12 ms·

I suspect they mostly want a compliant political infrastructure and relatively easy construction. NYC and SF aren't really known for either. Also, NYC would p

by tdees40 13y ago

I suspect they mostly want a compliant political infrastructure and relatively easy construction. NYC and SF aren't really known for either. Also, NYC would probably be biting off more than Google Fiber has any interest in chewing at the moment. They're still scaling up, after all.

Nrsolis 13y ago
YUP. The short answer is: it's much easier to build in a greenfield environment where there is a "helpful" local government, ready access to rights-of-way, and underserved population, easy construction costs, access to labor, favorable tax climate, and a host of other reasons that come before "lots of people who want gigabit speeds". The economics of building (or overbuilding) a gigabit fiber network drive you towards areas where you can get a high degree of penetration for your investment. That's not going to happen in a place like NYC or SF. The construction costs (directional boring) and tax regime (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes) mean that SF and NYC are probably going to be the LAST places to get Google Fiber.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes) WUT.
  - Nrsolis 13y ago
    Look it up. If you install $15M of fiber in/around town, you can bet your bottom dollar that the local taxing authority considers that real property and will tax you on it at appropriate rates. In TX, colo providers have had to send business property tax bills to people who locate their servers in those centers. Sometimes those bills are quite shocking. In CT, the local phone companies started putting DSLAMs on poles because it got them off the ground and saved them millions on property taxes because there was a rate differential between property that was pole attached and property that was on the ground. Never underestimate the effect that taxes can have on the deployment, operation, and maintenance of business property. You can explain great deals of financial shenanigans to the real savings associated with avoiding taxes. And who gets screwed? Anyone who doesn't have the scale or size to make avoiding that tax worthwhile. e.g. the small-business owner.
jseliger 13y ago
Good answer. I always post this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-buildout-san-francisco/2011-11-17 http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-... when people ask why SF isn't at the top of the list. Existing telcos already can't easily roll out faster service!
- simoncion 13y ago
  ATT is now rolling out U-Verse in San Francisco: http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm The challenge to ATT's plans was manifold: 1) ATT refused to put their equipment underground. SF's sidewalks don't need more cabinets. 2) U-Verse is DSL service. Sonic.net already offers 40mbps DSL service in SF, so U-Verse is not that much faster. Why does SF need more cabinets to get pretty much the same data service from the incumbent telco? 3) ATT is putting cabinets on the sidewalks, and running fiber to those cabinets to serve ~45mbps connections to folks ~800 feet away. If ATT had planned to run fiber from those new cabinets into residences ~800 feet away and provide 100mbps or 1gbps service, folks would have welcomed their project. 4) Monkeybrains [0] and Sonic.net [1][2] have had (for several years) workable plans to eventually deliver 1gbps service to the whole city with (they say) far fewer aboveground boxes that ATT "requires" for U-Verse, and don't even need to dig up the street to lay the fiber. I'm not sure why they've been ignored by the Mayor's Office and the DPW. [0] https://www.monkeybrains.net/DPW-MonkeyBrains-March-2011.pdf https://www.monkeybrains.net/DPW-MonkeyBrains-March-2011.pdf [1] http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2010/07/14/micro-trenching-at-sonic-net/ http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2010/07/14/micro-trenching-at-soni... [2] http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/12/15/sonic-net-plans-gigabit-fiber-network-in-san-francisco-release/ http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/12/15/sonic-net-plans-gigabit...
  - jseliger 13y ago
    Putting cabinets on sidewalks still seems like a very minor point and still part of the "People United Against Everything" syndrome affecting so much of America. Maybe U-Verse is not that much faster, but faster is still important! If Sonic / Monkeybrains can deliver 1gbps, all the better.
  - 13y ago
abvdasker 13y ago
The beautiful thing about this in the long-term is that if Google Fiber succeeds and becomes more widespread, people will start to say, "Why don't we have this?" If this succeeds — and I have little doubt it will — local governments across the country will be under increasing pressure from their constituents to move away from the monopolistic deals most cities have now with Comcast. I see this as a huge step in the right direction and cannot wait to see how it turns out.
bicknergseng 13y ago
To be fair, San Jose has a pretty awful political climate as well. I mean look at VTA.
- jason_slack 13y ago
  I'm in San Jose, what's wrong with VTA?

