'm not advocating that network neutrality be dismantled to give Google more motivation.

dboreham 10y ago

It's due to the fact that building a decent network for residential customers at scale is very expensive and not that profitable unless you have a long-term monopoly.

coldcode 10y ago
And the people with the long term monopolies want to keep it that way.
austinhulak 10y ago
Ding ding ding! This is exactly it. As a Google Fiber customer in Austin, it honestly wasn't any better than any of the other ISPs. Ironically, the only thing that was better was the DVR and live TV search that came with the TV service.

wrsh07 10y ago

I wonder if they're moving towards something more scalable, like Webpass [http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12009600/google-fiber-webpass-acquisition-gigabit-internet http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12009600/google-fiber-webp...]. There's tons of red tape laying actual fiber, and that probably makes it harder to provide high quality internet to as many customers as they'd like to.

mdip 10y ago

Is this due to the FCC reclassification of internet as a common carrier? I wondered a little bit about this, myself, when Fiber was launched. They have a lot more motivation without network neutrality as a matter of regulation because it'd open up the ability of ISPs to penalize their products[0]. I'm generally of the opinion that government over-regulates, but I was in support of the whole "Network Neutrality" situation because broadband services availability for many/most in the US is limited to one provider and that one company is also usually either AT&T or Comcast, known more for how much they suck than for the services they provide. It's not too hard to believe that if common carrier status were removed, AT&T or Comcast would lower their caps and start offering services that are exempt from those caps (especially Comcast - suddenly Hulu or anything NBCUniversal is all-you-can-consume, but Netflix/Amazon Video/YouTube are not). In a world like that, Google does have more motivation to roll out an ISP that does the opposite with their own services (or more likely just doesn't discriminate with anyone's traffic). Fiber resulted in a sudden expansion by many other ISPs to service with higher performance (and in many areas that are not even on the future Fiber cities list), so they've kind of accomplished the goal that has the greatest benefit to them -- more eyes on their products at a speed that makes them more useful. At the end of the day, though, I'm not so sure that the FCC reclassification is much more than a tiny bullet point in favor of not spending the money required to do a fiber roll out. They are certainly aware that Republicans are itching to dismantle this reclassification and their nominee has promised to do so IIRC. And though the Democrat's nominee has indicated that she'll keep that reclassification, I'm not willing to take her at her word on that. If that were their main reason for allowing fiber to "transition" to whatever new option they're looking at that (hopefully) costs a lot less to roll out but still doesn't exist in the places they want to roll out to, I'd be pretty surprised. [0] I'm not advocating that network neutrality be dismantled to give Google more motivation.