3 ms·

A tepid Twitter IPO right on the back of Facebook's might convince people to start looking to places with higher growth potential. Anywhere Google takes its Fib

by mkr-hn 13y ago

A tepid Twitter IPO right on the back of Facebook's might convince people to start looking to places with higher growth potential. Anywhere Google takes its Fiber is a good bet. I don't know about a bust, but things can only go so high before people with money and ambition start looking elsewhere.

lsc 13y ago
>Anywhere Google takes its Fiber is a good bet. This... is not as true as you think it is, even here in Silicon valley. If I could get $50/month/resident out of any of the reasonable-sized condos around here, I could easily give everyone gigabit Ethernet. Problem is? even here in the heart of silicon valley, most people don't give a shit. Faster than wi-fi doesn't matter. Hell, even you and me... I talk about bandwidth being important, but surewest has had fiber to the home in Sacramento for some time now... fast and very cheap. Do you see me moving to Sacramento? No, screw that. I mean, it's a cool project, and I wish google luck, but the fiber itself isn't going to move real-estate markets.
- JoblessWonder 13y ago
  Do you mean provide everyone shared access to gigabit Ethernet? Or each unit gigabit Ethernet. Those are likely two very different things.
  - lsc 13y ago
    >Do you mean provide everyone shared access to gigabit Ethernet? Or each unit gigabit Ethernet. Those are likely two very different things. Obviously, we're not talking about datacenter-levels of oversubscription. You'd be talking consumer-levels of oversubscription. Yes, this would be an oversubscribed gigabit link, really a whole lot like DSL, except that instead of 10Mbps max, you get 1000Mbps max, and because the physical plant is so much cleaner, you could do much better QoS. I mean, a shitty datacenter-level gige link delivered to a data center where the provider has a POP (if you are only buying a single gigabit; this stuff gets way cheaper as you buy in bulk) is about $750/month. Less if you know people, more if you sound like you have money when you call the sales rep; maybe 3x to 5x that if you want a big name. ($750 is what the he.net guys will quote you straight off.) You would, of course, put 50 or 100 folks on that gigE link. Would this mean that everyone would get 1-2Mbps? not unless everyone was running the link full-throttle all the time. This is... not dissimilar to the over-subscription ratios on DSL. And it mostly works okay, because it's hard to run a gigE link full-throttle all the time. And like I said, having clean physical plant (where you know the actual maximum throughput of a line, rather than the DSL bullshit, where it's loss depends on the phase of the moon and last time it rained) makes doing QoS way easier. In many ways, this would be a lot like DSL, in that you'd have a 'star' topology within the building, each customer having a full-duplex connection to your pop within the building, then 'oversubscribe' according to cost concerns at the network edge.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  It's never obvious why a technology is valuable before someone invents an application for it. No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies. Anything could happen on the 5-15 year time scale we're talking about here. Gigabit Internet and the places that have it could look very appealing once the technology that puts it to work starts to gain traction.
  - muzz 13y ago
    > No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies Napster, then other file-sharing services (Morpheus, Kazaa), Bittorrent, etc. This was ~25% of internet traffic in the mid-00s
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      25% of 5% of the current population of Internet users isn't much. It wasn't that long ago that people wondered if the Internet had staying power. Few people believed it had much influence outside itself before the 2008 elections. The greatest period of Internet growth was post-YouTube. The greatest growth in build out and adoption of gigabit Internet will be post-whatever takes advantage of it. My point still stands: > No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies
  - mhurron 13y ago
    Ah yes, more and more consumption is just such a great thing.
  - lsc 13y ago
    >Gigabit Internet and the places that have it could look very appealing once the technology that puts it to work starts to gain traction. I certainly agree that gigabit internet will be more valuable in the future than it is now. But, will that make property way more valuable? maybe. thing of it is, compared to silicon valley property values, getting fiber in to multi-family dwellings isn't all that expensive. You are gonna need like 50 neighbors to make the ongoing cost reasonable, so that's harder with single-family homes, but not impossible. Install costs are high, but not that high; generally $5-$15K one-time to trench from the street into a property and splice in, so if you can talk all your neighbors into blowing 10K+ each on the install, plus your $50 each ongoing, well, you could totally do it. The whole project is way more appealing than, say, moving your ass to Sacramento or Kansas or somewhere else you probably don't want to live.
hackula1 13y ago
My money is on Austin. Low taxes, reasonable rents, plenty of culture (SXSW, "Keep Austin Weird", lots of nightlife, etc.), and a history of tech seems like the perfect combination.
- karl_gluck 13y ago
  Ding ding ding. You are correct! The number of people showing up here (disproportionately from California, actually) is pushing housing prices through the roof. Houses sell about 10% over ask pretty much anywhere. Rent has doubled for most of the area over the last 5 years. In my dismay a few months ago, I did some research into buying a place but quickly came to the same conclusion as the author. I just did a quick look around my area over on Zillow. A condo comparable to my apartment (townhome style, 2-car garage, similar sq ft / bedrooms, location, etc) is still listed for 23 times my current annual rent, even though rent went up 15% last year. I'm renting for 4.3% the price of an (old!) condo. Anyone who thinks this is sustainable is going to be in for a surprise. [edit: rent calculations annual...]
  - muzz 13y ago
    Property taxes in Austin are roughly 3% of the current value. If your monthly rent is 0.4% of current value, then over 12 months you'd pay a total of 4.8% of current value. So more than half (3 / 4.8) ie most of your rent paid would be going to pay the property taxes alone.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by mkr-hn 13y ago

