4 ms·

I was under the impression that Google Fiber chose Kansas City in part because they had to do little to no underground work. With government red tape cutting be

by ktsmith 13y ago

I was under the impression that Google Fiber chose Kansas City in part because they had to do little to no underground work. With government red tape cutting being the other part.

josh2600 13y ago
Well, pole rights in San Francisco are run through AT&T and the permitting process (while it's supposed to be 30 days) can take up to 180 days to complete. There are still access rights required for poles because they're considered part of the secure national communications infrastructure. You'd be surprised at how expensive it can be to lay fiber if the government doesn't want you to do it. I hope that helps :). AT&T cried foul in KC because Google got a lot of government benefits including space, leasing and access easements. Frankly, they're right, but no one cares because AT&T is evil. The moral of the story? Don't be evil[0]. [0]with as much sarcasm as I can possibly convey.
- ktsmith 13y ago
  I understand all that having also done this type of work previously. In your original comment you mentioned the KC deal included the "easing of street cutting costs" which should have been very minimal in KC due to the fiber being run overhead. That's all I was trying to address.
austenallred 13y ago
In Provo they bought the already-existing Fiber network for $1. It was really a case of the city reaching out and saying, "The current group that runs this is so incompetent we're willing to give it to you, so long as you provide free Internet access for 7 years."
- josh2600 13y ago
  Yes, and that's anti-competitive. I'm not arguing that AT&T was planning to build a network, but just gifting a fiber network to Google isn't exactly fair competition. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of faster fiber as an almost universal ideal, but you can't just give google assets because they're google. That's setting a terrible precedent.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Who knows, maybe it sets the precedent that government can seize assets and allocate them to other people (corperations) in the name of progress. If google blows their monopoly in x years, what's stopping them from seizing it back and giving it to someone else?
  - ktsmith 13y ago
    The city already sold the network once for $40 million, which didn't apply to the bond taken to build the network, and then got stuck with it again when Veracity folded. The sale to Google isn't so much a gift as it is a chance to not default on the bond (in theory) and get the service actually running. We can argue over it being anti-competitive but it doesn't appear that there were a lot of companies chomping at the bit to get this network due to the terrible state it was in.

by ktsmith 13y ago

I was under the impression that Google Fiber chose Kansas City in part because they had to do little to no underground work. With government red tape cutting being the other part.

josh2600 13y ago

Well, pole rights in San Francisco are run through AT&T and the permitting process (while it's supposed to be 30 days) can take up to 180 days to complete. There are still access rights required for poles because they're considered part of the secure national communications infrastructure. You'd be surprised at how expensive it can be to lay fiber if the government doesn't want you to do it. I hope that helps :). AT&T cried foul in KC because Google got a lot of government benefits including space, leasing and access easements. Frankly, they're right, but no one cares because AT&T is evil. The moral of the story? Don't be evil[0]. [0]with as much sarcasm as I can possibly convey.

ktsmith 13y ago
I understand all that having also done this type of work previously. In your original comment you mentioned the KC deal included the "easing of street cutting costs" which should have been very minimal in KC due to the fiber being run overhead. That's all I was trying to address.

austenallred 13y ago

In Provo they bought the already-existing Fiber network for $1. It was really a case of the city reaching out and saying, "The current group that runs this is so incompetent we're willing to give it to you, so long as you provide free Internet access for 7 years."

josh2600 13y ago
Yes, and that's anti-competitive. I'm not arguing that AT&T was planning to build a network, but just gifting a fiber network to Google isn't exactly fair competition. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of faster fiber as an almost universal ideal, but you can't just give google assets because they're google. That's setting a terrible precedent.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Who knows, maybe it sets the precedent that government can seize assets and allocate them to other people (corperations) in the name of progress. If google blows their monopoly in x years, what's stopping them from seizing it back and giving it to someone else?
- ktsmith 13y ago
  The city already sold the network once for $40 million, which didn't apply to the bond taken to build the network, and then got stuck with it again when Veracity folded. The sale to Google isn't so much a gift as it is a chance to not default on the bond (in theory) and get the service actually running. We can argue over it being anti-competitive but it doesn't appear that there were a lot of companies chomping at the bit to get this network due to the terrible state it was in.