San Antonio: Google Fiber on Hold | Hacker News Reader

San Antonio: Google Fiber on Hold

tpr.org

64 pointsesaym83 comments

After searching around San Antonio's terrible local news sites for a while, I finally found a picture of the utility building which has put the project on hold: http://static-21.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/8fc84...

I don't know about everyone else, but my local city has much larger and much uglier utility buildings all over the place for storing municipal equipment. I guess forcing an entire city to live with terrible internet service from incumbent providers seems like a good trade off to avoid having 17 such sheds distributed across an entire city when you're an interfering busybody.

One of the problems in the email is that some huts have been located very close to residences and make a lot of noise 24/7.

Maybe there's something to it.

It seems like a better wall might solve most objections. Something nice looking with some sound-proofing would probably go a long way.

What about just giving those households free internet?

If any of them accept a $70/month "gift" to give up their opposition, then they really were NIMBY's without any real concerns.

So what? Those substations serve thousands of people. Why are we letting busybodies ruin it for everyone? Pay them off and move on.

Or you can simply just sound proof it. You're already open to spending money. Stop trying to externalize your failures.

The NIMBY crowd doesn't care that it's loud, they care that it's there. Loud is a rationalization. It's loud, it causes bird to die, the current causes brain cancer/allergies, etc.

That's a very simplified view, if the A/C is right in front of your bedroom and you can't sleep anymore, it's not $70/month that'll make for it because you basically "can't" live here anymore. I'm all against NIMBY, but I really think it can be legit in such case to request to address sound issues.

You're speaking from biases because you're rejecting what appears to be very reasonable and plausible concerns as being prima facie absurd, without actually knowing any of the specifics in this matter.

Furthermore your proposed remedy isn't even consistent with your biases, as you propose throwing $840 per house per ad infitum will make the complaints go away, and then turn and round and effectively say that nothing would placate them.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If nothing will placate them, then any dollar spent is wasted. If concern is warranted, then spending the money to actually solve the problem would be cheaper over the long term.

You have strong feelings about this topic, and I respect that. However, I've watched NIMBY arguments for a couple decades now and they are all basically the same: fear of decreasing home prices due to visible nearby infrastructure improvements justified by hard to prove allegations of harm to the community.

It's basically greed mixed with selfishness - deny the community improvement for the sake of my portfolio. So, if it's money they care about, then throw money at them. There's a break-even point, of course, where the bribe exceeds the benefit of the improvement.

You'll notice that I never suggested that improving the buildings was mutually exclusive with paying them off. Do both! Make the buildings quieter or less allergenic: try to address the complaint de jour. However, realize that you're treating a symptom, not a cause.

The article is very light on details, direct link to email:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4yHnbgE5ocJbUJpWFJGYUVVajg...

Is this really NIMBYism? People honestly can't stand a small utility building? It's strikes me as slightly odd that the person is sure that the huts make a lot of noise, but unsure if they operate 24/7 - could this be a way of phrasing that the information comes from a third party?

The noise is probably from the air conditioner units which is why the person is unsure how often they operate. They can be quite loud and irritating.

The neighbor's house next door also has air conditioning. Why would the hut have to be louder than that?

There's probably more heat to be removed from what's essentially a small datacentre than from a residential building.

They don't necessarily have to be louder but the two AC units shown in the photo appear to be of the 'louder than a car idling next door' variety. At full bore on a hot summer day you probably wouldn't want to try having a conversation within 10-15ft of them. Hard to say without knowing the details of the sizing or any aftermarket soundproofing they may not be visible in the photo. The neighbors may have a legitimate reason to be upset.

I think in the case of one of the huts they have already installed, it was taking up a quarter of the park total land.

https://goo.gl/maps/s3fXzcywT1w

Noise can be controlled. As I work for a French telco, I know it is one of the important parameters to manage when shoehorning an FTTH head-end in a residential building in a very dense neighborhood. Heat too ! It is routinely done, unless you want to cheap out and just drop a bare container on a concrete slab... Which would not surprise me much in a nation where utility poles are still considered adequate as city infrastructure (I remember the face of one of our American suppliers when he realized that we bury everything...)

