9 ms·

AT&T Announces Intent to Build 1 Gigabit Fiber Network in Austin

144 points by ben1040 14y ago

jacobmarble 14y ago
"AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives." Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?
- sterlingross 14y ago
  I suspect this is exactly what Google wants. They don't want the burden of bringing high speed internet to everyone, but they do want everyone to have high speed access.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > I suspect this is exactly what Google wants. They don't want the burden of bringing high speed internet to everyone, but they do want everyone to have high speed access. I suspect this overstating the case significantly -- I think its basically right in that Google's prime motivation is to push the market toward widespread, ultra-high speed access. But I think that by the time they launched Google Fiber, and certainly before they expanded it to Austin, they also had a model where it was worthwhile beyond being a lever to move the industry, between direct revenue and the opportunity to use it as leverage to promote the Android ecosystem through the Nexus devices tied to it. As with the Chrome browser, heck and even Android itself, what Google does with the prime motivation of moving the market (and preventing another vendor from getting/keeping a monopoly which they can leverage against Google) isn't necessarily a "burden".
  - chriscampbell 14y ago
    I agree 100%, I feel that until one of the large ISP's commits to fast internet nationwide- they won't stop expanding.
- ben1040 14y ago
  >Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition? Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout. They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area. When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.
  - gnoway 14y ago
    Yes, except there's still usually just one cable company in an area. The real effect of this is that a municipality unhappy with service now has no opportunity to oust a provider when the term of their franchise agreement is up.
- maxk42 14y ago
  On the contrary. AT&T has been laying political groundwork for ages. This is a PR hit piece intending to show they're competitive with Google's offerings, but in reality they're playing the reactionary. Google is scaring the shit out of them and they're trying to retain customers who might otherwise jump ship immediately by assuring them they'll get the exact same deal. That is almost certainly not the case, however.
  - bratsche 14y ago
    If this were happening in my city and Google came along with Fiber, and AT&T and Time Warner decided to upgrade their infrastructure in response, I'd totally jump ship to Google anyway. I think a lot of people have been unhappy with their service providers for a long time, for more reasons than just the speed.
    - wlesieutre 14y ago
      At least when I have a problem with Comcast I can eventually get a rep on the phone to fix it. Can anybody with Google Fiber comment on whether the customer support is better than their other products'? Even paying Google Apps customers have said that it's almost nonexistent. I realize it's possible since this is a (relatively) expensive paid service, but Google has a lot less experience doing customer service even less than AT&T or Comcast. And their usual approach of "Make a webpage listing common problems" might not work as well for fixing internet service outages.
      - natrius 14y ago
        I've used Google's support for Nexus devices, and it's been pretty good. Talked to a human being, walked through the troubleshooting with her for a few minutes, then RMAed the phone.
- mwsherman 14y ago
  It may be naive to think that AT&T will get the same rules. By all means, all firms should get the same rules, and may need to litigate. But to assume that municipalities want a uniform set of rules for all comers would be without basis. Municipalities want to negotiate with vendors to extract concessions. Laws can be written, without naming names, that apply only to individual firms. Maybe Austin will say that the new rules and incentives only apply to firms below a certain market share. Or to firms that don’t also operate mobile networks. Or firms that have, or don’t have, some geographical footprint. Or which employ a certain number of Texans, or Austinites. Etc.
- bradleyjg 14y ago
  It's rich that ATT, successor company to Southwestern Bell, is complaining about alledged subsidies to another company to enable a fiber rollout. Southwestern Bell and its sister baby bells were subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the 90s in exchange for a promise to roll out a nationwide network of fiber to the home. Needless to say the network never materialized but the telecoms kept the money. Ref: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Yeah, it's kind of amazing. At one end of the spectrum, we have ultra-ethical companies like Tesla, who use government loans efficiently and pay them back ahead of schedule. At the other end, we have ethically and morally bankrupt companies like Southwestern Bell that took government funds with the promise of building a nation-wide fiber network, didn't do it, and pocketed the money.
  - bdcravens 14y ago
    <pedantic> Actually, AT&T is Southwestern Bell, not so much a "successor" company. SBC acquired AT&T and changed the name. </pedantic>