by tdees40 13y ago

Nrsolis 13y ago

YUP. The short answer is: it's much easier to build in a greenfield environment where there is a "helpful" local government, ready access to rights-of-way, and underserved population, easy construction costs, access to labor, favorable tax climate, and a host of other reasons that come before "lots of people who want gigabit speeds". The economics of building (or overbuilding) a gigabit fiber network drive you towards areas where you can get a high degree of penetration for your investment. That's not going to happen in a place like NYC or SF. The construction costs (directional boring) and tax regime (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes) mean that SF and NYC are probably going to be the LAST places to get Google Fiber.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
> (network cables are "property" for property tax purposes) WUT.
- Nrsolis 13y ago
  Look it up. If you install $15M of fiber in/around town, you can bet your bottom dollar that the local taxing authority considers that real property and will tax you on it at appropriate rates. In TX, colo providers have had to send business property tax bills to people who locate their servers in those centers. Sometimes those bills are quite shocking. In CT, the local phone companies started putting DSLAMs on poles because it got them off the ground and saved them millions on property taxes because there was a rate differential between property that was pole attached and property that was on the ground. Never underestimate the effect that taxes can have on the deployment, operation, and maintenance of business property. You can explain great deals of financial shenanigans to the real savings associated with avoiding taxes. And who gets screwed? Anyone who doesn't have the scale or size to make avoiding that tax worthwhile. e.g. the small-business owner.

jseliger 13y ago

Good answer. I always post this: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-buildout-san-francisco/2011-11-17 http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/att-ordered-stop-u-verse-... when people ask why SF isn't at the top of the list. Existing telcos already can't easily roll out faster service!

simoncion 13y ago
ATT is now rolling out U-Verse in San Francisco: http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2013/May/Att.htm The challenge to ATT's plans was manifold: 1) ATT refused to put their equipment underground. SF's sidewalks don't need more cabinets. 2) U-Verse is DSL service. Sonic.net already offers 40mbps DSL service in SF, so U-Verse is not that much faster. Why does SF need more cabinets to get pretty much the same data service from the incumbent telco? 3) ATT is putting cabinets on the sidewalks, and running fiber to those cabinets to serve ~45mbps connections to folks ~800 feet away. If ATT had planned to run fiber from those new cabinets into residences ~800 feet away and provide 100mbps or 1gbps service, folks would have welcomed their project. 4) Monkeybrains [0] and Sonic.net [1][2] have had (for several years) workable plans to eventually deliver 1gbps service to the whole city with (they say) far fewer aboveground boxes that ATT "requires" for U-Verse, and don't even need to dig up the street to lay the fiber. I'm not sure why they've been ignored by the Mayor's Office and the DPW. [0] https://www.monkeybrains.net/DPW-MonkeyBrains-March-2011.pdf https://www.monkeybrains.net/DPW-MonkeyBrains-March-2011.pdf [1] http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2010/07/14/micro-trenching-at-sonic-net/ http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2010/07/14/micro-trenching-at-soni... [2] http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/12/15/sonic-net-plans-gigabit-fiber-network-in-san-francisco-release/ http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/12/15/sonic-net-plans-gigabit...
- jseliger 13y ago
  Putting cabinets on sidewalks still seems like a very minor point and still part of the "People United Against Everything" syndrome affecting so much of America. Maybe U-Verse is not that much faster, but faster is still important! If Sonic / Monkeybrains can deliver 1gbps, all the better.
- 13y ago

abvdasker 13y ago

The beautiful thing about this in the long-term is that if Google Fiber succeeds and becomes more widespread, people will start to say, "Why don't we have this?" If this succeeds — and I have little doubt it will — local governments across the country will be under increasing pressure from their constituents to move away from the monopolistic deals most cities have now with Comcast. I see this as a huge step in the right direction and cannot wait to see how it turns out.

bicknergseng 13y ago

To be fair, San Jose has a pretty awful political climate as well. I mean look at VTA.

jason_slack 13y ago
I'm in San Jose, what's wrong with VTA?