Buried everything is not unusual in the US. Roughly 20% of power lines in the US are buried. Contrast that to somewhere like Tokyo, which has less than 10% of its power lines buried (which shoots a massive hole in your theory about that having anything to do with whether a nation's infrastructure is adequate). It varies from location to location in the US; where I grew up, everything was buried. It's bizarre that your supplier would in any regard be surprised by such a thing.

> (which shoots a massive hole in your theory about that having anything to do with whether a nation's infrastructure is adequate)

Let's not pretend the US infrastructure is anywhere near as adequately done as in most North or West-European countries.

I always thought that Tokyo situation is because of constant seismic activity - when you have so many earthquakes it would be very hard to find the break underground

San Antonio's internet service is quite good in large parts of the city—some areas are served by two cable providers. When I lived in Olmos Park a few years ago I think I paid $40/month for 50mbps.

I can second this. I have access to 3 internet providers in my neighborhood. I'm getting 100Mbps for $50 a month.

Yes, cities have bigger uglier buildings everywhere.

They are not usually next to homes or blocking public parks.

Google needs to pay up and make whatever investments are needed so these shacks are in unobjectionable locations. But Google won't do that because they want to freeload by getting giveaway land from the city.

How do you know what Google will do? All we know is that the city agreed with the proposed places, and later backtracked (for good reason, no doubt). Has this happened before and Google gave up on the project?

How about the AT&T/Verizon boxes that blight blocks in every city? Here are some photos of those boxes both in parks and in front of houses:

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2696&h...

Incidentally San Antonio is the headquarters of AT&T(formerly SBC)

AT&T moved its HQ to Dallas back in 2008/2009 - https://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsar...

I did't realize they had moved HQ. They still have a huge presence there, a 14 story building and the ATT Center where the Spurs play. S.A is definitely still ATT's turf though.

I think the boxes should require corporate branding logos to be stenciled on them. Say 10% of the size of the box and prominently located. People should understand each time they see one of those blight boxes that it is AT&T's box.

If the telecoms have to suffer from the eyesore boxes they may expend a little more money to locate them in less prominent places.

Or that might give them yet another in the long list of reasons to continue trying to abandon their wired infrastructure.

Under Google's standard lease terms a City may withdraw from the lease at any time without penalty. Google would then find another site and restore the original site.

Edit: http://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&...

>>> Relocation. The City may require that the Network Equipment and/or Network Huts and all appurtenances be relocated from City property if the City determines that the applicable Network Hut Site is needed by City for a reasonable and necessary public use. The City shall use best efforts to provide sufficient property for Licensee to relocate and shall use reasonable efforts to find relocation property within close proximity to the existing Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall not be required to purchase property or use its powers of eminent domain or other police powers in connection with such relocation. Upon receipt of notification by City to Licensee that the Network Equipment and/or Network Hut must be relocated, Licensee shall proceed with such relocation within a reasonable period of time not to exceed six (6) months of notice. Licensee will vacate the Site and return the Site to its original condition. If Licensee intends to abandon any Network Huts and/or Network Equipment, then Licensee shall notify Licensor of such abandonment and shall remove such facilities within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed six (6) months after providing notice.

Another picture : https://9to5google.com/2017/01/12/google-fiber-san-antonio/

One 'answer' would be to vault these things. A lot of fiber infrastructure is in under ground vaults. When you do that you end up with a concrete pad, a cover where the elevator is, and a bit more work to cover drainage issues. But the infrastructure is not an eyesore.

Subterranean construction (basements, tunnels, subways etc) is uncommon in Texas due to a very thick (6-10') layer of limestone bedrock which must be drilled or blasted. This is probably not a good tradeoff for Google or their partners in terms of cost.

I did begin to wonder why they couldn't just bury the damn things in the first place; still even though it would certainly add to the initial start up cost, once in place they will continue to make Google money so why not spend the extra initially.

I hope they can get the power companies to get rid of those far uglier electrical substations too.

People want infrastructure, not the infrastructure to support the infrastructure.

This same NIMBY attitude is what kept me from getting faster U-Verse service in my SF neighborhood, because they didn't want the (much smaller) U-Verse cabinets on the street... which left me with Comcast as my only high speed internet choice (with unreliable service -- 10 minute outages 3 or 4 times a week). I was so far from the CO that DSL was around 800kbit. (to be fair, the Comcast problem could have been due to poor interior wiring, but TV worked, so the landlord was unwilling to do anything about it).