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Actually, I don't think you are being pedantic. The lineage is really important/interesting. Here, in the Bay Area, the majority of the LEC lines belonged to Pacific Bell (You can almost always tell who the "real" company is by looking at the cable-vaults, the names of the holding company is written in engraved/raised metal that will last for 100+ years). The SF Giants Stadium was born as "PacBell Park" Somewhere around 1997/1998, SBC Acquired all of Pacific Bell - so 100% of the PacBell LEC lines became SBC lines. Your Phone Bill now read "SBC", and a few years later, PacBell Park became SBC Park. Then, in 2005, SBC acquired AT&T, and, because AT&T had a stronger global brand, they changed their name to be "AT&T", even though AT&T was now just one component of the larger SBC. What's really confusing, is somewhere around 2003/2004, LEC competition was deregulated a bit, and the 2003 AT&T starting offering Local Phone services in the Bay area. So, you ran into scenarios where you would get a visit from both AT&T and SBC trying to sell you local phone services. I actually purchased a pretty good sized Long Distance/Data/LEC package from AT&T for around $15K MRC for our office buildings in Sunnyvale. The reason this is confusing, is that when SBC acquired AT&T, you now had two classes of AT&T customers, those with SBC legacy facilities, and those with AT&T legacy facilities. For about 5 years after the acquisition, every telecom consultant I dealt with avoided the confusion (for some definition of avoid, and confusion) - by continuing to refer to anyone getting their services from 2003 SBC, as "SBC Customers", even though, for the last several years, their phone bill read "AT&T". So, ironically, for some customers in the Bay Area, AT&T lines actually are AT&T lines, but for most customers, they are SBC/Pacific Bell lines.
- tapsboy 14y ago
  Infact, "However, in Austin, the agreements that Google has signed with the City of Austin are no different than the ones that AT&T and Time Warner have signed according to Laura Morrison, an Austin city councilwoman." http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/take-that-google-att-ups-the-ante-with-plans-for-its-own-austin-gigabit-network/ http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/take-that-google-att-ups-the-an...
- wmf 14y ago
  It would be viewed as pretty evil if Google extracted government concessions and then used some kind of regulatory capture to lock out competitors. That's AT&T's game.
ccarter84 14y ago
Great - Austin households get two giga-bit networks competing to get first to their doorsteps and the rest of the country gets to watch in wonder.
- dublinben 14y ago
  Musicipal fiber also seems to be a great way to rile up the telcos. If Google won't wire your city, just do it yourselves. AT&T and Comcast will either compete or sue to prevent it.
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    Who wins when a lawsuit prevents a municipal network from being built?
    - ttrreeww 14y ago
      The existing monopoly :) Everyone else loses.
      - pokoleo 14y ago
        Everyone always loses because the winners don't want to be targets.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  Make it one, Google will almost certainly close shop soon after AT & T does theirs. AT&T then will double prices. Notice the zingers to Google and to Austin officials: "AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives...AT&T consistently invests in U.S. communities -- $98 billion in capital in the past five years, more than any other public company" AT& T is most likely gonna sue Austin unless they provide them with the same incentives as Google is getting.
james33 14y ago
Looks like Google's long-term plan is starting to unfold. Once everyone has super high-speed internet, Google OS can begin to thrive.
- dsfasfasf 14y ago
  Unless Google gets killed by a better search engine. Which is a real possibility.
  - grinich 14y ago
    Are you kidding?
    - kgen 14y ago
      I thought so too, but then I remembered Watson, and just how far off we are from search being fully context-aware.
      - chc 14y ago
        When somebody says "real possibility," that normally means something like "has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth considering." It is "possible" in the sense that there are things that are better than Google that could exist, but none of those things are here right now, the chances of somebody appearing out of nowhere and coming out with something so much better that everyone switches to it are practically zero. It's not a real possibility — it's just a hypothetical situation.
        kgen 14y ago
        Watson was demonstrated on live television, how is that not a possibility that they adapt that technology into a publicly available search engine?
        chc 14y ago
hvs 14y ago
It's always nice to see a (semi-)free market driving competition and innovation.
ttrreeww 14y ago
Yeah, and I announce intent to build 1 gigabit fiber in my home as well!
o0-0o 14y ago
I would think this is a classic case of "Follow The Money". What firms are HQ'd in the Austin and surrounding areas... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/state.. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/state.... Whole Foods... Dell... I wonder what types of conversations Google & Dell have been having?
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_in_the_Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_in_the_Dallas... AT&T, for one.
  - ahlatimer 14y ago
    Dallas isn't really in the Austin area. It's a 3 hour drive.
    - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
      My reading comprehension is apparently poor today. I could've sworn the parent comment said "Dallas," not Austin.
    - richardwhiuk 14y ago
      AT&T Labs is HQ'ed in Austin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Labs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Labs
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- largehotcoffee 14y ago
  >I wonder what types of conversations Google & Dell have been having? Pretty sure the answer to that is zero.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nlh 14y ago
