I think one of the best things about Google Fiber is actually how it is shining a light on the levels of bureaucracy in our governments and the ways they can either be a catalyst or an impediment to progress, innovation, etc.
I don't necessarily want more government or less government--I want better government, and more transparency on when our government is working or failing is helpful for getting there.
Markets and incentives work, and businesses respond to them. If SF thwarted innovation, we would see less of it there and more of it elsewhere, like Kansas City.
> Can you imagine the Seattle City Council keeping a secret like this and then acting on it in just one day? Of course not. We’d need to have endless community meetings and hearings and public floggings of Google Executives.
Not to mention Kshama Sawant grandstanding about completely irrelevant topics. I can't understand how she got elected.
Because the majority of the people that voted in her district were tired of having an insular rep on the council, so they voted for The Other Guy? Seattle politics is quite strange, coming from the midwest. Politics isn't blood sport out here.
As srj notes, Conlin barely had a campaign whereas Sawant had an amazing campaign, with 100s of volunteers and great messaging (key to motivating your base). Conlin couldn't even muster a ballot chasing effort during the recount. Pathetic.
The comparative effort (amazing vs no show) demonstrates just how hard it is to unseat an incumbent.
Sawant's campaign buoyed the public financing and district reform (switch from at large council seats to district & at large hybrid), as well as McGinn's vote count.
So while I like and voted for Conlin, I do acknowledge and appreciate what Sawant did for progressive issues.
I am not one of the anti-corporate tin-foil hat Googlephobes, but I think that having one company with that much vertical integration over everything as important as the Internet is just a bit dangerous.
I doubt Google particularly wants to be an ISP, but something has to be done to break up the stalemate in the US. Google are one of the few companies with enough clout to actually get the ball rolling.
I am positive this is the real and only reason Google is doing this. It's the reason they became a browser vendor and the improvement in browser capabilities and standards has been glorious.
Seattle has Condo Internet and Cascade Link. Both provide gigabit. The Gigabit Squared thing fell apart.
Condo Internet uses a combination of microwave and fiber to provide connectivity to the buildings that they service. They only target apartments/condos, since building the infrastructure to individual residences is not worth it.
"They only target apartments/condos, since building the infrastructure to individual residences is not worth it."
So the definite haves of the city will continue to have amazing access to this world-changing network that we call the Internet and the rest of the city can go screw itself. The vast majority of Seattle's housing stock is in single-family and small multi-family dwellings. Holding up a couple of providers that cherry-pick the easiest ones does not make for a broadband plan, especially when a lot of those SFH-style dwellings are rented by people, either wholly or by the room, who couldn't afford the prices of the very expensive buildings served by CondoInternet or Cascade. Sure, those folks (who aren't all flat broke and destitute, just don't make a quarter-million per year) can suck it up and deal with Comcast and caps and horrible customer service so long as the condo-dwellers get 1Gbps service in addition to their unobstructed views of the Space Needle.
The vast majority of Seattle's housing stock is in single-family and small multi-family dwellings
1. That's primarily a political choice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7344438. One could argue that SFH residents are already telling everyone who wants to live in Seattle but can't afford to, to screw themselves.
2. It's much cheaper per unit to deploy fiber to apartments and condos than it is to single-family houses; it seems unlikely that most residents of such housing would want to pay the true cost of the rollout.
From the linked map, a sizable chunk of Seattle is zoned Lowrise (LR1/LR2/LR3), which is multifamily zoning. Is it the fault of the people who already live there that they haven't torn down their houses and built three townhomes on that lot?
> it seems unlikely that most residents of such housing would want to pay the true cost of the rollout.
Great, I'd love to talk to a company that provides gigabit service in Seattle who will provide a gigabit link to my residence and charge me no more than $2,000 for the install. (Why $2,000? I dunno, out of thin air, I suppose.) "But that's not the true cost of the rollout?" Awesome, and the subscribers to CondoInternet didn't pay the massive up-front cost for their links, either.
Here's my main complaint: People hold up CondoInternet and say "look, look, Seattle has gigabit Internet, why are you still complaining?" That's not anywhere close to answering the underlying discussion. Even if everyone who wanted gigabit could afford to live in those places, they wouldn't physically hold all of the people. It's like the FCC saying that one person in a ZIP code has DSL so the entire area "has broadband."
