Slashdot Mirror


Google Announces Plans, Pricing For Kansas City Fiber Network

Kiyyik writes "Google just announced the details behind their inaugural fiber optic service in Kansas City. They're doing a set of packages including $120/month for tv plus internet, $75/month for internet alone, and regular 'conventional' internet for a one time $300 fee. Rollouts are starting in the central areas and will work their way out on a demand basis: at least ten percent of a neighborhood must sign up for the service before Google will come in and start hanging fiber." Update: 07/26 22:04 GMT by T : Nick Kolakowski points out at GeekNet's Slash Cloud that this Google will probably hinge future developments on how well the Kansas City push works.

9 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Unusual Pricing by twohands · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well, Verizon charges, what, $200 per month for 300 Mb/s FiOS? I'd say what Google's offering is a pretty good deal.

  2. Re:Unusual Pricing by P-niiice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those prices could be competitive, depending on what's being offered. $120 for TV+internet - if it's comparable to Direct TV I'd hop all over it.

    What I really want is a good competitor to bring some pain to the existing providers who overcharge, underserve, and have no incentive to lower prices. And that includes content makers like Viacom. I hope Google succeeds.

  3. Re:Unusual Pricing by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where exactly have you seen prices for 1Gbps Internet access that make $70/month seem high?

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. How is this really helping the world? by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $75/mo just for internet seems steep for most people. And very few who really need 1G can't afford it. It's not like the relatively piddle amount of money it's saving them is going to induce a massive wave of job creation.

    Now if it were 100Mb for $25 that would be more news worthy in my opinion.

    1. Re:How is this really helping the world? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What it's doing for the world is introducing a competitor to the ISP oligopoly that actually has the muscle to not be stomped on. When people start seeing how cheap it actually is to provide broadband (after all, the $300 is to cover the infrastructure installation - after that it's FREE), it might light a fire under AT&T, Comcast, etc. to actually start playing by the rules of capitalism again.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
  5. Re:For some reason by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    QoS, for example, ensures my SSH packets are delivered on a timely basis and that it doesn't wund up waiting behind the packets of my neighbor's torrents. In theory, my neighbor still gets his bandwidth, but his packet latency will be slightly higher; which is still perfectly acceptable for that type of traffic.

    This is a valid correction, but the GP's point holds regardless. Given sufficient bandwidth, QoS is as unnecessary as traffic shaping. Your SSH packet -- or, more importantly, my VOIP packet -- may end up waiting behind the neighbor's torrent packet, but since his 1500-byte torrent packet only blocks ours for 15 microseconds, who cares?

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Re:EVIL-TOS: Not allowed to host any type of serve by RobbieCrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this pretty much a universal condition for residential internet?

    --
    Keep on knockin'
    https://robbiecrash.me
  7. Re:Needs more service/pricing tiers by BadgerRush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The hole point of Google's experiment is to show people that 20MB, 30MB or even 50MB is not enough, we all grew complacent with our current slow internet speeds and, given the option, would chose slow internet, Google is trying to break that. What we have now is a race to the bottom where entrepreneurs don't create services which require fast internet because no-one has a fast internet, and no-one buys fast internet because there are no sites/services to use it. Google's idea is to foster a new generation of web services where bandwidth is simply not an issue.

    What they are doing is the internet equivalent of the Apolo program, and you are saying "I don't want a rocket, why don't they build cars?". I don't even live in the USA and I don't have ANY hope that Google will open an ISP here, but I'm happy and hope they succeed because their work will show the whole world that we can/should have more.

  8. Re:EVIL-TOS: Not allowed to host any type of serve by Atryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The self-driving car is laughable. Google is not going to become an auto manufacturer. Google is not going to become a technology provider to an existing auto manufacturer. The existing manufacturers suffer from Not Invented Here Syndrome worse than almost any other industry. They're the very definition of hidebound, and it's no surprise, as they've been exposed to the kind attentions of the aforementioned institutional investors for generations now. I give Google's project another year before they pull the plug, and that's optimistic.

    Google's objective isn't to become an auto-manufacturer or to become a supplier to them. Their objective isn't to directly make money on this at all.

    Their objective is to free up the billions of eyeball-hours spent on driving so they can be used for something else....

    --
    Come play Moral Decay!