I don't understand why people are scared of using services that have relatively low switching barriers, because they may be shut down one day.
I've used so many services over the years - big tech and from start ups that I've since moved form because they closed down or remained stagnant over better alternatives, and I never had to give it a second thought.
This suggests there's alternative services available anyway, so why take the risk on Google at all?
I know people who have Google Fiber, and love it - super fast Internet at reasonable prices. If it got turned off, they would just go with someone else. What exactly do you think the downside is? As a municipality, sure, as the article explains. But as an end consumer, what's the problem?
Where I am, if you relinquish your DSL, you might not be able to get it back, because the telco only has a limited number of ports on their equipment and between new construction and equipment wear and tear, you might not have a port available to serve you. Some places, servicable copper pairs are in short supply too --- my parents have to get switched to a new pair every year or two.
If many people switched away, but then had to switch back, it'd be a mess, and I wouldn't expect to be able to get the same quality dual pair service that I have now.
For another, Google has a ridiculous reputation for customer service. Even saying that is being generous, because most Google services just don't have customer service, at all.
I keep hearing "just go with someone else if they shut down" - so there clearly are alternative services available, presumably ones for whom providing a fibre service to customers is actually a core part of their business and revenue, rather than a side-gig of questionable long-term value to the corporation.
"For another, Google has a ridiculous reputation for customer service." Uhh, yeah, because Comcast and AT&T are famous for their stellar customer service.
Give it a rest, man. I get annoyed as much as anyone with Google's "shiny object" penchants, but this isn't one of those cases.
The article is literally about them abandoning it in a given city because an idea that doesn't pass the sniff test worked out terribly. This is very much Google abandoning a shiny object just because.
Look, we all know, Google abandoning shit is a meme at this point. But there are literally no downsides to the consumer of going with the better product of Google Fiber even if they do abandon it. It's like you and other people want to be mad at Google just because at this point.
Sure, if your time is worth nothing, then there are no downsides.
If you value your time and end up in a scenario like the article describes, you're looking at (a) service interruptions because they wanted to cheap out on the installation, followed by (b) service cancellation because they couldn't be bothered to rectify the problem they caused by cheaping out.
Have you tried Comcast customer service? It's shit. I've had better support with paid Google services (both Pixel and Workspace) than Comcast.
Google has bad customer service reputation only for its free products, which is not unexpected. If someone values good support, then a different paid service is an obvious alternative over a free Google service.
(Assuming internet is a set and forget thing once it’s up and running)
Isn't that for people to decide for themselves? Few reasons I can think of: preference, trust, integrations, better features, don't want to support Comcast, etc.