Speed is not even the biggest thing here. Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s. I'm sure if they wanted to go to 1Gbit they could. As can AT&T in Austin. The thing that's exciting about Google Fiber is what it represents -- reasonable cost, no bandwidth caps, net neutrality, etc. Google WANTS its customers to use the Internet as much as possible. The more HD videos people watch on YouTube and the more people surf the web the more ads they show and the more money they make. The opposite is true with AT&T -- they'll start metering and charging the second they can. I'd take 100Mbit Google service over 1Gbit AT&T service any day of the week.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Not to mention the latency. Apparently gFiber has much better ping times.
  - dmishe 14y ago
    I think it's too small to make any kind of judgement on that, first ATT networks were probably very good. That said, I'm sure they will keep up the quality
  - zero_intp 14y ago
    times to what is always the question. The big G has some limited backbone but growing, but what is their transit for that service?
- chez17 14y ago
  As someone else pointed out, when you have an entire OS built on being connected to the cloud, connection speeds becomes an important issue.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  > Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s Where? The entire time I've lived in NYC, in neighborhoods with population density between 30k to 70k people per square mile, I've never, ever, ever had FIOS available to me. Sure, I've heard about the rare building that has it, but as far as I can tell, it's marketing with just enough actual deployment that we can't call it vaporware.
intopieces 14y ago
Not even a hint of when this is slated to happen? Talk about 'me too'-ing.
geuis 14y ago
This makes little sense to me. Instead of building in the same market as Google, go build in another market with no competition! Why layout double the infrastructure when and get into a price war when you can do the same thing somewhere else and be able to charge more? That's my pro-business argument. My pro-customer argument is that this is great for competition in Austin. My I-live-in-SF argument is why isn't anyone doing this for us? I can't really think of another major city in the US outside of NY, Chicaco, or Boston where this would have the most impact. You have thousands of companies built on the Internet in SF. Lots of us techies live here. Please, give us a choice beyond Comcast!
- PerryCox 14y ago
  http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/econ439/2012/07/06/why-competing-businesses-are-located-near-each-other/ http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/econ439/2012/07/06/why-competin...
- aidenn0 14y ago
  Phone and Cable companies are increasingly becoming just ISPs; if Google Fiber starts to be successful in more cities, it threatens the highly profitable duopoly they have. Consumer ISPs have long deployed their fastest technology in response to a competitor (typically, but not always a municipally funded competitor) deploying a fast network. You need to remember, Comcast started charging Level 3 (who distributes some of Netflix's content) for peering. There's nothing illegal about this, but think about what it means is Comcast is now selling its customers to the content companies; you are no longer the customer but the product.
  - mdip 14y ago
    I wonder if they'll keep their current capping policy in place in Austin (I'm willing to bet they will not), or if they remove the caps nationally (I'm willing to bet they will not). If they did, it'd take ~250 seconds at full throttle to use up your download limit. Provided they are charging for overage, this could be very profitable for them. Sorry for the nitpick - By L3, I'm assume you mean Level 3 Communications, not L-3 Communications. Netflix uses the former's CDN services, I believe.
gonzo 14y ago
AT&T proposed this back in the 90s, yes, in Austin. Lots of trenching around town, tons of interduct. Then the winds shifted, and they shut the project down.
scarmig 14y ago
Why are they announcing it the same day as Google? And in the same city, no less? If they've had this capability all this time, what has prevented them from offering good service to customers up until now?
- wmf 14y ago
  It's clear (to me at least) that FTTH is less profitable than DSL (aka U-Verse), so AT&T won't offer it unless forced to.
- dsl 14y ago
  From the article: "AT&T’s ... anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives." They want to make a case out of Google getting preferential treatment to build out its network (which they are).
  - crazypyro 14y ago
    This, this, this. Google has kc govt bending over backwards and att is using austin to make a point to any city thinking about doing this. Very smart business move. Att will get free incentives to upgrade.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    It seems like there should be a pretty easy way around the claims of favoritism: Come up with the terms (e.g. right of way and easy licenses if you install gigabit fiber to x thousand homes with no caps and observe network neutrality), then let companies bid on the contract, and open bidding to any qualified organization. Google can put in a nominal bid and take it if no one submits a competing bid, or AT&T can outbid them if they want, but then AT&T has to pay to build the network under those terms and Google can just move on to the next city.
loudin 14y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think AT&T is a capable enough institution to beat Google to the punch on this one.
tc 14y ago
This message is meant for exactly two groups: 1) Google, 2) other municipalities. AT&T is telling Google that they'll play in any market Google commits to and drive the margins out of it. They want Google to stop doing this, and they're hoping to make Google question its financial model for this capital outlay. (I doubt it will faze Google.) AT&T is warning other municipalities to not cut Google any sweetheart deals that they're not willing to extend to AT&T. This is a potent message for municipalities that are sitting pretty on financial or other perks they've extracted from AT&T or other telecoms. AT&T is warning them the gravy train stops when they let in Google.
- nlh 14y ago