The debate over SFH versus multifamily is a good one, and I'd love it to tilt in favor of multifamily. But ignoring 95% of a city's residents is not the way to go about getting better access. Hell, even Comcast manages to cover the majority of Seattle with 50Mbps speeds.
Being in a condo that has Condo Internet myself, there really isn't much need for Google Fiber. Instead we get a local and responsive company with actual 24 hour tech support that provides high speed, low latency connectivity for $60.
Agreed. I've been a CondoInternet customer for a while, and have had an incredibly positive experience. They even just announced a promotion on their gigabit plan for $80 a month with no contract.
However, it is a pity that it's restricted to condos and large apartment complexes right now. It would be great if services like this were ubiquitous. Gigabit availability was a large factor in my decision of where to live.
However, it is a pity that it's restricted to condos and large apartment complexes right now. It would be great if services like this were ubiquitous
One obvious solution is to relax zoning rules in Seattle; a lot more condos and apartment complexes would be built if it were legal to do so, and the benefits would extend far beyond fiber connections (see, for example, Matt Yglesias's The Rent Is Too Damn High or Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City for more).
If you're asking because you're wondering how bad the latency is, remember that microwave is the speed of light and the most direct route between two points. It'll be better than fiber, all other things being equal. It's possible the bandwidth isn't up to snuff, but latency shouldn't be a problem.
I'm guessing these microwave links are short enough to blast through poor atmospheric conditions that are very common in a place like Seattle. At greater distances from the provider packet loss (resulting latency problems) could be a legitimate concern.
Are there any places with Condo Internet that might be considered affordable? Something less than $400,000, or $1300 a month rent? I'd be willing to move for this, but so far I've only seen it available in the $2000/month range.
I've been wondering the same thing - I live in a small studio now for an extremely low price, but have been considering upgrading for a multitude of reasons, including going from 12mbit Centurylink (the best I can get in my building) to gigabit Condointernet. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to rent at a Condointernet served building for under $1800, which is a bit more than I'd like to pay (especially when I manage to eek by for under $700 with all utilities included).
Near my house the power runs on poles through a wooded area. Every year, when the wind blows, trees fall on it and take out the power. Sometimes twice a year. They're always out there replacing broken poles and pulling new wire.
I call the power company up now and then and suggest they bury the wire in the section. Or sometimes I'll suggest to the linemen as I pass them putting in a new pole. They get rid of me with some excuse they made up on the spot, and nothing changes.
Power systems engineer here. Mixing above and below grade conductor on the same distribution line is not a common construction practice, at least not downstream of the first customer. There are a few reasons.
Most faults seen on overhead distribution systems are momentary (i.e. they clear without human invention, e.g. line-to-line squirrel contact). For this reason, automatic reclosers are typically used at the station breaker. Conversely, automatic reclose is not used on underground distribution systems because momentary contacts are rare and attempting to reclose on a permanent fault just causes further damage to your breaker and other distribution assets.
Additionally, the types of conductor used for underground and overhead applications are completely different. They'd have to be spliced going into and out of the duct (you don't just put wires in the ground, you have to pour a concrete-encased duct) which adds an additional point of failure.
I understand that have two outages per year is annoying, but the thing about power distribution is that making a perfect system is much, much more expensive than making one that works most of the time for most of the people. And that money comes from your electricity rates.
The "last mile" to my neighborhood is actually underground. It's the feed to the community that's on poles, and the whole community goes down when a tree falls. I know about momentary ones where the power comes back on in a few seconds, those happen a lot, I am counting the ones where they have to send a truck out. The power is then out for from 6 hrs to 2 weeks.
As for rates, the paper ran an article a few years back on how much of our rates were based on the constant repairing of the poles - it was a big chunk, though I don't recall the details. Having a 3 man crew out there for several hours with their heavy equipment costs a bundle.
The underground section needed a repair exactly once, and the power didn't even go out.
About 2/3 of the homeowners in the community have given up and bought generators. Generators run from $500 to $5000 - I'd rather pay higher rates and not need one of those things.
