Google Fiber is hitting the pause button on discussion with "potential fiber cities", and will lay off about 9% of its approximately 1,500 employees. Craig Barratt, the CEO of Alphabet's Access division, is also stepping down.
After rolling out its Fiber product in about a dozen cities, Google is hitting pause on its project to deploy superfast Internet across the country. The news may come as a disappointment to those who were hoping the search giant would bring competition and faster speeds to their area.
[...] Even as Google Fiber pays lots of money to lay down cables and secure access to TV programming, a different type of technology is coming down the pike: wireless fiber. [...] There are signs that Google is moving in this direction, too. In June, it acquired Webpass, a provider of wireless broadband. Other acquisitions support this theory. And in its announcement Tuesday, Google Fiber said it would be looking at "new technology and deployment methods to make superfast Internet more abundant than it is today." So even if Google Fiber is on hold in its current incarnation, changes in technology may someday reduce the costs Google faces today.
Comcast and AT&T are still trying to hinder Google Fiber access to utility poles in Nashville. Both ISPs have filed suit against the Metro Government of Nashville for passing a "One Touch Make Ready" ordinance that benefits Google Fiber.
Previously: Google Fiber Gets Rid of "Free" Service in Kansas City
Costly Google Fiber Service Being Scaled Back in Favor of Google Wireless
Nashville Officials Approve Ordinance to Give Google Fiber Faster Access to Utility Poles
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @10:08PM
I'll take that one:
Militarism. Estimates range between 54 percent and 59 percent of the USA's discretionary budget.
(Note that, when ALL related expenditures are counted, -none- of the totals are below 50 percent.)
That could easily be cut by 40 percentage points and leave a more-than-adequate defense of the homeland.
...of course, it bears mentioning that *defense* is NOT what the USA military is for.[1]
Properly named, it would be called The Department of Aggression.
During WWII, it was still called The Department of War, which was more accurate.
[1] ...and the only armed service which -does- serve in an actual **defensive** role is the Coast Guard.
...which has been under the departments of Treasury, Commerce and Labor, Commerce, Treasury again, Transportation, and Homeland Security.
The only times it has been under The Department of War was during WWI (2 years) and WWII (4 years and 2 months). [uscg.mil]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 28 2016, @10:52PM
> could easily be cut by 40 percentage points
And cause one hell of a recession in the process... The main advantage of being paranoid about building weapons is the amount of domestic work it creates, typically in good stable jobs.
Should it be cut? Sure, but the only reasonable approach would be to trim over a couple decades (deny overall growth, trim political-related expenses).
Oddly, we should thank Duterte, Trump, and a few Japanese-teen-rapists for their contribution to reducing excess overseas deployments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @01:09AM
In recent days, I've mentioned how militarism actually has a poor Multiplier Effect.
Since I first posted here, I've been mentioning how The New Deal had an excellent Multiplier Effect.
When militarism is cut, you put those folks to work on INFRASTRUCTURE, rebuilding the nation's crumbling roads and bridges and water systems and schools and all the other stuff that's falling to pieces.
While we're at it, put unemployed IT workers to the task of securing our poorly secured online infrastructure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]