Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjic | Hacker News Reader

You may have a problem in NY.

In general, the more built up a place is, the more vested interests there are, and the more they are able to manipulate the legislative process.

Google moves at Internet speed.

Out in the "real world", it's still illegal to sell cars and wine over the Internet, because the local car and liquor distributors have gotten their preferences written into the law.

You may find that Google can't go the last 20 feet to your house without buying off a few hundred interest groups, politicians, and unions.

View on HN

Not to mention it's harder to build a network where everything is paved over and digging requires navigating through a couple hundred years of previous projects (and having to use union labor for it). I don't envy anyone having to plan a network buildout in NYC.

In many other parts of the country it's mostly digging through dirt and in when you're in a neighborhood using a water jet to tunnel under driveways. Piece of cake.

Rolling out fiber in NYC takes less digging than you might think, there is a lot of open space where huge bundles of copper wire where used by the telcos. It can become expensive to rewire a building, but cable companies did this not so long ago.

It's not just NY. It's a lot of places. Many towns have locked down franchise agreements for telephone and cable tv "utilities" just like they do for water or power.

If Google admits they're going to deliver advanced Google Voice or YouTube services over these lines, that's infringing on these agreements and the towns face lawsuits from the legacy carriers.

You can't just hop on poles and start stringing wires all over the place.

But I highly doubt Google is planning on offering "Cable Video." In the same way that VOIP is differentiated from Voice Service according to the FCC, offering IPTV does not require a Service Provider to register as a Cable Franchise. VOIP & IPTV are seen as "applications," not a native service type.

Google's own press release suggests they're looking for new ways to use ultra-highspeed broadband:

Or downloading a high-definition, full-length feature film in less than five minutes. Or collaborating with classmates around the world while watching live 3-D video of university lecture.

Now look at how Geneva, Illinois fought off AT&T U-Verse (called "Project Lightspeed" in the experimental phase) because they already had television franchise agreements in place and didn't want to get sued by the cable company:

http://www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm

(Note, also, that Geneva tried to set up their own broadband network and was roadblocked by AT&T. Karma is a bitch.)

I'm not suggesting that Google is looking to offer cable TV. I'm just implying that you can't waltz into a town and offer these kinds of services without raising the hackles of the existing companies that are providing utility services in most typical towns.

A town might willingly invite Google with open arms, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal by a long shot. Expect lawsuits.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. Of course there will be lawsuits, but my point was that by current definitions they should not be in violation of cable franchise agreements, even if they are allowing users to download full-feature films in < 5 minutes.

Therein lies the opportunity. An abundant inventory of dark fibre. The financial resources to lay the foundation for a new city. Everyone will have fibre to their door. I'm no fanboy, but Googleville anyone?

Thanks man. I feel much better now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com