Hacker News Reader

Comment by vb6lives | Hacker News Reader

They tried to lay fiber in 2in trenches instead of typical 6in trenches. Then left when it didn't work. This isn't Goliath beating David. This is David throwing a rock, missing, and going home.

View on HN

I’m not sure David and Goliath is an apt metaphor when Google has a market cap 4x that of a broadband competitor Comcast.

Market cap is only relevant if both companies had a singular focus. Google isn't investing heavily into Google Fiber, and certainly not compared to Comcast.

David vs Satan is more apt

There is micro trenched surface inlaid fiber with grouting ALL OVER downtown Vancouver BC. It's been in successful operation for 15+ years.

It is a lot deeper than 2 inches.

Google tried to do the backfilling/slot filling with some sort of rubber compound or something that was not proper pavement grouting.

Google and their contractor fucked up the OSI layer 1.

The way it's done with the "teraspan" (company name) method in Vancouver BC is not economical to service individual residences, or small buildings, it's a set of networks built for several different companies' last mile fiber access networks to service major class A office towers in the downtown core. The diamond blade concrete saw + microduct + cable + slot filling setup is way too costly in dollars per meter of installed fiber to be used for something like Louisville.

I’m in Salt Lake City and they have the fiber coming to my house strung up on telephone poles, not sure what this “inches under ground” thing means or why it matters. Google fiber has been fantastic for us since day one and it’s sad they aren’t moving forward with it.

Google tried a 'micro trenching' approach to laying fiber in Lousiville - basically, channels cut into pavement in which fiber is laid, then filled in with epoxy on top. As it turns out, Google's specific implementation of this in Lousiville was highly unreliable.

General overview of micro-trenching: https://www.ppc-online.com/blog/best-practice-for-installing...

The use of trenches, micro of otherwise, is for running in locations that either don't have the poles or for which (most of the US) the poles aren't actually owned by the municipality and rented under FRAND terms to anyone that wants to hang a wire (by licenced and bonded independent contractors).

If you read the article that you're commenting on they make it pretty clear what this “inches under ground” thing means and why it matters.

Is there any technical analysis or reports available online on why the trenches didn't work ? I've always wondered if we could use our network of roads to bring internet to the doorstep by laying lines just below the road surface.

Trenches _do_ work, but they must have a minimum depth (>20cm), not just 8cm ones like Google tried.

You don't need much technical analysis here. Shallow trenches break more easily, leading to higher maintenance costs. 2 inches is nothing.

At 2 inches its not even deep enough to survive a road repavement.

> technical analysis

Probably not, but common sense should be enough. It is 2 inches, on a road...

Is there any particular two inch trenches were dug? Was it too expensive? Extra permits?

If I understand your question correctly, they used 2" trenches because shallower === faster. However, they were so shallow--and the surfacing material so brittle--that the fibers ended up getting damaged too often. So they corrected with slightly deeper trenches afterwards.

Shallower === cheaper

Faster also === cheaper, so "shallower === faster" implies "shallower === cheaper" anyway.

They were copying a Germen technique (curb trenching) but trying to cut costs even further[0]. Google called it an experiment.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wisrs03EkDM

Thanks!

They aren't exactly dominating in markets outside Louisville either.

Doesn’t he have four more?

They are stalled in other cities too, where they are using traditional methods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com