5 ms·

Google Fiber may not have built fiber to your house but they definitely pushed competitively to get broadband/ISPs to do more. Cox in Arizona definitely upped t

Google Fiber may not have built fiber to your house but they definitely pushed competitively to get broadband/ISPs to do more. Cox in Arizona definitely upped their fiber rollout and bandwidth/transfer rates, mainly by using channels/docsis 3 etc because of competition from Google Fiber. I still have no fiber options to my house in a good area. Overall broadband ISPs have failed at gigabit rollout for which they got tons of federal funds to do so. They don't put in enough in profits back into R&D or rollouts unless to an extremely wealthy area. If you truly think broadband/ISPs care whether you have good internet or fiber then my guess is you live in one of the areas that had some competition. Otherwise they sit back on their semi-monopolies and stop innovation in broadband where they can to milk it. They could drop channels on digital tv and use more for internet and slowly have started to do that, but they are drawing it out big time. Their "big innovation" in the last decade was data caps and constantly messing with VPNs and other valid uses of broadband. They only innovate when they have a chance to further their monopoly or stranglehold on an area. I'd say broadband/ISPs, once a bright shining innovative force in the 90s/early 2000s, have gotten lazy and are actively slowing down innovation now [1], and this lobbying to get a competitive advantage over Google/Facebook is a good example of non-innovation but using the system to slow innovators and innovation in broadband/internet services and products. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-comcast-and-other-cable-isps-arent-selling-you-gigabit-internet/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-c...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 10y ago
My point is that Google made a lot of noise, built Fiber to less than half a million customers, and is now throwing in the towel. Verizon, meanwhile, built fiber to more than 7 million customers, has already done one major technology transition (BPON to GPON) and is testing another (GPON to NGPON-2). A 10x improvement is pretty great. I can't say Google is 10x more useful than it was ten years ago. And many other products by "innovative" companies (e.g. Facebook, MacOS, Windows), have gotten worse in that timeframe. > Overall broadband ISPs have failed at gigabit rollout for which they got tons of federal funds to do so. Factually untrue. (The Ars article elides an important factor: upgrading speeds isn't just a matter of flipping a switch. You need to upgrade expensive head-end equipment, the lines from the headend to the core network, split nodes, etc. All of this is very expensive.)
- drawkbox 10y ago
  I see you are on Verizon and telecoms team, the anti-innovation force run by the MBAs and bean counters over what is needed nationwide. >> Overall broadband ISPs have failed at gigabit rollout for which they got tons of federal funds to do so. >Factually untrue. Factually untrue that it is factually untrue. To this day most people don't have access to fiber[4], that is a failure. Maybe you do but most do not. In the late 90s there were $400 billion given to broadband providers and the job was by 2006 for everyone to have fiber running to their homes. They stole that cash [1]. Verizon is horrible at keeping it's promises on fiber [2][3][4]. Verizon has sucked from the time it was BellAtlantic, for a doctor/pharma web network right when the internet started going we used to run fused ISDN lines for 128-bit (two 64bit lines together, one for video one for data) and they didn't get one line right the first time and rarely did it meet bandwidth needs. Whenever there was a Bell Atlantic truck around everyone's network went down. They are still as sloppy and slacking big time in gigabit/fiber. But then again so is every broadband mini-monopoly. I live in Chandler, AZ one of the first places to get cable internet with Dimension/Cox. They were innovators then, now they drag the rollout of gigabit and Cox's gigablast stopped when Google Fiber slowed down. They can't even get fiber to the place that was one of the first cable internet locations (primarily because of Intel being here). Telcos have purposely failed on the fiber/gigabit rollout. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Broadband/cable companies were innovative in the 80s and 90s and maybe early 00s, now they are just bean counting and sitting back with their mini-monopolies comfortably slowing innovation in the US. [1] http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decad... [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/nyc-sues-verizon-alleges-failure-to-complete-citywide-fiber-rollout/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/nyc-sues-verizon... [4] http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-verizon-fios-map-1682854728 http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-ver...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > In the late 90s there were $400 billion given to broadband providers and the job was by 2006 for everyone to have fiber running to their homes. They stole that cash [1]. That number is fictitious. I've addressed it at length here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556. The number is built out of two pieces: 1) Comparing the company's rate of return to that of utilities like power companies, and calling everything above that "excess profits." (By that analysis, taxpayers are paying Google and Facebook enormous subsidies.) 2) Calling accelerated depreciation of telecom network infrastructure a "tax break," while ignoring that accelerated depreciation made total sense in the 1990s as telcos upgraded their core networks with fiber. > Verizon is horrible at keeping it's promises on fiber [2][3][4]. Everyone is horrible at keeping promises on fiber. See Google halting Fiber rollout. Beyond that, the question is: what's the harm? Did New York pay Verizon a bunch of money for building out broadband in New York City, only to have Verizon renege on its end of the bargain? Here is the lawsuit New York City filed against Verizon relating to the deployment: https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/verizonsuit.pdf https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/verizon.... Here is the underlying franchise agreement: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/verizon_nyc_franchise_agreement_approved_by_fcrc.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/verizon_nyc_.... Read both, and point me to the big check New York wrote to Verizon to get FiOS service. Or even the big tax break. You won't find either. If those things existed, they'd be in there (because "and then they pocketed the money we gave them" makes for a way better lawsuit). What you do find is that Verizon got to pay New York millions of dollars + 5% of gross revenues for the privilege of spending another billion dollars building the FiOS network out to New York City. So on the moral outrage meter that ranks up there with Lenovo teasing the Thinkpad Classic but never releasing it. People aren't outraged because they pre-ordered and Lenovo kept their money. They're outraged because they want it and they can't get it. > They are still as sloppy and slacking big time in gigabit/fiber. They've deployed fiber to 15x as many subscribers as Google, and are rolling out near-gigabit (provisioned at 1024 mbps but marketed as 750 mbps) throughout the FiOS service area through 2017.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 10y ago

