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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

This sort of veiled insult is not friendly or productive. To provide useful input, I will say I get 100mbps for $50 now, and can get a lot more data for a little more money, but I don't need more at the moment.

Well, the question is less about speed, and more about availability of choice. How many ISPs serve your area, and how many of them have data caps?

That would be a lot more interesting to know.

The "in some areas you have two options to choose from" just sounds completely crazy, like something you’d hear in Soviet Russia, not in the west.

In 2011? Yeah, I think that was reasonable.

The same company is now offering 400Mbps and up to 1Gbps in select areas.

The US ranks in the top 20 globally in regards to consumer Internet speeds, coming in ahead of: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Russia, Italy, Greece, Austria, Israel, Turkey, Ireland and the UK. In fact, the US has improved so much, it need only climb 3mbps to catch Japan on average consumer Internet speed, a drastic catch-up compared to the recent past. Further, most of the nations that rank in front of the US are tiny population wise.

Not only is your poor attempt at an insult bad manners here, you're also wrong.

First, it wasn’t an insult, second, just flagging a discussion down is even worse manners, and third,

I wasn’t questioning the availability of the speed itself (that might be quite good now), but the availability of choice.

And a sentence like "in some areas you can even choose between two options" is a sentence that you’d expect to hear in Soviet Russia. Or in North Korea. Or China. Or East Germany.

Not in the country that used to stand for competition, free market capitalism, and choice: the US.

And going from "'Even the Politburo doesn’t have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev,' [Yeltsin] said.", to "some areas are served by two cable providers" is definitely a fall.