dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
122
share rss forum feed
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

Google Fiber and Quick Quality decision making.

KCKS and KCMO were the tests for the legal work aspects of Google Fiber. Other cities used those two examples to craft their own legal documents in a relatively quicker manner than they normally would. Overland Park failed to take the need for speedy quality legal work seriously. They now go to the back of the line of those in the metropolitan area waiting for Google Fiber(GF).

GF has had to learn about dealing with complex demographic variations. The problems in KCMO and KCKS showed that different approaches were needed to get different groups to be enthusiastic about signing up for GF. GF learned that the information they had originally used to design each Fiberhood's goal was not reliable, so they adjusted the goals to more realistic ones for some Fiberhoods. They even came up with a second chance rally for those Fiberhoods that missed getting to goal the first time. Unlike some ISPs who come in with detailed lists of areas of the city they deem not worthy of service, GF tried a unique approach to allow all areas of KCMO and KCKS to get GF service. They have learned valuable lessons about designing rallies that involve communities more comprehensively in the early stages, prior to the actual registration period for residents. This should reduce the need for second chance rallies.

Cities have learned about moving more quickly than usual, while still maintaining legal quality. If there are any more cities that are approached by GF, they will have an extensive number of examples of how to move the legal process along in a swifter manner than usual. Another thing to note is that municipalities might be quite free to pay for the hook up costs($300) by having a group of philanthropic entities join together to give GF enough money to cover the entire number of residences within that municipality. Goodbye to accusations of discriminatory deployment.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Google Fiber and Quick Quality decision making.

There were nothing about quality decision making. Only decision making that was done was Google saying this is what is going to happen or you don't get anything. They just found suckers that were eager to agree to their mess of a contract- including the City of Provo who agreed to sell their network for $1 but yet is still on the hook for all that debt. Any smart city would have made the buyer pay all that off if they wanted to take over that network; or at least pay half.
Bengie25

join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Reviews:
·Solarus

Re: Google Fiber and Quick Quality decision making.

Provo was so miss-managed that they were better off abandoning the network, that is why they sold it for $1.

If you had a nuclear disaster in your backyard and had the choice of paying millions to clean it up or just leave the land, you'd probably just leave and buy new land.

That's what Provo did.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Google Fiber and Quick Quality decision making.

Not completely, they didn't just leave it and buy new land. They got suckered into the Muni wave, and got stuck with a massive debt load they'll never be able to pay off. And Provo already sold the network twice before Google and had an ISP actually selling services on the Network that they kicked off to be part of the Google wave. But it still doesn't change the fact that Muni projects fail, and the tax payers are always on the hook to pay for them. They should put those millions into new emergency service, more police officers, fire/ems staff, new million dollar EMSes, fire trucks, and countless other services than a half-ass built muni FTTH network because DSLR says the cities need one.

insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
said by TBBroadband:

Only decision making that was done was Google saying this is what is going to happen or you don't get anything.

False. Google negotiated for 10 months and OP essentially had the best contract out of anyone who has signed a deal. Towns are able to negotiate just fine with google.

OP made the mistake of trying to deal on a point google could never concede. The point of contention is that OP wanted google to pay for any damage OP accidentally causes to google lines.

Google can't accept that kind of unlimited liability. Google wants the town to be responsible for paying them to repair lines if the city causes the damage.

Without the clause, OP could just destroy google fiber lines while doing any of their infrastructure projects and not give a shit about avoiding the line or working with google to handle moving lines that need to be moved.