I'm assuming that is a typo and you're not complaining that you could "only" get 800 megabits per second..

Yeah sorry, meant kbit, fixed.

What if we designed public infrastructure facilities with solving other problems in mind that actually built public support. For example, parking structures with new public parks/soccer fields on top can garner more support than just a simple concrete structure proposal. For these access hubs, maybe we can build them as part of a public toilet structure, god knows we need these in San Francisco.

I bet they'd get more opposition to a public toilet than a utility building. Public toilets will bring "undesirables".

I thought Google Fiber was on hold entirely (everywhere) now[1]? Did I misunderstand that?

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/google...

It's only on hold where they haven't started construction or made commitments to do so.

According the article you just linked, San Antonio was on the list of cities that Google was still committed to with a separate list of paused/canceled cities that San Antonio isn't on.

I saw a Google Fiber van cruising around Brookhaven (just outside of Atlanta) this week.

I'd drag a 50x30 shack around on a chain everywhere I went if it meant bringing Google Fiber to my area.

Here's Sonic's installation video for San Francisco.[1]

Google is talking about San Francisco, but Sonic already has fiber in the entire Sunset and Richmond Districts. Gigabit fiber for $58 per month. Rather than issuing press releases, Sonic is quietly installing fiber.

Their lowest level nodes are boxes on poles. No idea where the next level of concentration is, but they're definitely not putting shipping container sized boxes in SF parks.

SF just passed a new law requiring landlords to allow any network or cable provider to install in their building. No more exclusive deals and kickbacks with Comcast.

Google just isn't very good at this business.

[1] https://www.sonic.com/sanfrancisco

50x30?! hahahaha I used to live in San Antonio. San Antonio is MASSIVE land wise, and very sprawling. There's absolutely no density problems what-so-ever.

Ridiculous.

As a San Antonio resident, tech industry worker, and optimist about the city's future tech relevance, this is sadly representative of the growing pains we have to overcome. NIMBY, sure, but also simple ignorance about how important this could be, and how some huge the returns could be on such small sacrifices.

Efforts to expand the city's tech scene [1, 2, 3] and a significant tech industry driven by notable employers [4, 5, 6, 7] are too often offset by middle-child syndrome among SA's TX peer cities, and misguided conservatism about preserving aspects of the city very few people would miss. Generally speaking, the city is sprawling and not particularly scenic, and I could name 50 eye-sores worse than a few equipment shelters.

There's no reason we couldn't eventually share in and augment Austin's cachet, both cultural and technological (we're already trending towards a south-Texas megalopolis), but we'll have to embrace our strengths and cast off some of these provincial weaknesses.

Crossing my fingers.

1. https://www.satechbloc.com/

2. http://buildsecfoundry.com/

3. http://geekdom.com/

4. https://www.usaa.com/

5. https://www.rackspace.com/

6. http://www.24af.af.mil/

7. https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-centers/texas/

Having lived in both San Antonio and Austin, I wouldn't actually mind much if San Antonio's tech scene caught up. I'm at the point I'm contemplating home ownership, and the fact that a decent house in Austin is starting to hit the $400k market while San Antonio's is literally half of that makes San Antonio very attractive nowadays, especially if they ever get shit together and build a rail between the cities. But my employment prospects are severely diminished there, particularly companies that offer the standard tech work environment and benefits.

And yes, before anyone says anything, I know that Austin is still relatively affordable compared to some of the other tech hubs, but its still its expense is still growing quickly.

NIMBY strikes again. But to be honest, a 30' x 50' (9 x 15 meters) equipment shelter is not small. Even I might have objections.

I would have no objection to a 30' x 50' Google hut in my neighborhood park if it meant having Fiber Internet available.

Parks are parks though. They're not meant to hold internet buildings and other large infrastructure buildings. Why not locate them on commercial space or similar?

Certainly you realize if it was that simple it would have been done.

But was it cost, lack of available commercial space at the correct nexuses, or ???

Does it matter? (I ask seriously) I think you can safely assume that Google would avoid this problem if the cost was not going to seriously affect their plans, because it would be dumb not to. Given that, whether the cost makes it impossible to profit, or the space has to be where it is for logistical reasons, or ... doesn't seem to matter much to me.