  Agreed. On your first point, I particularly agree that it won't faze Google. While I'm sure they want every business unit to be a money-maker, I don't think Google is worried about the margins getting squeezed. I bet they've figured the value of just having more people on an unmetered high speed connection and might even be willing to lose money on the access. And I'd be particularly surprised if AT&T has a bigger appetite for price wars than Google :)
  - dclusin 14y ago
    I agree with this. If there was any money in the pipes we wouldn't see nearly as many mergers of broadband and content companies. We also wouldn't see content companies getting into broadband either. The nice thing about Google is that their interests as you said are mutually beneficial here. E.g. faster broadband means more money for Google via ad sales. This isn't true with Comcast or other carriers.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    Yeah, if AT&T is trying to play some kind of "chicken game" with Google, they will lose, because Google doesn't care that much about the profits as they do about dramatically increasing the competition in the ISP market. In fact, higher valuer/buck is Google's goal in all of this. AT&T is falling right in Google's "trap", sort of speak (which is a good thing for us). While Google may indeed have some thoughts that with all this popularity and head-start they could become a major ISP in US, their primary and original goal was exactly to get other companies to start offering Gigabit and affordable fiber connections, with no other limits or caps.
addflip 14y ago
A shot across Google's bow. Google must really be scaring the legacy carriers. Competition is great!
bertomartin 14y ago
Keep slapping 'em into shape Google. Good job. Come to NY!!
scragg 14y ago
I have FTTH with AT&T Uverse yet they only offer at max 22 mbps down / 3 up at around $60/month. Is lack of competition the only reason why AT&T doesn't offer me more speed? I mean why would they? It's either AT&T or dial-up.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
wilhil 14y ago
Who knew competition would lead to this...
DigitalSea 14y ago
Much like Firefox forced Microsoft's hand in regards to Internet Explorer it seems as though Google have forced one of the major players hands to innovate in the Internet and bandwidth space as well. Any outcome of this battle will only benefit the people in the end. More choice equals a better deal for everyone and I have no doubt this was never about money on Google's end in the first place, merely a wakeup call to companies like AT&T and Comcast who have stopped trying and let their networks deteriorate. Considering Google have only spent $100 million on their impressive fibre network thus far, AT&T have a lot of catching up to do here to meet the same service offering Google is giving customers (no network caps, fast speeds, a new and reliable network).
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Back in my Demon Internet days we went through every possible way of solving that last mile. One of the most innovative solutions, that actually got trailed before being "canned" was to backhaul fibre through the sewage system - it was pre existing tunnelling in every home, could be installed by any fool and had negligible effect on "flow" For some reason it never caught on :-)
- cpeterso 14y ago
  That's a crazy/brilliant idea! How did the fibre exit the sewage system at the home?
  - gregpilling 14y ago
    Sewage systems are non-pressurized gravity flow and many have cleanouts for service. The line could exit out via the cleanout. My house has a clean out just as the sewer line exits the foundation, and the sewer line itself is a 4" pipe. Lots of room and easy access.
  - jfb 14y ago
    I don't think you'd like the water-proof junction box.
- pindi 14y ago
  Sounds like Google TiSP: http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html
pasbesoin 14y ago
100% reactionary and nearly 100% political. In the Chicagoland area, their DSL service was simply horrible, and it languished, until Comcast started rolling out Internet and triple-play (cable TV, Internet, and phone). Suddenly, AT&T's market was at material risk. Even then, their Internet offerings remained poorly supported, if relatively somewhat improved. I suspect the primary reason for this announcement is for use in manipulating various political entities, including Congress. Also, some public PR value, from those who are still inclined to believe anything they might have to say. Note that today's AT&T is really SBC. AT&T was a mostly empty shell at the time SBC bought them up -- largely, I suspect, for the branding.
programminggeek 14y ago
This is sort of like if Google announced they are building a 50 ft. wall around the city of Austin, and then AT&T announces they are building a 50 ft. wall around the wall that Google is building.
guelo 14y ago
Legally Austin is under no obligation to give AT&T the same deal.
tibbon 14y ago
So.... AT&T can actually do this if they try and have competition threatening their ologopoly (which they and Comcast claim doesn't exist...)
nnethercote 14y ago
This is duplicated infrastructure. What a waste of money and effort. Australia's National Broadband Network seems a much better way to handle this kind of thing.
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  They're outside my house right now!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
smutticus 14y ago
How much do you want to bet AT&T never builds anything? This is a classic tactic of them to announce the development of a network and then never build it. They often do this as a means to extract honey from regulators, but it also works to distract consumers and municipalities. It's the equivalent of networking FUD. Examples: http://www.muninetworks.org/content/atts-many-broken-merger-promises http://www.muninetworks.org/content/atts-many-broken-merger-... And of course the biggest scam of all: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...

