As you can surmise by reading this article, the rise of the wireless ISPs (or WISPs) is not because the wireless technology is better or drastically cheaper. It's because in so many places, the incumbents are able to prevent you from building out fiber. They simply haven't developed the weapons to destroy the WISPs yet, but unless the political climate in states/cities changes, they will.<p>It is tough for WISPs to compete on latency[1]. Not to say there's no value in it or that it couldn't be improved, but right now, aside from the political/regulatory issues, fiber is the best way to build an awesome network for customers.<p>If you want to work on software at a company that is deploying fiber in multiple cities, we're hiring[2].<p>[1] <a href="https://serverfault.com/questions/286588/intermittent-high-ping-latency-problem#286603" rel="nofollow">https://serverfault.com/questions/286588/intermittent-high-p...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16493742" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16493742</a>
I wonder, was Google Fibre ever intended to succeed in the traditional sense?<p>Instead, perhaps it was an attempt by Google to change the industry by 1) scaring the incumbents into improving, and 2) expanding consumers' Overton windows[1] regarding what they could/should expect.<p>Google presumably wants to ensure its services can be delivered to consumers, so this would seem towards that end. As another commenter notes, Google also has deep pockets. Creating & operating a whole company as a PR 'stunt' doesn't seem beyond the realms of reasonable probability.<p>PS: I think a similar argument can be made for Tesla. I don't think it is a given that Musk intends for Tesla's success to be an economic one.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window</a><p>Edit: made last sentence less strong.
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022.<p>Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
I remember the prevailing attitude at the time in message boards being that Google had no real intention of taking this serious and was instead just trying to bluff the entrenched interests to upgrade.<p>It worked in the markets Google rolled out in...and that was it. These companies stubbornly refused to preempt Googles expansion anywhere.<p>Maybe they called Googles bluff, maybe they were never nimble enough to even think about getting ahead of Google let alone execute it, and maybe Google was just never that serious in the first place.
Google seems to halfass a lot of their products. I really had expected it would at least be live in the Bay Area right now. It's not like Google doesn't have the money.
Our city just built a fiber network and GF was the first to offer service.<p>Since they have come to town, ATT has installed their own fiber network in our neighborhood and Comcast has increased their speeds. I consider our local area disrupted. And I feel no matter what happens with GF, we’ll have faster internet from now on.<p>BTW: cut the cord. GF 1Gb plan with DirecTV Now and YouTube TV.
I think some people still don't realize quite how expensive it is to truly build out a national Telecom network. I remember when Clearwire raised ~$7 billion [1] and still wasn't in many markets and rural areas, ultimately selling to Sprint for pennies on the dollar. The infrastructure costs are staggering, and even a rich company like Google can't just dip their toes in hoping to succeed.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/clearwire#section-funding-rounds" rel="nofollow">https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/clearwire#section-fu...</a>
<a href="http://www.speedtest.net/result/7112084631" rel="nofollow">http://www.speedtest.net/result/7112084631</a> is my 4G home wireless "broadband" plan's speed in suburban Melbourne, Australia. Basically 10/1 Mb which is not great, but still much better than what I was getting with ADSL, and I'll have to wait another year or two until the NBN rollout reaches my house. But by 2020 the mobile networks will be rolling out 5G.<p>Apart from mailing out the modem to me, my wireless ISP has basically zero marginal installation cost for adding me as a customer, assuming their closest towers have sufficient capacity (they vetted my address first before selling me the wireless modem). And I know for a fact that they're capping my modem's speed in software as my 4G smartphone's connection is much faster. This is why the NBN's CEO said wireless networks are its biggest threat.
GF potential customer here in Atlanta, I will say 5 years in it has been nothing but a series of disappointments. I was in one of the first neighborhoods to get GF actually laid down. I have been promised "any day now" for 2 years. But what it looks like is if your house is not on a direct fiber line, it will never be coming. GF had promised it would get ATT to complete the 1 block connection between their fiber and my house for 2 years.<p>However I did get fiber from ATT for 100 meg symmetrical for 50 bucks a month. And unlike comcast it really delivers 100 megabits per second. I could have gotten the full gig fiber for 70 a month. But it did not seem worth it.