lsc 13y ago

>Anywhere Google takes its Fiber is a good bet. This... is not as true as you think it is, even here in Silicon valley. If I could get $50/month/resident out of any of the reasonable-sized condos around here, I could easily give everyone gigabit Ethernet. Problem is? even here in the heart of silicon valley, most people don't give a shit. Faster than wi-fi doesn't matter. Hell, even you and me... I talk about bandwidth being important, but surewest has had fiber to the home in Sacramento for some time now... fast and very cheap. Do you see me moving to Sacramento? No, screw that. I mean, it's a cool project, and I wish google luck, but the fiber itself isn't going to move real-estate markets.

JoblessWonder 13y ago
Do you mean provide everyone shared access to gigabit Ethernet? Or each unit gigabit Ethernet. Those are likely two very different things.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Do you mean provide everyone shared access to gigabit Ethernet? Or each unit gigabit Ethernet. Those are likely two very different things. Obviously, we're not talking about datacenter-levels of oversubscription. You'd be talking consumer-levels of oversubscription. Yes, this would be an oversubscribed gigabit link, really a whole lot like DSL, except that instead of 10Mbps max, you get 1000Mbps max, and because the physical plant is so much cleaner, you could do much better QoS. I mean, a shitty datacenter-level gige link delivered to a data center where the provider has a POP (if you are only buying a single gigabit; this stuff gets way cheaper as you buy in bulk) is about $750/month. Less if you know people, more if you sound like you have money when you call the sales rep; maybe 3x to 5x that if you want a big name. ($750 is what the he.net guys will quote you straight off.) You would, of course, put 50 or 100 folks on that gigE link. Would this mean that everyone would get 1-2Mbps? not unless everyone was running the link full-throttle all the time. This is... not dissimilar to the over-subscription ratios on DSL. And it mostly works okay, because it's hard to run a gigE link full-throttle all the time. And like I said, having clean physical plant (where you know the actual maximum throughput of a line, rather than the DSL bullshit, where it's loss depends on the phase of the moon and last time it rained) makes doing QoS way easier. In many ways, this would be a lot like DSL, in that you'd have a 'star' topology within the building, each customer having a full-duplex connection to your pop within the building, then 'oversubscribe' according to cost concerns at the network edge.
mkr-hn 13y ago
It's never obvious why a technology is valuable before someone invents an application for it. No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies. Anything could happen on the 5-15 year time scale we're talking about here. Gigabit Internet and the places that have it could look very appealing once the technology that puts it to work starts to gain traction.
- muzz 13y ago
  > No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies Napster, then other file-sharing services (Morpheus, Kazaa), Bittorrent, etc. This was ~25% of internet traffic in the mid-00s
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    25% of 5% of the current population of Internet users isn't much. It wasn't that long ago that people wondered if the Internet had staying power. Few people believed it had much influence outside itself before the 2008 elections. The greatest period of Internet growth was post-YouTube. The greatest growth in build out and adoption of gigabit Internet will be post-whatever takes advantage of it. My point still stands: > No one knew what to do with broadband before VoD and digital delivery (Steam, GoG, app stores, etc.) came along, and we're only a few years into widespread adoption of those technologies
- mhurron 13y ago
  Ah yes, more and more consumption is just such a great thing.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Gigabit Internet and the places that have it could look very appealing once the technology that puts it to work starts to gain traction. I certainly agree that gigabit internet will be more valuable in the future than it is now. But, will that make property way more valuable? maybe. thing of it is, compared to silicon valley property values, getting fiber in to multi-family dwellings isn't all that expensive. You are gonna need like 50 neighbors to make the ongoing cost reasonable, so that's harder with single-family homes, but not impossible. Install costs are high, but not that high; generally $5-$15K one-time to trench from the street into a property and splice in, so if you can talk all your neighbors into blowing 10K+ each on the install, plus your $50 each ongoing, well, you could totally do it. The whole project is way more appealing than, say, moving your ass to Sacramento or Kansas or somewhere else you probably don't want to live.

hackula1 13y ago

My money is on Austin. Low taxes, reasonable rents, plenty of culture (SXSW, "Keep Austin Weird", lots of nightlife, etc.), and a history of tech seems like the perfect combination.

karl_gluck 13y ago
Ding ding ding. You are correct! The number of people showing up here (disproportionately from California, actually) is pushing housing prices through the roof. Houses sell about 10% over ask pretty much anywhere. Rent has doubled for most of the area over the last 5 years. In my dismay a few months ago, I did some research into buying a place but quickly came to the same conclusion as the author. I just did a quick look around my area over on Zillow. A condo comparable to my apartment (townhome style, 2-car garage, similar sq ft / bedrooms, location, etc) is still listed for 23 times my current annual rent, even though rent went up 15% last year. I'm renting for 4.3% the price of an (old!) condo. Anyone who thinks this is sustainable is going to be in for a surprise. [edit: rent calculations annual...]
- muzz 13y ago
  Property taxes in Austin are roughly 3% of the current value. If your monthly rent is 0.4% of current value, then over 12 months you'd pay a total of 4.8% of current value. So more than half (3 / 4.8) ie most of your rent paid would be going to pay the property taxes alone.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]