144 points by ben1040 14y ago

"AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives." Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?

sterlingross 14y ago
I suspect this is exactly what Google wants. They don't want the burden of bringing high speed internet to everyone, but they do want everyone to have high speed access.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > I suspect this is exactly what Google wants. They don't want the burden of bringing high speed internet to everyone, but they do want everyone to have high speed access. I suspect this overstating the case significantly -- I think its basically right in that Google's prime motivation is to push the market toward widespread, ultra-high speed access. But I think that by the time they launched Google Fiber, and certainly before they expanded it to Austin, they also had a model where it was worthwhile beyond being a lever to move the industry, between direct revenue and the opportunity to use it as leverage to promote the Android ecosystem through the Nexus devices tied to it. As with the Chrome browser, heck and even Android itself, what Google does with the prime motivation of moving the market (and preventing another vendor from getting/keeping a monopoly which they can leverage against Google) isn't necessarily a "burden".
- chriscampbell 14y ago
  I agree 100%, I feel that until one of the large ISP's commits to fast internet nationwide- they won't stop expanding.
ben1040 14y ago
>Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition? Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout. They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area. When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.
- gnoway 14y ago
  Yes, except there's still usually just one cable company in an area. The real effect of this is that a municipality unhappy with service now has no opportunity to oust a provider when the term of their franchise agreement is up.
maxk42 14y ago
On the contrary. AT&T has been laying political groundwork for ages. This is a PR hit piece intending to show they're competitive with Google's offerings, but in reality they're playing the reactionary. Google is scaring the shit out of them and they're trying to retain customers who might otherwise jump ship immediately by assuring them they'll get the exact same deal. That is almost certainly not the case, however.
- bratsche 14y ago
  If this were happening in my city and Google came along with Fiber, and AT&T and Time Warner decided to upgrade their infrastructure in response, I'd totally jump ship to Google anyway. I think a lot of people have been unhappy with their service providers for a long time, for more reasons than just the speed.
  - wlesieutre 14y ago
    At least when I have a problem with Comcast I can eventually get a rep on the phone to fix it. Can anybody with Google Fiber comment on whether the customer support is better than their other products'? Even paying Google Apps customers have said that it's almost nonexistent. I realize it's possible since this is a (relatively) expensive paid service, but Google has a lot less experience doing customer service even less than AT&T or Comcast. And their usual approach of "Make a webpage listing common problems" might not work as well for fixing internet service outages.
    - natrius 14y ago
      I've used Google's support for Nexus devices, and it's been pretty good. Talked to a human being, walked through the troubleshooting with her for a few minutes, then RMAed the phone.
mwsherman 14y ago
It may be naive to think that AT&T will get the same rules. By all means, all firms should get the same rules, and may need to litigate. But to assume that municipalities want a uniform set of rules for all comers would be without basis. Municipalities want to negotiate with vendors to extract concessions. Laws can be written, without naming names, that apply only to individual firms. Maybe Austin will say that the new rules and incentives only apply to firms below a certain market share. Or to firms that don’t also operate mobile networks. Or firms that have, or don’t have, some geographical footprint. Or which employ a certain number of Texans, or Austinites. Etc.
bradleyjg 14y ago
It's rich that ATT, successor company to Southwestern Bell, is complaining about alledged subsidies to another company to enable a fiber rollout. Southwestern Bell and its sister baby bells were subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the 90s in exchange for a promise to roll out a nationwide network of fiber to the home. Needless to say the network never materialized but the telecoms kept the money. Ref: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Yeah, it's kind of amazing. At one end of the spectrum, we have ultra-ethical companies like Tesla, who use government loans efficiently and pay them back ahead of schedule. At the other end, we have ethically and morally bankrupt companies like Southwestern Bell that took government funds with the promise of building a nation-wide fiber network, didn't do it, and pocketed the money.
- bdcravens 14y ago
  <pedantic> Actually, AT&T is Southwestern Bell, not so much a "successor" company. SBC acquired AT&T and changed the name. </pedantic>
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Actually, I don't think you are being pedantic. The lineage is really important/interesting. Here, in the Bay Area, the majority of the LEC lines belonged to Pacific Bell (You can almost always tell who the "real" company is by looking at the cable-vaults, the names of the holding company is written in engraved/raised metal that will last for 100+ years). The SF Giants Stadium was born as "PacBell Park" Somewhere around 1997/1998, SBC Acquired all of Pacific Bell - so 100% of the PacBell LEC lines became SBC lines. Your Phone Bill now read "SBC", and a few years later, PacBell Park became SBC Park. Then, in 2005, SBC acquired AT&T, and, because AT&T had a stronger global brand, they changed their name to be "AT&T", even though AT&T was now just one component of the larger SBC. What's really confusing, is somewhere around 2003/2004, LEC competition was deregulated a bit, and the 2003 AT&T starting offering Local Phone services in the Bay area. So, you ran into scenarios where you would get a visit from both AT&T and SBC trying to sell you local phone services. I actually purchased a pretty good sized Long Distance/Data/LEC package from AT&T for around $15K MRC for our office buildings in Sunnyvale. The reason this is confusing, is that when SBC acquired AT&T, you now had two classes of AT&T customers, those with SBC legacy facilities, and those with AT&T legacy facilities. For about 5 years after the acquisition, every telecom consultant I dealt with avoided the confusion (for some definition of avoid, and confusion) - by continuing to refer to anyone getting their services from 2003 SBC, as "SBC Customers", even though, for the last several years, their phone bill read "AT&T". So, ironically, for some customers in the Bay Area, AT&T lines actually are AT&T lines, but for most customers, they are SBC/Pacific Bell lines.
tapsboy 14y ago
Infact, "However, in Austin, the agreements that Google has signed with the City of Austin are no different than the ones that AT&T and Time Warner have signed according to Laura Morrison, an Austin city councilwoman." http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/take-that-google-att-ups-the-ante-with-plans-for-its-own-austin-gigabit-network/ http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/take-that-google-att-ups-the-an...
wmf 14y ago
It would be viewed as pretty evil if Google extracted government concessions and then used some kind of regulatory capture to lock out competitors. That's AT&T's game.

