12 ms·

“The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables ” WISPs should be allowed access to the fiber network instead of removing it.

by ryacko 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The fiber isn't salvageable. Google did an "experimental" deployment which turned out to be utter trash. The short summary is they dug tiny little trenches in the road, and filled the gap above the fiber with foam. Vehicles, snow plows, and construction happened, which all happens to fairly efficiently rip the guts of their network out. That's why Google is leaving: They don't want to redeploy the entire network from scratch.
- ryacko 8y ago
  /Some/ of the fiber might be salvageable.
- ClassyJacket 8y ago
  This is true - I've seen the pictures and it wasn't pretty. But surely the lead ins to the houses (the fibre in people's front yards) is useful still? That is, after all, the costliest part of a fibre rollout.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    On side streets I heard the quality of workmanship dropped even further, from micro-trenches with cabling a few inches below the road surface to cables that were barely covered and eventually becoming tripping hazards.
    - C1sc0cat 8y ago
      Possibly Caused by shoddy work by contractors as well - I have heard documented horror stories of contractors cutting the ends off telegraph poles to make emplacing new poles quicker.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > That's why Google is leaving: They don't want to redeploy the entire network from scratch. I don't think the "from scratch" part really matters here when they were a percent or two done at most, and they have to pay to fix the roads anyway. It's more that they don't want to deploy a network at all.
MertsA 8y ago
The reason why Google is pulling out is because they tried nano trenching the fiber into the street and sealing over the top of it with a rubber like sealer and they had major problems with that sealer bonding to the road. It would peel up and get destroyed as cars went over it. Google is backing out because their existing plan all needs to be removed and replaced and the road surface needs to be fixed. Giving a WISP access to that fiber would just be a cop out for Google to avoid fixing the issues that they caused.
- jamisteven 8y ago
  The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching and everything to do with them not being allowed to use the existing network of utility poles due to bigger telco's lobbying the governments against it, and winning. AT&T, Comcast etc were fighting tooth and nail to not allow Google on their poles, which led to google attempting micro-trenching as a proof of concept.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    At the same time, I don’t think that if you were truly serious, you’d do your deployment with a completely unproven technique.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Google could have attached to the poles, the city even fought AT&T to let them on the poles without a proper CLEC license: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2017/08/16/judge-throws-out-at-t-suit-against-citys-google-fiber-proposal/573863001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... In return, Google did not use said pole attachment rights, damaged roads and left broken infrastructure & promises.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Incorrect historical revisionism. Google was always allowed to use the utility poles. It lobbied Louisville to get a special law passed that would allow it to not only use the utility poles, but relocate other peoples’ wires to make space on the poles while putting up their own. (Ordinarily, the owner of the lines does the relocation.) AT&T challenged that law in court.[1] The city defended the law at its own expense, and won fairly early in the process (on a motion to dismiss). AT&T did not appeal. That was two years ago. According to the article, Google didn’t even start nano-trenching and signing up people for “fiber hoods” until October 2017, after the lawsuit was already over.[2] [1] AT&T did not challenge Google’s right to use the utility poles, only the law allowing Google contractors to relocate AT&T’s equipment and wires in the process. These laws are probably a good idea on the whole, but given the shoddy work Google’s contractors evidently did with the city’s streets, maybe AT&T’s complaint wasn’t so dumb after all. [2] The whole concept of “fiberhoods” is another concession to Google that other providers do not get. Almost everywhere, franchise agreements require universal coverage of the city, not just build-out in places with demonstrated demand. Moreover, Google wasn’t required to pay for various additional concessions that Charter had to pay in Louisville, like wiring up government buildings and providing public access channels and a studio for government use. Those provisions are routine for cable franchises, but Google Fiber categorically refuses any deal that has them.

“The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables ” WISPs should be allowed access to the fiber network instead of removing it.

by ryacko 8y ago

“The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables ” WISPs should be allowed access to the fiber network instead of removing it.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

The fiber isn't salvageable. Google did an "experimental" deployment which turned out to be utter trash. The short summary is they dug tiny little trenches in the road, and filled the gap above the fiber with foam. Vehicles, snow plows, and construction happened, which all happens to fairly efficiently rip the guts of their network out. That's why Google is leaving: They don't want to redeploy the entire network from scratch.

ryacko 8y ago
/Some/ of the fiber might be salvageable.
ClassyJacket 8y ago
This is true - I've seen the pictures and it wasn't pretty. But surely the lead ins to the houses (the fibre in people's front yards) is useful still? That is, after all, the costliest part of a fibre rollout.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  On side streets I heard the quality of workmanship dropped even further, from micro-trenches with cabling a few inches below the road surface to cables that were barely covered and eventually becoming tripping hazards.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Possibly Caused by shoddy work by contractors as well - I have heard documented horror stories of contractors cutting the ends off telegraph poles to make emplacing new poles quicker.
Dylan16807 8y ago
> That's why Google is leaving: They don't want to redeploy the entire network from scratch. I don't think the "from scratch" part really matters here when they were a percent or two done at most, and they have to pay to fix the roads anyway. It's more that they don't want to deploy a network at all.

MertsA 8y ago

The reason why Google is pulling out is because they tried nano trenching the fiber into the street and sealing over the top of it with a rubber like sealer and they had major problems with that sealer bonding to the road. It would peel up and get destroyed as cars went over it. Google is backing out because their existing plan all needs to be removed and replaced and the road surface needs to be fixed. Giving a WISP access to that fiber would just be a cop out for Google to avoid fixing the issues that they caused.

jamisteven 8y ago
The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching and everything to do with them not being allowed to use the existing network of utility poles due to bigger telco's lobbying the governments against it, and winning. AT&T, Comcast etc were fighting tooth and nail to not allow Google on their poles, which led to google attempting micro-trenching as a proof of concept.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  At the same time, I don’t think that if you were truly serious, you’d do your deployment with a completely unproven technique.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Google could have attached to the poles, the city even fought AT&T to let them on the poles without a proper CLEC license: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2017/08/16/judge-throws-out-at-t-suit-against-citys-google-fiber-proposal/573863001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... In return, Google did not use said pole attachment rights, damaged roads and left broken infrastructure & promises.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Incorrect historical revisionism. Google was always allowed to use the utility poles. It lobbied Louisville to get a special law passed that would allow it to not only use the utility poles, but relocate other peoples’ wires to make space on the poles while putting up their own. (Ordinarily, the owner of the lines does the relocation.) AT&T challenged that law in court.[1] The city defended the law at its own expense, and won fairly early in the process (on a motion to dismiss). AT&T did not appeal. That was two years ago. According to the article, Google didn’t even start nano-trenching and signing up people for “fiber hoods” until October 2017, after the lawsuit was already over.[2] [1] AT&T did not challenge Google’s right to use the utility poles, only the law allowing Google contractors to relocate AT&T’s equipment and wires in the process. These laws are probably a good idea on the whole, but given the shoddy work Google’s contractors evidently did with the city’s streets, maybe AT&T’s complaint wasn’t so dumb after all. [2] The whole concept of “fiberhoods” is another concession to Google that other providers do not get. Almost everywhere, franchise agreements require universal coverage of the city, not just build-out in places with demonstrated demand. Moreover, Google wasn’t required to pay for various additional concessions that Charter had to pay in Louisville, like wiring up government buildings and providing public access channels and a studio for government use. Those provisions are routine for cable franchises, but Google Fiber categorically refuses any deal that has them.