4 ms·

Google Fiber was a major success that got ousted by the incumbents with never ending lawsuits and resistance. Take your anger out on the monopoly ISPs across th

by pb7 7y ago

Google Fiber was a major success that got ousted by the incumbents with never ending lawsuits and resistance. Take your anger out on the monopoly ISPs across the country.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
This is untrue. Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways, loosely covered them up with foam, letting the average snowplow rip up their network. Fiber used real cities as experiment grounds, and ended up with at least one solution so bad they left the city rather than fix it, and had to settle with the city for all the damages to their roadways. Pictures: https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix-exposed-fiber-lines-in/article_fbc678c3-66ef-5d5b-860c-2156bc2f0f0c.html https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix... (Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything.)
- ehsankia 7y ago
  > Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways Yes, Louisville was indeed a failure. They tried something different to help speed up laying out lines, and it didn't work. All that is not really relevant to the comment above, which still is true regardless of the issue in Louisville. > Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything That's misleading, they decided to instead pay the city for the repairs instead of doing it themselves. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/google-fiber-exits-louisville-pays-city-3-8m-to-clean-up-the-mess-it-left/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/googl...
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Originally they intended to repair the fiber lines and keep the network in Louisville, they decided to give the city money when they backed out so that the city could clean up the damage: Presumably by ripping up the fiber network entirely. Most of their other ideas were similarly discount. They bought fiber in places it was already run, and their issue with ISPs revolved around a push to demand the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision. ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks.
    - pb7 7y ago
      >ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks. There is a disingenuous take. ISPs were provided $100Bs of taxpayer money to build out infrastructure in the last few decades. It is not theirs to control or monopolize. Everywhere Google Fiber was introduced, the incumbents' prices dropped and speeds increased. If they're able to operate at the reduced prices, why are they siphoning off additional profits after they were paid the aforementioned infrastructure money to provide these services? Google Fiber disrupting ISPs was exactly what people are clamoring to happen to other giants like Amazon and yet here you are bashing the initiative. For the record, Google Fiber is still well loved everywhere it has been rolled out. I had Comcast and Verizon for decades and hated every moment of it -- constant battle for reliability, price increases, and hidden fees. Ever since I got WebPass (owned by Google Fiber), it has been nothing but bliss for a fraction of the price and 0% of the bullshit. You should be deeply upset by the fact that Google Fiber is no longer expanding. It is a hit against progress and we are all worse off for it.
    - ehsankia 7y ago
      > the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision. That makes it sound like Google was being pushy here, but in reality, ISPs were being intentionally as slow and obtrusive as possible to cripple Google's expansion, which is exactly why Fiber failed. If they were given X days to do something, they would do it on the (x-1)th day on purpose to waste Google's time and delay them as much as possible.
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        It makes sense to be very careful with this sort of thing. Comcast is infamous for "accidentally" severing other ISP's lines whilst running their own. Also, given that Google has been playing the (x-1)th day game with the EU for nearly a decade, and asking for every possible extension in order to respond to even the most basic requests... let's not act like ISPs are bad and Google is good. Google is a bad actor that was trying to edge in on another market of bad actors.
at_a_remove 7y ago
I am not angry about Google Fiber, I'm disappointed. This project reminds me of Google Fiber in that it had a kind of optimism backed by a tremendous amount of capital, both in cash and in goodwill. For fiber, of course I knew about the incumbents. The 1990s were an enormous giveaway to the telecommunications industry in terms of tax breaks in exchange for a nebulous set of promises and, as far as I can tell, no teeth -- what penalties for failure to deliver? They took the money and devoted it to lobbying and eventually as much regulatory capture as they could manage. We knew going in that it would be tough. And of course infrastructure, physical infrastructure, is tough. You have legal requirements, like permits and easements. You have the "merely" physical task of digging all of these trenches, mile upon mile. You have an huge outlay of equipment, from ordering to configuration and maintenance. You have the relentless horror of the last mile. Most importantly, the competition wouldn't like it. Not one bit. They even spoke of it. I don't think anyone didn't know this going in, but the promise was that Google could and would deliver results because they knew all of this beforehand. Somehow, despite all of that, it didn't work out, but they were very certain at the time it would. They even managed to convince me and I come with a fairly dour outlook on these kinds of pitches. This has much the same smell as did Google Fiber. This I can be a little annoyed at because it sounds as if lessons were not learned.
- pb7 7y ago
  Your comment resonates well with me but I'm still confused. Google Fiber wants to provide you service. They can't for reasons outside of their control (some of which you very accurately described). It is not Google Fiber you should be disappointed with. Fighting against the telecommunications industry that is actively hostile towards consumers is really tough. They took the cash and used it to better defend themselves against disruption rather than building out the infrastructure for all to benefit from. Google has money but it doesn't have infinite money to throw at this particular initiative. I too am disappointed by the situation. Thankfully I am someplace where I do reap the benefits of it but I really wish the whole country had what is available to me because it is wonderful.
  - at_a_remove 7y ago

by pb7 7y ago

Google Fiber was a major success that got ousted by the incumbents with never ending lawsuits and resistance. Take your anger out on the monopoly ISPs across the country.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