ccarter84 14y ago

Great - Austin households get two giga-bit networks competing to get first to their doorsteps and the rest of the country gets to watch in wonder.

dublinben 14y ago
Musicipal fiber also seems to be a great way to rile up the telcos. If Google won't wire your city, just do it yourselves. AT&T and Comcast will either compete or sue to prevent it.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Who wins when a lawsuit prevents a municipal network from being built?
  - ttrreeww 14y ago
    The existing monopoly :) Everyone else loses.
    - pokoleo 14y ago
      Everyone always loses because the winners don't want to be targets.
OGinparadise 14y ago
Make it one, Google will almost certainly close shop soon after AT & T does theirs. AT&T then will double prices. Notice the zingers to Google and to Austin officials: "AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives...AT&T consistently invests in U.S. communities -- $98 billion in capital in the past five years, more than any other public company" AT& T is most likely gonna sue Austin unless they provide them with the same incentives as Google is getting.

james33 14y ago

Looks like Google's long-term plan is starting to unfold. Once everyone has super high-speed internet, Google OS can begin to thrive.

dsfasfasf 14y ago
Unless Google gets killed by a better search engine. Which is a real possibility.
- grinich 14y ago
  Are you kidding?
  - kgen 14y ago
    I thought so too, but then I remembered Watson, and just how far off we are from search being fully context-aware.
    - chc 14y ago
      When somebody says "real possibility," that normally means something like "has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth considering." It is "possible" in the sense that there are things that are better than Google that could exist, but none of those things are here right now, the chances of somebody appearing out of nowhere and coming out with something so much better that everyone switches to it are practically zero. It's not a real possibility — it's just a hypothetical situation.
      - kgen 14y ago
        Watson was demonstrated on live television, how is that not a possibility that they adapt that technology into a publicly available search engine?
        chc 14y ago

hvs 14y ago

It's always nice to see a (semi-)free market driving competition and innovation.

ttrreeww 14y ago

Yeah, and I announce intent to build 1 gigabit fiber in my home as well!

o0-0o 14y ago

I would think this is a classic case of "Follow The Money". What firms are HQ'd in the Austin and surrounding areas... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/state.. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/state.... Whole Foods... Dell... I wonder what types of conversations Google & Dell have been having?

aaronbrethorst 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_in_the_Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_in_the_Dallas... AT&T, for one.
- ahlatimer 14y ago
  Dallas isn't really in the Austin area. It's a 3 hour drive.
  - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
    My reading comprehension is apparently poor today. I could've sworn the parent comment said "Dallas," not Austin.
  - richardwhiuk 14y ago
    AT&T Labs is HQ'ed in Austin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Labs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Labs
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
largehotcoffee 14y ago
>I wonder what types of conversations Google & Dell have been having? Pretty sure the answer to that is zero.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nlh 14y ago

Speed is not even the biggest thing here. Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s. I'm sure if they wanted to go to 1Gbit they could. As can AT&T in Austin. The thing that's exciting about Google Fiber is what it represents -- reasonable cost, no bandwidth caps, net neutrality, etc. Google WANTS its customers to use the Internet as much as possible. The more HD videos people watch on YouTube and the more people surf the web the more ads they show and the more money they make. The opposite is true with AT&T -- they'll start metering and charging the second they can. I'd take 100Mbit Google service over 1Gbit AT&T service any day of the week.