> By late 2016, Google executives clearly started becoming disenfranchised by the slow pace ...<p>I assume they mean "disenchanted" -- this sentence makes no sense as written.
Honestly I'm sure they just realized how time consuming and expensive it is. And fiber isn't their main gig so they decided to duck out.<p>AT+T rolled out fiber to my neighborhood over the last 6 months. They've been digging up yards and shared areas for months and I was the first person in my area to sign up. It took multiple visits for the techs to fix the line noise and clean the lines after the first rollout, and the techs are still here almost every day fixing other noise/line issues the last few weeks.<p>Laying new cable is expensive and time consuming.
Recall the CEO's departure and scale-back announcement[0]. There was going to be a shift of direction towards other kinds of last-mile (or even, last 100 yards) technology. Its a shame we haven't heard any more since then.<p>[0]: <a href="https://fiber.googleblog.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-bet.html" rel="nofollow">https://fiber.googleblog.com/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-b...</a>
Though I'd have the option of getting Google Fiber if I only lived across the street, I still consider it a win, because after Time Warner was bought by Charter which was bought by Spectrum, they're now starting to compete with speed offerings.<p>Before Spectrum came into town, Time Warner was "forced" to give me 300Mb/s at my 100Mb/s price simply because the average in the area was significantly higher after most of the city switched to Google Fiber. It made me laugh, thinking they had this capacity all the time but didn't even offer it residentially.<p>I have the option of using Spectrum @ 940Mbs down now; which probably would have never happened if Google Fiber didn't infiltrate my city.
I'm pretty happy with the results. The local company here in Portland really stepped up the rollout of their gigabit service and while it's not quite a full gigabit by my tests, it's more than fast enough (~400mbps).
But is wireless seriously an alternative to fiber? I mean with 4k streaming spreading, what will happen on a super bowl night? There is only one shared bandwidth.
Living near kc, they're not very good at marketing to the local audiences.<p>Many people don't understand the difference between 1gpbs and "up to 300mbps".
I'm still on the cheapest plan I could find, which is 60 Mbps for $40/month. Even if fiber were $70/month, I'm not sure I would buy it, as 60 Mbps seems to be doing the job fine. What kind of things would 1 Gbps allow me to do that I currently cannot, that would justify an extra $30/month?
I have fiber internet at home (US) and while I'm generally happy with it, the thing I'm most happy about it is I'm no longer giving Time Warner Cable / Spectrum any of my money. In terms of speed, yes it's fast (1gb up/down) but let's be honest, there are very few things that can make use of that bandwidth. As a test I just downloaded an Ubuntu ISO at 40 megabytes/sec (320 megabits/sec.) While it's nice, if I had to wait 4 minutes instead of 1.5 minutes with my old service, it's not really changing my world/life.
Maybe it's because I live in a wealthier and more dense metropolitan area where there is actually still some semblance of competition between them, but over that same time period both major ISPs in the area have stepped up the speeds they offer and prices haven't risen to match(as far as I can tell). Their lowest tier service is 50mbit, which was just a few years ago one of the highest. Both are offering gigabit to the home now, and one offers 2 gigabit in certain areas.
It's a management failure. They should have pushed further, despite monopolists' resistance. But they gave up. Didn't they know it was a long term investment? Alphabet could afford it.<p><i>> And in markets that Google Fiber has been deployed, it has resulted in a dramatic reduction in prices among regional incumbents.</i><p>Yeah, that's the main outcome. Gigabit for $70 is a norm today, and if someone charges a lot more, it's viewed as a rip off. And not only in markets where they deployed.
That’s because google rewards launching and doesn’t reward improvement. People launched, got their brownie points, and now things are staffed by two kinds of folks: a). Those who don’t yet know they’ll get nothing for their effort, and b). Those who do. So things deteriorate on their way to getting canceled. This happens all the time there.
Also, they didn't really seek to keep expenses down where they could. Both the jack and the router are proprietary, for instance. Also, in very high density areas like high rise apartments, normal cat6a would more than suffice at half the price of single-mode fiber, and that's not even taking into the account the price of switch equipment.
