Google Fiber Austin, San Antonio Fiber here? (live, vs)

[saltwater heaven]

Originally Posted by ShadoAngel

You know Austin is more than just UT and 6th street, right? It's also the headquarters for Dell, and almost all the big name silicon valley companies have region headquarters in Austin as well. Austin is a huge technology center, it makes perfect sense for Google to expand their fiber network there..

dell moved a LONG ago. michael sold his home eons ago. also, he's become rather shady lately. have you seen the silver lake thing? why the rush to go private? one word: SELL.

all you named is dell. dell isnt even in austin, its in round rock. apple's call center? wow a whole 500 people. ibm? maybe another 1000... if its still even there.

in the google statement that was released, they arent even building in those areas! theyre building *within the city limits*. all those big name tech companies? yeah their employees dont live there, seeing as you only mentioned dell and dell is in round rock (not in austin).


im sorry but SA has a much better tech backbone than austin has. that craphole is barely starting to upgrade i35. how's mopac traffic? LOL. i still have contacts in austin. your tech backbone hasnt been updated in years, whereas SA's has been forced to upgrade due to us having almost twice as many people as austin.

in conclusion: unless a sudden spurt of wealth has moved into the austin city limits, there is no way that craphole can afford the services offered by google.


ps - has hyde park burnt down yet?

[datacity]

Originally Posted by Rustybolt

My point, datacity, is that we already have these services being provided by more than one private enterprise. If more private firms wish to compete in that market, then great. If CPS Energy, a city government owned monopoly, decided they wanted to get into the business, I would be against it. Use their poles? Sure. Compete directly? No way.

Ok, I can appreciate your concern. However, would you agree that within a given market that at&t, and whatever cable company has a franchise in your area, are monopolies in their respective sectors, telecom and cable?

-----------
As a historical digression, until Ma Bell was broken up nearly 30 years ago, it was the only phone company. Even after the breakup, the various Baby Bells were (and the current at&t created through SBC has been) notorious for playing games with competitors who wanted to offer competing services using the switching centers they maintained. Even though they were supposed to offer switching services for the last mile to the customer at an arms length price to all competitors, all forms of legal loopholes and regulations were used to justify the prices they charged. The result was that very few competitive offerings were available for your local phone service.

Only with the move to IP telephony and broadband in the last 12-15 years has true competition emerged in voice by circumventing the whole POTS network. So now, the same at&t wants to cry that they are handcuffed by the government regulations that force them to maintain the very network they had almost the exclusive use of for decades.

In fact, today you will find at&t pushing Uverse for internet service over standard DSL, even when it is not the optimal solution for a given customer? Yes you can get somewhat faster speeds with the technology used in Uverse, but as more than one at&t technician has told me, standard DSL falls into federal regulations for reliability and service guarantee, just like regular analog phone service. There are financial penalties that come with that regulation if things are not fixed quickly. Uverse services (phone and internet) are exempt from those regulations.

As for Time Warner (and other large cable companies), one need just read what they and Comcast did a few years ago in the major Texas markets to consolidate their power. Or just read the many things that they would like with their broadband network (data caps, data preference) to discourage competitive threats to their TV business from upstarts like Netflix or Amazon Video.
------------

If these companies did not have a monopoly in infrastructure, say if they decided to spin off the physical distribution network to an independent company, then I could understand only letting private companies duke it out in services. But when owning the physical distribution network gives a incumbent an inherent advantage to hold back services and/or engage in a consumer unfriendly policies, well I don't cry for them as much.

Cheers!

[budjb]

Originally Posted by datacity

If these companies did not have a monopoly in infrastructure, say if they decided to spin off the physical distribution network to an independent company, then I could understand only letting private companies duke it out in services. But when owning the physical distribution network gives a incumbent an inherent advantage to hold back services and/or engage in a consumer unfriendly policies, well I don't cry for them as much.

Bingo.

[Rustybolt]

Originally Posted by datacity

Ok, I can appreciate your concern. However, would you agree that within a given market that at&t, and whatever cable company has a franchise in your area, are monopolies in their respective sectors, telecom and cable?

-----------
As a historical digression, until Ma Bell was broken up nearly 30 years ago, it was the only phone company. Even after the breakup, the various Baby Bells were (and the current at&t created through SBC has been) notorious for playing games with competitors who wanted to offer competing services using the switching centers they maintained. Even though they were supposed to offer switching services for the last mile to the customer at an arms length price to all competitors, all forms of legal loopholes and regulations were used to justify the prices they charged. The result was that very few competitive offerings were available for your local phone service.

Only with the move to IP telephony and broadband in the last 12-15 years has true competition emerged in voice by circumventing the whole POTS network. So now, the same at&t wants to cry that they are handcuffed by the government regulations that force them to maintain the very network they had almost the exclusive use of for decades.

