Quote:
Originally Posted by penguinz
There was never any plans to go underground. The cost would be too high.
The issue with the utility poles was that on he KS side the city/county owns the poles and there was miscommunication between the two on where on the pole the fiber was going to be hung.
On the MO side Google has reached agreements with KCPL for the hanging of the fiber and since KCPL owns those poles there should not be these issues.
|
Again, I'm not talking necessarily about the legal issues surrounding using the poles. I'm talking strictly about the rate of failure of aerial fiber vs. underground fiber in an area that sees freezing/ice regularly. Google is laying fiber to compete in the area but it's unlikely that it will ever be more than that, due to the cost/benefit issues of providing such a service.
Google doesn't have the breadth of media services to compete without entering into agreements with other media providers, forcing them into the same kind of business model the other cable and telecom providers in the area use. There's nothing that really "differentiates" them, outside of their name and the loyalty to it. That ties back to the aerial fiber in that even their cable plant will be similar to their competitors - they won't necessarily be able to provide a "more stable" connection or better "uptime". They promise higher speeds but notice that said press releases always say that their prices will be "comparable and competitive" which means it's NOT going to be cheaper.
By contrast, my local provider here buried their fiber. They've already seen a
76% reduction in outside plant-related trouble tickets and are projected to save $20M over the next 10 years. That $20M, from a competitive standpoint, gives them an extreme edge over the competition in the area because they can afford to streamline, invest, and otherwise re-shape their business.