4 ms·
NIMBY strikes again. But to be honest, a 30' x 50' (9 x 15 meters) equipment shelter is not small. Even I might have objections.
by chiph 10y ago
NIMBY strikes again. But to be honest, a 30' x 50' (9 x 15 meters) equipment shelter is not small. Even I might have objections.
- ensignavenger 10y agoI would have no objection to a 30' x 50' Google hut in my neighborhood park if it meant having Fiber Internet available.
- sqldba 10y agoParks are parks though. They're not meant to hold internet buildings and other large infrastructure buildings. Why not locate them on commercial space or similar?
- DannyBee 10y agoCertainly you realize if it was that simple it would have been done.
- x0x0 10y agoBut was it cost, lack of available commercial space at the correct nexuses, or ???
- DannyBee 10y agoDoes it matter? (I ask seriously) I think you can safely assume that Google would avoid this problem if the cost was not going to seriously affect their plans, because it would be dumb not to. Given that, whether the cost makes it impossible to profit, or the space has to be where it is for logistical reasons, or ... doesn't seem to matter much to me.
- x0x0 10y agoPerhaps Google perhaps didn't understand quite how delicate certain community members are. Personally, I would have assumed that the city / council would be pretty cognizant of that and, once the city council bought in, it was likely to be ok.
- ensignavenger 10y agoI'm not a Google Fiber engineer, but I imagine it was a combination of: Proximity- some neighborhoods are far away from suitable commercial property. Cost- the city was probably providing the land for free or at a discount (This may be a legitimate concern in and of itself) Not so many other utilities- There may have been less other utilities to contend with in the park versus a a commercial location. As another poster pointed out, most cities have a lot of far uglier utility infrastructure and city storage build all over town.
- foota 10y agoMaybe you would, perhaps other people don't want that though.
- ensignavenger 10y agoAnd that is why they are called NIMBYs.
- foota 10y agoI think that in order to be a NIMBY either the person needs to be a hypocrite, or the thing the NIMBY is objecting to needs to be seen as widely desirable. e.g., "Housing is too expensive but I don't want them to build apartments by me" or "I want to pay less rent but I don't want them to build more apartments by me" Notably, objecting to the building of high speed internet infrastructure doesn't fill one of these criteria unless it is widely seen as an important thing or they want high speed internet.
- BigJono 10y agoMaybe it's because I'm still on ADSL1 but I find it hard to believe that fibre Internet wouldn't be seen as a widely important thing...
- foota 10y agoWhy the jump from adsl to fibre? There is likely broadband available already.
- greglindahl 10y agoIn most of the USA, the choice is between "cable company or phone company", where the cable company has coax and offers speeds classified as broadband, while the phone company only has some kind of DSL and tops out pretty slow. Needless to say, the lack of similar offerings doesn't mean much price competition for broadband speeds.
- sonar_un 10y agoI would volunteer to put it in my back yard. YIMBY. Please.