Vice Media itself is a creature of the old media. It may successfully transform itself into a new media company. I've noted a lot of Far-Left ideological bias there, however. In my estimation, it's the 2018 equivalent of Fox News, just on the other side of the political spectrum.
This might be a bit off topic, but it seems folks still want to use the word "disenfranchised" in the wrong context.<p>To be disenfranchised, it means you have lost the political privilege to vote. It is not a synonym for "disillusioned".
There's a simple solution to this really - force ISPs to charge the same price to everyone. The fact that there are different prices in different areas is really weird and I don't think it happens in any other country.
I feel like this is almost everything google does now... do they actually have a growing profit outside of digital advertising? Digital advertising seems like a growing quagmire of difficulties and skepticism.
One thing is that most people really dont need gigabit connection. I'd think most people couldn't tell the difference between 10mbps & 1gig. Maybe 25-100 mbps is required if you have 8 kids each streaming their own movies.<p>Maybe 5g is enough and the fiber rollout is a waste of resources.<p>Upstream backups are a little different. It doesn't work quick enough with dsl. But isn't that important.
Today, I am able to get Gigabit fiber (1000/1000) in my area for $80/month. It's not from Google, but from a major ISP.<p>I am pretty confident if Google Fiber never existed, it would not have pushed other ISP's into fiber expansion at such an affordable consumer price.<p>Hopefully the fall of net neutrality is stopped before all this progress goes to shit.
If even Google cannot penetrate this market then it's for all intents and purposes 100% impenetrable. Unless somebody comes up with a radically different strategy, the ISP market in USA should be considered monopolized and should be broken down by the government (fat chance). In any case, it's game over for consumers - abandon all hope.
Tech companies are incredibly profitable. Fixed costs are really low. Employees are probably the biggest cost. This is in stark contrast to the likes of, say, Comcast, Spectrum or Verizon that have massive capex budgets.<p>Building a broadband network is an interesting business. I like to describe it as a hyper-local national business. I saw this because every municipality has different rules (eg compare getting pole access in Louisville vs Nashville vs Austin), the ground is different (one area might have a lot of limestone in the ground and make trenching slow, difficult and expensive) and so on. Getting something resolved might be a case of whoever is the construction manager in a given area knowing the right person to call that might otherwise have 11 people standing around for 2 days.<p>This is something that national ISPs are exceedingly good at because they've spent decades doing it. I mean they go further than that by trying to keep competitors out through regulatory blocks and so forth but this doesn't change the fact that this is a core competency.<p>It is not nor was it ever Google's core competency. Google is at its heart a technical company that solves technical problems. Making search or Maps or GMail worth with petabytes or even exabytes of data is something Google is exceedingly good at. This is an entirely different business model and core competency.<p>I don't know this for a fact but I SUSPECT that Google's executives went into Fiber with the naive belief that (a lot of hand-waving here) they were Google and could do anything and somehow they could reduce the cost per household connected from a more normal $1000-3000 to <$500. This might be true if it was a software problem. Digging up trenches and stringing cables to poles is not a software problem.<p>What's more Google has never really had to control costs in the same sense that a large capital project would have to. Worse, Google's culture that it'll ship when it ships (which is great from a software engineering POV) doesn't work when you need to plan for lighting up networks and areas and there are a lot of moving parts to make that happen. It's really a case of what gets measured gets done.<p>Add to this that there is uncertainty over what the future of fixed broadband is going to be. Will it be wireless or wired? That's the ultimate question. If it's wireless and you've just spent $50B building a national wired network then... woops. If it's wired and you've just invested $25B in building wireless infrastructure then... woops.<p>I suspect it's one of these cases where doing nothing is worse than doing something but I suspect Google's board was scared off by the large capital costs involved in doing anything and were too risk-averse to be wrong.<p>Disclaimer: Ex-Fiber Xoogler.
Not really surprising, my own country is still profiting from the massive investment in cable done by the state owned telecom operators in the 80s. Infrastructure like this is something that can only be done with government support.
Google suck at doing anything that do not support "push to prod" antics.<p>The company at its core is a child of the web, and thus it struggles to manage anything that can't have a change/fix/AB-test pushed out on a whim.