sliverstorm 14y ago
Not to mention the latency. Apparently gFiber has much better ping times.
- dmishe 14y ago
  I think it's too small to make any kind of judgement on that, first ATT networks were probably very good. That said, I'm sure they will keep up the quality
- zero_intp 14y ago
  times to what is always the question. The big G has some limited backbone but growing, but what is their transit for that service?
chez17 14y ago
As someone else pointed out, when you have an entire OS built on being connected to the cloud, connection speeds becomes an important issue.
pifflesnort 14y ago
> Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s Where? The entire time I've lived in NYC, in neighborhoods with population density between 30k to 70k people per square mile, I've never, ever, ever had FIOS available to me. Sure, I've heard about the rare building that has it, but as far as I can tell, it's marketing with just enough actual deployment that we can't call it vaporware.

intopieces 14y ago

Not even a hint of when this is slated to happen? Talk about 'me too'-ing.

geuis 14y ago

This makes little sense to me. Instead of building in the same market as Google, go build in another market with no competition! Why layout double the infrastructure when and get into a price war when you can do the same thing somewhere else and be able to charge more? That's my pro-business argument. My pro-customer argument is that this is great for competition in Austin. My I-live-in-SF argument is why isn't anyone doing this for us? I can't really think of another major city in the US outside of NY, Chicaco, or Boston where this would have the most impact. You have thousands of companies built on the Internet in SF. Lots of us techies live here. Please, give us a choice beyond Comcast!

PerryCox 14y ago
http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/econ439/2012/07/06/why-competing-businesses-are-located-near-each-other/ http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/econ439/2012/07/06/why-competin...
aidenn0 14y ago
Phone and Cable companies are increasingly becoming just ISPs; if Google Fiber starts to be successful in more cities, it threatens the highly profitable duopoly they have. Consumer ISPs have long deployed their fastest technology in response to a competitor (typically, but not always a municipally funded competitor) deploying a fast network. You need to remember, Comcast started charging Level 3 (who distributes some of Netflix's content) for peering. There's nothing illegal about this, but think about what it means is Comcast is now selling its customers to the content companies; you are no longer the customer but the product.
- mdip 14y ago
  I wonder if they'll keep their current capping policy in place in Austin (I'm willing to bet they will not), or if they remove the caps nationally (I'm willing to bet they will not). If they did, it'd take ~250 seconds at full throttle to use up your download limit. Provided they are charging for overage, this could be very profitable for them. Sorry for the nitpick - By L3, I'm assume you mean Level 3 Communications, not L-3 Communications. Netflix uses the former's CDN services, I believe.

gonzo 14y ago

AT&T proposed this back in the 90s, yes, in Austin. Lots of trenching around town, tons of interduct. Then the winds shifted, and they shut the project down.

scarmig 14y ago

Why are they announcing it the same day as Google? And in the same city, no less? If they've had this capability all this time, what has prevented them from offering good service to customers up until now?

wmf 14y ago
It's clear (to me at least) that FTTH is less profitable than DSL (aka U-Verse), so AT&T won't offer it unless forced to.
dsl 14y ago
From the article: "AT&T’s ... anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives." They want to make a case out of Google getting preferential treatment to build out its network (which they are).
- crazypyro 14y ago
  This, this, this. Google has kc govt bending over backwards and att is using austin to make a point to any city thinking about doing this. Very smart business move. Att will get free incentives to upgrade.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  It seems like there should be a pretty easy way around the claims of favoritism: Come up with the terms (e.g. right of way and easy licenses if you install gigabit fiber to x thousand homes with no caps and observe network neutrality), then let companies bid on the contract, and open bidding to any qualified organization. Google can put in a nominal bid and take it if no one submits a competing bid, or AT&T can outbid them if they want, but then AT&T has to pay to build the network under those terms and Google can just move on to the next city.

loudin 14y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think AT&T is a capable enough institution to beat Google to the punch on this one.

tc 14y ago

This message is meant for exactly two groups: 1) Google, 2) other municipalities. AT&T is telling Google that they'll play in any market Google commits to and drive the margins out of it. They want Google to stop doing this, and they're hoping to make Google question its financial model for this capital outlay. (I doubt it will faze Google.) AT&T is warning other municipalities to not cut Google any sweetheart deals that they're not willing to extend to AT&T. This is a potent message for municipalities that are sitting pretty on financial or other perks they've extracted from AT&T or other telecoms. AT&T is warning them the gravy train stops when they let in Google.