The "last mile" to my neighborhood is actually underground. It's the feed to the community that's on poles
Every neighborhood within a 10 mile radius of my house is set up the same way. Poles on the main streets, underground into the cul-de-sacs.
About 2/3 of the homeowners in the community have given up and bought generators.
Eight years ago I bought a $250 gas "camping" generator. It has a peak of 4,000 watts. Running from the outdoor patio outside my walk-out basement, it's good enough to run a refrigerator, keep a computer and Internet going so I can work from home and keep cell phones charged. The recent ice storms we experienced on the East Cost left us without power for 3 days and reminded me how handy even a small generator can be.
It's on some steep slopes, and cutting the trees down will destabilize the slope, besides making people mad.
They do trim the branches now and then.
I just don't see why it's so impractical to break out the Ditch Witch and cut a trench, and lay the durned cable in it. It was done for my neighborhood, and the developer wasn't known for spending excess money :-)
In the link above, it seemed like the domain expert was quite enjoying the conversation, everything was polite and friendly and the resulting information was quite educational.
Sounds like the analogies of Seattle being the San Francisco of the northwest (or vice versa) are correct... we have the same issues with bureaucracy, progress-fearing residents, etc. I actually thought I was reading the Pando article from a week ago (http://pando.com/2014/02/25/having-being-burned-once-before-...), and someone just did a s/san francisco/seattle.
Time Warner increased speeds in Austin after Google Fiber was announced? I guess that doesn't apply to either my home or work connection, they're both still as shitty as ever.
I live in Austin and have Time Warner Cable, my bill is roughly $173.00 per month. This is includes Internet (30 Mbps down/5Mbps up) and basic cable (no premium channels).
For people living in Austin, I doubt we will see increased speeds or better price offerings from AT&T/TWC until the day Google Fiber is available to significant portions of the city's population.
If you're paying $173/mo for that internet and actual 'basic cable' - big 4 + pbs/shopping/church - you are being abused and should cancel immediately.
That sounds overpriced given any definition of basic cable I can think of.
My roommate works in retention at TWC. GP can definitely call and get that cut quite significantly. GP may not even have to threaten to leave -- just ask them to see if any promotions are available for that area. If they don't or don't offer enough of a discount, then threaten to cancel, get transferred to retention, and likely get an even better rate. The reps definitely have limits in what they can cut you down to, but $173/mo for basic cable and the 30mbps connection is pretty far from what they can get you down to.
Holy shit, are those prices normal for Austin? Everywhere I've lived (Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee) I've paid roughly $40-50/month for just internet from Comcast that's also a bit faster than yours.
I've always been on promo deals, but even the "regular" price is $70-80.
TWC in Cary, NC for 5/30 service (nothing else, just Internet) is $72.38/month. And they just sent me a letter saying rates are going up.
My only theoretical alternative is AT&T but last I checked they don't even know my address exists (my house was built in 2004).
Meanwhile Wilson, NC built out its own network after getting fed up with broadband providers not willing to service her citizens. Of course that won't be happening elsewhere in NC since TWC successfully lobbied the state legislature to prevent other towns from doing so. Anyway, here's the pricing in Wilson http://www.greenlightnc.com/about/internet/
My hometown in the Chicago suburbs attempted to build out their own fiber network to provide service to residents sometime in the mid 2000s. I was in high school at the time, but I still get so damn angry thinking back on Comcast's explicit lobbying and campaigning against it. They sold the older population in town that it was this huge gamble.
I can still picture the signs Comcast put in people's yards. They were bright red, had dice on them, and said "Don't gamble with our tax dollars." There were letters to the editor in the local papers on both sides, but it was clear from almost the beginning that too few people understood the value of municipal fiber, and the vote didn't pass.
Today, my parents have barely functioning UVerse.
Also, your internet option is super gross, that's really too bad. I recently moved for work to a more rural area, but thankfully the same package was available.
TWC is ridiculous on price. My complex was wired for it but they would only sell me "business class" rather than consumer. I instead got U-Verse (18 down / ?? up) for $45 per month.