My point is that Google made a lot of noise, built Fiber to less than half a million customers, and is now throwing in the towel. Verizon, meanwhile, built fiber to more than 7 million customers, has already done one major technology transition (BPON to GPON) and is testing another (GPON to NGPON-2). A 10x improvement is pretty great. I can't say Google is 10x more useful than it was ten years ago. And many other products by "innovative" companies (e.g. Facebook, MacOS, Windows), have gotten worse in that timeframe. > Overall broadband ISPs have failed at gigabit rollout for which they got tons of federal funds to do so. Factually untrue. (The Ars article elides an important factor: upgrading speeds isn't just a matter of flipping a switch. You need to upgrade expensive head-end equipment, the lines from the headend to the core network, split nodes, etc. All of this is very expensive.)

drawkbox 10y ago
I see you are on Verizon and telecoms team, the anti-innovation force run by the MBAs and bean counters over what is needed nationwide. >> Overall broadband ISPs have failed at gigabit rollout for which they got tons of federal funds to do so. >Factually untrue. Factually untrue that it is factually untrue. To this day most people don't have access to fiber[4], that is a failure. Maybe you do but most do not. In the late 90s there were $400 billion given to broadband providers and the job was by 2006 for everyone to have fiber running to their homes. They stole that cash [1]. Verizon is horrible at keeping it's promises on fiber [2][3][4]. Verizon has sucked from the time it was BellAtlantic, for a doctor/pharma web network right when the internet started going we used to run fused ISDN lines for 128-bit (two 64bit lines together, one for video one for data) and they didn't get one line right the first time and rarely did it meet bandwidth needs. Whenever there was a Bell Atlantic truck around everyone's network went down. They are still as sloppy and slacking big time in gigabit/fiber. But then again so is every broadband mini-monopoly. I live in Chandler, AZ one of the first places to get cable internet with Dimension/Cox. They were innovators then, now they drag the rollout of gigabit and Cox's gigablast stopped when Google Fiber slowed down. They can't even get fiber to the place that was one of the first cable internet locations (primarily because of Intel being here). Telcos have purposely failed on the fiber/gigabit rollout. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Broadband/cable companies were innovative in the 80s and 90s and maybe early 00s, now they are just bean counting and sitting back with their mini-monopolies comfortably slowing innovation in the US. [1] http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decad... [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/nyc-sues-verizon-alleges-failure-to-complete-citywide-fiber-rollout/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/nyc-sues-verizon... [4] http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-verizon-fios-map-1682854728 http://gizmodo.com/after-billions-in-subsidies-the-final-ver...
- rayiner 10y ago
  > In the late 90s there were $400 billion given to broadband providers and the job was by 2006 for everyone to have fiber running to their homes. They stole that cash [1]. That number is fictitious. I've addressed it at length here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556. The number is built out of two pieces: 1) Comparing the company's rate of return to that of utilities like power companies, and calling everything above that "excess profits." (By that analysis, taxpayers are paying Google and Facebook enormous subsidies.) 2) Calling accelerated depreciation of telecom network infrastructure a "tax break," while ignoring that accelerated depreciation made total sense in the 1990s as telcos upgraded their core networks with fiber. > Verizon is horrible at keeping it's promises on fiber [2][3][4]. Everyone is horrible at keeping promises on fiber. See Google halting Fiber rollout. Beyond that, the question is: what's the harm? Did New York pay Verizon a bunch of money for building out broadband in New York City, only to have Verizon renege on its end of the bargain? Here is the lawsuit New York City filed against Verizon relating to the deployment: https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/verizonsuit.pdf https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/verizon.... Here is the underlying franchise agreement: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/verizon_nyc_franchise_agreement_approved_by_fcrc.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/verizon_nyc_.... Read both, and point me to the big check New York wrote to Verizon to get FiOS service. Or even the big tax break. You won't find either. If those things existed, they'd be in there (because "and then they pocketed the money we gave them" makes for a way better lawsuit). What you do find is that Verizon got to pay New York millions of dollars + 5% of gross revenues for the privilege of spending another billion dollars building the FiOS network out to New York City. So on the moral outrage meter that ranks up there with Lenovo teasing the Thinkpad Classic but never releasing it. People aren't outraged because they pre-ordered and Lenovo kept their money. They're outraged because they want it and they can't get it. > They are still as sloppy and slacking big time in gigabit/fiber. They've deployed fiber to 15x as many subscribers as Google, and are rolling out near-gigabit (provisioned at 1024 mbps but marketed as 750 mbps) throughout the FiOS service area through 2017.