nlh 14y ago
Agreed. On your first point, I particularly agree that it won't faze Google. While I'm sure they want every business unit to be a money-maker, I don't think Google is worried about the margins getting squeezed. I bet they've figured the value of just having more people on an unmetered high speed connection and might even be willing to lose money on the access. And I'd be particularly surprised if AT&T has a bigger appetite for price wars than Google :)
- dclusin 14y ago
  I agree with this. If there was any money in the pipes we wouldn't see nearly as many mergers of broadband and content companies. We also wouldn't see content companies getting into broadband either. The nice thing about Google is that their interests as you said are mutually beneficial here. E.g. faster broadband means more money for Google via ad sales. This isn't true with Comcast or other carriers.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Yeah, if AT&T is trying to play some kind of "chicken game" with Google, they will lose, because Google doesn't care that much about the profits as they do about dramatically increasing the competition in the ISP market. In fact, higher valuer/buck is Google's goal in all of this. AT&T is falling right in Google's "trap", sort of speak (which is a good thing for us). While Google may indeed have some thoughts that with all this popularity and head-start they could become a major ISP in US, their primary and original goal was exactly to get other companies to start offering Gigabit and affordable fiber connections, with no other limits or caps.

addflip 14y ago

A shot across Google's bow. Google must really be scaring the legacy carriers. Competition is great!

bertomartin 14y ago

Keep slapping 'em into shape Google. Good job. Come to NY!!

scragg 14y ago

I have FTTH with AT&T Uverse yet they only offer at max 22 mbps down / 3 up at around $60/month. Is lack of competition the only reason why AT&T doesn't offer me more speed? I mean why would they? It's either AT&T or dial-up.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

wilhil 14y ago

Who knew competition would lead to this...

DigitalSea 14y ago

Much like Firefox forced Microsoft's hand in regards to Internet Explorer it seems as though Google have forced one of the major players hands to innovate in the Internet and bandwidth space as well. Any outcome of this battle will only benefit the people in the end. More choice equals a better deal for everyone and I have no doubt this was never about money on Google's end in the first place, merely a wakeup call to companies like AT&T and Comcast who have stopped trying and let their networks deteriorate. Considering Google have only spent $100 million on their impressive fibre network thus far, AT&T have a lot of catching up to do here to meet the same service offering Google is giving customers (no network caps, fast speeds, a new and reliable network).

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

Back in my Demon Internet days we went through every possible way of solving that last mile. One of the most innovative solutions, that actually got trailed before being "canned" was to backhaul fibre through the sewage system - it was pre existing tunnelling in every home, could be installed by any fool and had negligible effect on "flow" For some reason it never caught on :-)

cpeterso 14y ago
That's a crazy/brilliant idea! How did the fibre exit the sewage system at the home?
- gregpilling 14y ago
  Sewage systems are non-pressurized gravity flow and many have cleanouts for service. The line could exit out via the cleanout. My house has a clean out just as the sewer line exits the foundation, and the sewer line itself is a 4" pipe. Lots of room and easy access.
- jfb 14y ago
  I don't think you'd like the water-proof junction box.
pindi 14y ago
Sounds like Google TiSP: http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html

pasbesoin 14y ago

100% reactionary and nearly 100% political. In the Chicagoland area, their DSL service was simply horrible, and it languished, until Comcast started rolling out Internet and triple-play (cable TV, Internet, and phone). Suddenly, AT&T's market was at material risk. Even then, their Internet offerings remained poorly supported, if relatively somewhat improved. I suspect the primary reason for this announcement is for use in manipulating various political entities, including Congress. Also, some public PR value, from those who are still inclined to believe anything they might have to say. Note that today's AT&T is really SBC. AT&T was a mostly empty shell at the time SBC bought them up -- largely, I suspect, for the branding.

programminggeek 14y ago

This is sort of like if Google announced they are building a 50 ft. wall around the city of Austin, and then AT&T announces they are building a 50 ft. wall around the wall that Google is building.

guelo 14y ago

Legally Austin is under no obligation to give AT&T the same deal.

tibbon 14y ago

So.... AT&T can actually do this if they try and have competition threatening their ologopoly (which they and Comcast claim doesn't exist...)

nnethercote 14y ago

This is duplicated infrastructure. What a waste of money and effort. Australia's National Broadband Network seems a much better way to handle this kind of thing.

curiousdannii 14y ago
They're outside my house right now!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

smutticus 14y ago

How much do you want to bet AT&T never builds anything? This is a classic tactic of them to announce the development of a network and then never build it. They often do this as a means to extract honey from regulators, but it also works to distract consumers and municipalities. It's the equivalent of networking FUD. Examples: http://www.muninetworks.org/content/atts-many-broken-merger-promises http://www.muninetworks.org/content/atts-many-broken-merger-... And of course the biggest scam of all: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...