In fact, today you will find at&t pushing Uverse for internet service over standard DSL, even when it is not the optimal solution for a given customer? Yes you can get somewhat faster speeds with the technology used in Uverse, but as more than one at&t technician has told me, standard DSL falls into federal regulations for reliability and service guarantee, just like regular analog phone service. There are financial penalties that come with that regulation if things are not fixed quickly. Uverse services (phone and internet) are exempt from those regulations.

As for Time Warner (and other large cable companies), one need just read what they and Comcast did a few years ago in the major Texas markets to consolidate their power. Or just read the many things that they would like with their broadband network (data caps, data preference) to discourage competitive threats to their TV business from upstarts like Netflix or Amazon Video.
------------

If these companies did not have a monopoly in infrastructure, say if they decided to spin off the physical distribution network to an independent company, then I could understand only letting private companies duke it out in services. But when owning the physical distribution network gives a incumbent an inherent advantage to hold back services and/or engage in a consumer unfriendly policies, well I don't cry for them as much.

Cheers!

Good to see you have so much time on your hands so that you can write such a lengthy diatribe. Interesting that you come out so strongly against monopolies owning the infrastructure when in previous posts you were promoting CPS Energy getting into the business. The same CPS Energy that is perhaps the most onerous monopoly we are all subject to.

[Quattro72]

Originally Posted by ShadoAngel

Austin is a huge technology center, it makes perfect sense for Google to expand their fiber network there.

Totally agreed. It is no a brainer for Google to pick Austin.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Rustybolt

Good to see you have so much time on your hands so that you can write such a lengthy diatribe. Interesting that you come out so strongly against monopolies owning the infrastructure when in previous posts you were promoting CPS Energy getting into the business. The same CPS Energy that is perhaps the most onerous monopoly we are all subject to.

A bit unfair since some of your view has nothing to do with countering another view but focusing on another poster instead. There is also a difference between a monopoly and a natural monopoly. You are of course free to attach whatever adjective before either term but not everyone is going to be in agreement.

[datacity]

Originally Posted by Rustybolt

Good to see you have so much time on your hands so that you can write such a lengthy diatribe. Interesting that you come out so strongly against monopolies owning the infrastructure when in previous posts you were promoting CPS Energy getting into the business. The same CPS Energy that is perhaps the most onerous monopoly we are all subject to.

My point is that if "natural" monopolies do not get the job done, either through a lack of regulation or as matter of strategy, then perhaps those are cases where there should be a government option, if not as a substitute, then at least as an alternative option.

As for CPS specifically, I think that for the most part, the utility has done a good job of balancing rates, providing reliable service, and implementing programs that move the grid here toward the future. Are they perfect? No. Are they doing a fairly good job. Yes. I have plenty of family and friends in Dallas, Houston and Austin whose experiences with other utilities I use as points of comparison. Yes, there are aspects to CPS governance and some decisions that I do not like as much, but I would guess that working through the city council might have a better chance of effecting change at CPS versus working with a private company that could care less, unless you are the majority shareholder.

If CPS was doing a really poor job, particularly as a public utility, I would be just as critical, if not more so. Monopolies (private or otherwise, natural or through market share) have to tread a finer line compared to others in their industry, due to their strength. When they engage in unfair practices to crowd out competition or they get complacent to the point of holding back progress, their practices have to be revisited. This is particularly the case when it involves basic quality of life areas such as electricity, water, communication, etc. Otherwise, I tend to think that companies should be left alone.

It is a nuanced perspective and I admit not everyone will agree. Cheers!

[budjb]

I'd love to see a situation where the physical layer is owned and maintained by one entity and players can provide service and compete on that layer. That would allow for competition, improved service, and low rates. A similar setup worked well for the telephone industry.

[datacity]

Originally Posted by budjb

I'd love to see a situation where the physical layer is owned and maintained by one entity and players can provide service and compete on that layer. That would allow for competition, improved service, and low rates. A similar setup worked well for the telephone industry.

You don't have to agree with everything she says, but Susan Crawford has a book that came out a few months ago on this subject matter that illustrates the status quo fairly well. It is called "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age"

Here she is in an interview with Bill Moyers, which is a short introduction to the issues and some steps that can be taken to remedy the situation:

Susan Crawford on Why U.S. Internet Access is Slow, Costly, and Unfair on Vimeo

I am not sure if the solutions would be as easy or cheap when considering a rural roll out of fiber, but as far as major cities are concerned, I do not see why it could not be accomplished. We don't need to match $30 for a 500 MBit connection, but we probably can get to that for around $60-70 like Google has for a 1 Gbit connection.

[GloriaUpson]

Looks like Provo UT is Google Fiber's next rollout. Interesting places they're picking.