Define "normal." If you let your rate increase after your promotional period ends, then yes, but it only takes one phone call to retention to get that back down.
Basic cable runs over clear QAM and can't be blocked per FCC rules. It gets broadcast over the line unfiltered if you have Internet. So if you are paying for it, stop.
Time Warner has announced that they will be increasing speeds and maintaining the current price structure[1]. New speeds are expected to be available Fall 2014.
> So is all hope lost for Google Fiber in Seattle? What would it take to entice Google here?
> We’ve considered spending the $700 million or more it would cost to build our own fiber network, which might provide a billion dollars in benefits each year.
Why do we want Google Fiber in cities so badly? What's the benefit over building your own network, or partnering with someone like Gigabit Squared?
It is not just about Google Fiber despite the article title. This article presents regulations that will prevent any real ISP competition, including Gigabit Squared, and is really quite depressing as a Seattle resident. Google Fiber just happens to be a significant national competitor that people know about.
Google has proven its ability to execute. Building your own network or trusting a no-name startup is much harder, not that its not possible. Google just seems to be the easier route.
I said this in a reddit thread about this very subject, but we already have 2 ISPs in Seattle that deliver gigbabit speed. They just need money. And probably people.
The article is a little unfair to Seattle. Note the alacrity with which the city clamped down on Lyft and Uber - clearly you can get some things done here if you know the right people.
Why does Google's proposed fiber map [2] include not a single city in the northeast or the Rust Belt?
Chicago, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh are all major cities that are at least "on the map" as far as tech is concerned. I know for a fact that the local authorities in Detroit, Cincinnati and Cleveland would bend over backwards for any project that has even the slightest whiff of economic development.
I can understand NYC being a special case that they don't want to deal with, but there are plenty of other cities in the region.
Chicago is the king of Politics and needless regulation. Cronyism isn't something talked about in back allay's, it's a legitimate way to get a job/win a contract. No one looks twice at that. All comcast has to do to keep Google out is tell Rahm that he shouldn't let it happen and BOOM - no google in Chicago.
It becomes especially obvious in the winter when you see only certain parts of the city getting cleared immediately after a snow storm, those parts are where the alderman of that neighborhood lives, or a friend of the mayor lives on that block (and they'll do that, just plow a single block). Th rest of the city is plowed as well but it takes a couple days as the plows first have to do their crazy routes to make sure that major donors are all taken care of. I didn't really notice this until our alderman changed (I guess I used to live fairly close to the old one). The new alderman lives nearly a mile away from me and thus my block is one of the last in the city to get cleared where as in previous years, it was done directly following major streets. (the streets nearest to her are all plowed and clear immediately, and they're of the same significance that my street is, so it's not like balance was suddenly restored, they just moved the favor elsewhere).
It's really the only reason I'm a republican: this city is all blue and completely corrupt, I don't at all understand how people look at Obama, or Durbin, or Pelosi and don't see someone who has no morals and is in it for I don't even know what (as Obama seems to not even care about the power his position offers).
First, they have the growing low-regulation cities of the south which have plenty of customers. Second, they have the high-tech centers of Portland and San Jose which have so many tech customers that Google wants to serve them even though it is not low-regulation.
Poorer regions, non-tech regions, and high-regulation regions are all less interesting. Detroit, for example, hits the trifecta of all three disadvantages.
With the exception of NH (maybe Maine too?) the north east offers even more red tape than we have outlined in this article. Higher labour/fuel costs too.
The truth is that most places in the US have multiple layers of local and state levels of bureaucracy that make it extremely difficult for anyone who has not paid the "franchise fees" to string fiber. Even wireless is difficult since you need fiber to cell sites and all the same hurdles make it ridiculously expensive to get fiber to the towers. This is a problem that it almost impossible to solve on a large level since it is all controlled by municipalities and state puc's. This is why most people will never see GF or similar cheap Broadband in this country for a long time if ever.
Didn't pioneer square just roll out broadband like a year or two ago on the city's dime because at $60k rollout cost none of the cable companies wanted to touch it? And that's supposed to a be a small business and startup friendly enclave!
I don't necessarily want more government or less government--I want better government, and more transparency on when our government is working or failing is helpful for getting there.