Perhaps Google perhaps didn't understand quite how delicate certain community members are.

Personally, I would have assumed that the city / council would be pretty cognizant of that and, once the city council bought in, it was likely to be ok.

I'm not a Google Fiber engineer, but I imagine it was a combination of:

Proximity- some neighborhoods are far away from suitable commercial property. Cost- the city was probably providing the land for free or at a discount (This may be a legitimate concern in and of itself) Not so many other utilities- There may have been less other utilities to contend with in the park versus a a commercial location.

As another poster pointed out, most cities have a lot of far uglier utility infrastructure and city storage build all over town.

Maybe you would, perhaps other people don't want that though.

And that is why they are called NIMBYs.

I think that in order to be a NIMBY either the person needs to be a hypocrite, or the thing the NIMBY is objecting to needs to be seen as widely desirable.

e.g., "Housing is too expensive but I don't want them to build apartments by me" or "I want to pay less rent but I don't want them to build more apartments by me"

Notably, objecting to the building of high speed internet infrastructure doesn't fill one of these criteria unless it is widely seen as an important thing or they want high speed internet.

Maybe it's because I'm still on ADSL1 but I find it hard to believe that fibre Internet wouldn't be seen as a widely important thing...

Why the jump from adsl to fibre? There is likely broadband available already.

In most of the USA, the choice is between "cable company or phone company", where the cable company has coax and offers speeds classified as broadband, while the phone company only has some kind of DSL and tops out pretty slow.

Needless to say, the lack of similar offerings doesn't mean much price competition for broadband speeds.

There are a lot of places that don't have cable, some that don't have DSL, and a few that don't have either. I just moved from a house that didn't have either (I was on Satellite Internet), my new home in the city only has cable, no DSL, so there is no competition (I think there is a wireless provider, but they are pretty expensive and not very fast at all).

I would volunteer to put it in my back yard. YIMBY. Please.

It's ok, AT&T has been aggressively rolling out their fiber service in San Antonio the past year and it's quite good!

Same $70/mo, no data mining, no data caps, no equipment rental fee...and a cool 930-940 Mbps bi-directional...I'm happy :)

Google announced Fiber in several bay area cities at least three years ago. Last year there was a news article that the project has been suspended as they can't access the existing utility poles to lay the fiber optic line.

If you are in South Africa... https://www.fibretiger.co.za

seems like a bad UX design.

I live in Austin, in an area google has designated "the rest of the city", and it's been "coming soon" for a couple of years now.

In parts of Austin and San Antonio you can already get fiber from Grande, at a decent price. Why are people so fixated on Google?

Edit to add: googling for info on this, it looks like Google recently bought a stake in Grande! (http://www.rcrwireless.com/20160816/network-infrastructure/g...) If you can't beat 'em, buy them.

I'm in Austin and have access to AT&T Fiber, Google Fiber, and I think even Grande Fiber (I live downtown). All are about the same price. Before I got Google Fiber I had AT&T Fiber. There is absolutely zero difference in speed up and down. I don't get the fixation of Google Fiber either. If you can get fiber from any provider at affordable pricing, jump all over it.

I buy plenty of "bandwidth" from TWC but I do not get the streaming quality I expect from youtube or netflix. It always starts out HD enough, but it always falls back to a much lower quality after a few minutes. SpeedTest results suggest this should not happen, but I know my way around the cable company fuckery enough to see that a less-tolled route would probably be superior, even at half the max bandwidth.

I had this problem with U-Verse DSL when I lived in Tulsa.

I did not have this issue with AT&T Fiber in Austin. They do not appear to be throttling any services or websites like I experienced with AT&T U-Verse DSL in Tulsa.

I guess it's just a weird branding win for Google. They made such a song and dance about fiber early on, everyone assumes that Google Fiber is great and everybody else sucks.

It seems like that should be a recipe for success, so I also don't understand why they're laying off staff and scaling back their rollout!

Also in Austin. I signed up 2.5 years ago but my install appointment is later today.

I'll never had Google Fiber in my lifetime!

This is hilarious for a country that takes the "put it all on wooden poles" approach to their cabling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com