This is untrue. Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways, loosely covered them up with foam, letting the average snowplow rip up their network. Fiber used real cities as experiment grounds, and ended up with at least one solution so bad they left the city rather than fix it, and had to settle with the city for all the damages to their roadways. Pictures: https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix-exposed-fiber-lines-in/article_fbc678c3-66ef-5d5b-860c-2156bc2f0f0c.html https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix... (Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything.)

ehsankia 7y ago
> Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways Yes, Louisville was indeed a failure. They tried something different to help speed up laying out lines, and it didn't work. All that is not really relevant to the comment above, which still is true regardless of the issue in Louisville. > Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything That's misleading, they decided to instead pay the city for the repairs instead of doing it themselves. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/google-fiber-exits-louisville-pays-city-3-8m-to-clean-up-the-mess-it-left/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/googl...
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Originally they intended to repair the fiber lines and keep the network in Louisville, they decided to give the city money when they backed out so that the city could clean up the damage: Presumably by ripping up the fiber network entirely. Most of their other ideas were similarly discount. They bought fiber in places it was already run, and their issue with ISPs revolved around a push to demand the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision. ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks.
  - pb7 7y ago
    >ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks. There is a disingenuous take. ISPs were provided $100Bs of taxpayer money to build out infrastructure in the last few decades. It is not theirs to control or monopolize. Everywhere Google Fiber was introduced, the incumbents' prices dropped and speeds increased. If they're able to operate at the reduced prices, why are they siphoning off additional profits after they were paid the aforementioned infrastructure money to provide these services? Google Fiber disrupting ISPs was exactly what people are clamoring to happen to other giants like Amazon and yet here you are bashing the initiative. For the record, Google Fiber is still well loved everywhere it has been rolled out. I had Comcast and Verizon for decades and hated every moment of it -- constant battle for reliability, price increases, and hidden fees. Ever since I got WebPass (owned by Google Fiber), it has been nothing but bliss for a fraction of the price and 0% of the bullshit. You should be deeply upset by the fact that Google Fiber is no longer expanding. It is a hit against progress and we are all worse off for it.
  - ehsankia 7y ago
    > the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision. That makes it sound like Google was being pushy here, but in reality, ISPs were being intentionally as slow and obtrusive as possible to cripple Google's expansion, which is exactly why Fiber failed. If they were given X days to do something, they would do it on the (x-1)th day on purpose to waste Google's time and delay them as much as possible.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      It makes sense to be very careful with this sort of thing. Comcast is infamous for "accidentally" severing other ISP's lines whilst running their own. Also, given that Google has been playing the (x-1)th day game with the EU for nearly a decade, and asking for every possible extension in order to respond to even the most basic requests... let's not act like ISPs are bad and Google is good. Google is a bad actor that was trying to edge in on another market of bad actors.

at_a_remove 7y ago

I am not angry about Google Fiber, I'm disappointed. This project reminds me of Google Fiber in that it had a kind of optimism backed by a tremendous amount of capital, both in cash and in goodwill. For fiber, of course I knew about the incumbents. The 1990s were an enormous giveaway to the telecommunications industry in terms of tax breaks in exchange for a nebulous set of promises and, as far as I can tell, no teeth -- what penalties for failure to deliver? They took the money and devoted it to lobbying and eventually as much regulatory capture as they could manage. We knew going in that it would be tough. And of course infrastructure, physical infrastructure, is tough. You have legal requirements, like permits and easements. You have the "merely" physical task of digging all of these trenches, mile upon mile. You have an huge outlay of equipment, from ordering to configuration and maintenance. You have the relentless horror of the last mile. Most importantly, the competition wouldn't like it. Not one bit. They even spoke of it. I don't think anyone didn't know this going in, but the promise was that Google could and would deliver results because they knew all of this beforehand. Somehow, despite all of that, it didn't work out, but they were very certain at the time it would. They even managed to convince me and I come with a fairly dour outlook on these kinds of pitches. This has much the same smell as did Google Fiber. This I can be a little annoyed at because it sounds as if lessons were not learned.

pb7 7y ago
Your comment resonates well with me but I'm still confused. Google Fiber wants to provide you service. They can't for reasons outside of their control (some of which you very accurately described). It is not Google Fiber you should be disappointed with. Fighting against the telecommunications industry that is actively hostile towards consumers is really tough. They took the cash and used it to better defend themselves against disruption rather than building out the infrastructure for all to benefit from. Google has money but it doesn't have infinite money to throw at this particular initiative. I too am disappointed by the situation. Thankfully I am someplace where I do reap the benefits of it but I really wish the whole country had what is available to me because it is wonderful.
- at_a_remove 7y ago