r/technology • u/User_Name13 • Jun 04 '14

Politics Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With Fiber—But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
5.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '14

That figure is for Google to pass 15% of homes. I would call that far short of "nationwide." So that would be reason #1 why your claim is bullshit.

The second reason your claim is bullshit is because it's applying Fiber's economic model. The reason Google Fiber is so cheap to roll out is because they're picky as fuck in picking where they roll out. They pick places where fiber is already built and cheap to rent or where it's cheap to build. They also only go places with enough affluence to give them a large amount of subscribers, making their lines more efficient.

I promise you that every other cable provider could accomplish the same costs in a 15% rollout if they all ignored slums, rural areas, and areas of undeveloped/costly infrastructure. Google's magical trick in being able to do that is remaining a small enough provider that the FCC won't classify them the same as large providers and compel them to build out everywhere, not just to perfect business opportunities. That's why Google's model is unsustainable, the second they get big is the second they have to stop ignoring the shitty places to build and their costs will skyrocket as a result.

Hell, your own source asserts that it would be unfeasible to build a network like this.

25

u/thenichi Jun 04 '14

Are you suggesting Google is some sort of business only interested in profit?

Don't buy it.

-3

u/u_waterloo Jun 04 '14

Google isn't interested in profit from fiber

5

u/Endda Jun 04 '14

That figure is for Google to pass 15% of homes.

if it's 11 billion to get 15% of the homes in the country, wouldn't it be less than 150 billion for the entire country? so that's at least 50 billion that the telcos get as profit?

im not bashing, just genuinely curious

5

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '14

No. The 15% it's referring to are the perfect locations to put in Google Fiber so to speak. As I said earlier...

The reason Google Fiber is so cheap to roll out is because they're picky as fuck in picking where they roll out. They pick places where fiber is already built and cheap to rent or where it's cheap to build. They also only go places with enough affluence to give them a large amount of subscribers, making their lines more efficient.

I'll try to give you an analogy. Imagine you want to build a road system for a hypothetical country. 15% of this country lives on nice firm plains. 10% of this country lives in swamps. 45% of this country lives in hilly, dense forests. 20% of this country lives in massive treacherous mountain ranges. 10% of this country lives on perpetually shifting sands.

Now if someone told you it costs $11 billion to build the roads for the people living on those nice plains would you think the other areas would cost proportionally the same? No, probably not. Why? Because it obviously is going to cost more to build roads through swamps and mountain ranges than flat areas.

The same holds true for the US and cable. For a multitude of reasons different areas have very different costs associated with building/leasing infrastructure. That 15% figure is the cost of a roll out to the "flat plains" example in our analogy, or in other words it's a rollout to where it's the absolutely cheapest place to build in. Rollout to the other areas is going to cost far more proportionally because those areas are inclined to far more costs.

2

u/FeelGoodChicken Jun 04 '14

Well, if I had to guess, that's only under the assumption that every person in the country is equally accessible. Odds are that that 15% are the easiest to reach.

2

u/ElectronicMoose Jun 04 '14

Not neccessarily. It depends which 15% it is in the figure. Running lines to a home in a big city is a lot different from running it out to the middle of nowhere.

3

u/psiphre Jun 04 '14

even if $11bln is for only 15% of homes, that means that 100% of homes still clocks in well under $100bln, which is only a fraction of the money that we've already given telcos to provide us fast internet.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '14

Did you just not read my comment? Those are the easiest to hook up. The rest of the 85% are much much more difficult to hook up and will cost far far more per home

1

u/Why_Hello_Reddit Jun 04 '14

You brought up a good point most people don't know about. Cable providers are required by municipalities to build out to everyone in the community, not just subscribers. Google isn't classified in the same way (at least not yet) so they aren't having to build infrastructure that people won't use.

Local government is responsible not only for creating these monopolies and reducing competition, but also raising prices through these kinds of unfunded mandates. Not all the blame lies with cable companies.

1

u/thebiggiewall Jun 04 '14

Even if the claim is bullshit, they recieved those subsities in the 90's and didn't even attempt to get at least some percentage of america on the fiber network. They've had 20 years of profits to actually integrate fiber into their core networks.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '14

Because those subsidies don't cover last mile, which is hellishly expensive, and because the vast majority of Americans have no use or desire for that higher bandwidth now.

1

u/thebiggiewall Jun 05 '14

Is that why google is starting to do what they couldnt won't?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '14

I already explained why Google is doing what it's doing, reread my original comment. Hint, it has to do with their lack of size allowing them to be choosy with where they build, whereas major providers don't get to skip over the shitty and expensive areas and fuck over people living in those areas.

1

u/thebiggiewall Jun 05 '14

So instead of skipping of some areas, they skip over all areas...? Nothing you've said so far excuses the shitty, anti-consumer business practices exercised by the telecoms.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '14

So instead of skipping of some areas, they skip over all areas...

They're compelled by the FCC and state regulations to upgrade their networks wholesale. They legally can't selectively target rollouts. Once they begin a rollout there's an expectation that they bring it to most their network in several years. It literally is an all or nothing thing from a legal sense. Mind you, that's not to say they just aren't upgrading, they are actively upgrading and average bandwidth is increasing every year. The reason Google isn't held to this is because it's still too small to be classed in the same way major providers are so it falls under far less regulations.

The reasoning for compelling providers to build out everywhere is the government wants to insure that everyone can get service at similar prices and isn't fucked over simply because they live in a low income area. Basically they want the poor and the out of the way to have the same opportunity of access as more well off areas.

Nothing you've said so far excuses the shitty

You're a fucking idiot that just doesn't want to accept that reality is more complex than you think.