90 Percent of Eligible Kansas City Neighborhoods Sign Up For Google Fiber

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

90 Percent of Eligible Kansas City Neighborhoods Sign Up For Google Fiber

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 10, 2012 @03:01AM from the greased-lightning dept.

puddingebola writes in with a story about how popular Google Fiber is in Kansas City. "The company wrote in a blog post yesterday that at least 180 out of 202 'fiberhoods' have already qualified for the super-high-speed Internet service. Google says that it's still processing verification requests, and should be able to hand over the final list later this week. Since bringing fiber to homes can be expensive, Google is charging each home that hopes to hook up to the service a one-time $300 construction fee."

241 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:03 · Score: -1

...the fibre will be nailed to a wooden post for the next 150 years, like always in backwards America.
1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Digging is ok in most parts of the country. But lets pick a 'big city' New York. Do you have any idea how much infrastructure is under those roads already? Oh which is used and which isnt? Not so simple a task anymore is it?
  How about Texas. Nice open wide spaces. Did you know there are many areas where digging involves explosives? Dig down 1-2 (sometimes more shallow) ft and you are in bedrock.
  Ok lets pick the one Google picked. Kansas city. They probably can dig. So long as they do not mind the occasional boulder. The soil is fairly soft (being so close to a major river). So they probably will dig.
  Or we can make wild sweeping statements like 'always in backwards America'. Those guys putting in those wires sure are stupid aren't they? Putting in wire needs to be tailored for each region. The Americas has a wildly diverse soil, rock, hilly areas. That is putting aside any sort of 'traditional way it is done in the area' and laws.
2. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Let me guess.. you're from New York...
3. Re:And... by gameboyhippo · 2012-09-10 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  I don't care how it gets to me. I just wish they offered it NORTH OF THE RIVER! It doesn't make sense to not offer it north of the MO where there is a major tech company in the area who employs nerds who are all drooling over this.
4. Re:And... by X0563511 · 2012-09-10 03:31 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  In a place like New York, you shouldn't have to dig. Shouldn't there be plenty of space and pullcords in the existing conduits?
  Hell, tie the fibre to the copper and yank the copper out.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
5. Re:And... by Kiyyik · 2012-09-10 03:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I know what you mean. I'm south side, and *just* outside of the service area. I swear, I can smell the bandwidth from there. Hopefully they'll come around the other side of 71.
6. Re:And... by cfulton · 2012-09-10 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They are going to use the existing power poles here in KC. It was one of the original stumbling blocks. The city is letting them use the infrastructure for less than they charge existing cable and telephone companies.
  
  --
  No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
7. Re:And... by Githaron · 2012-09-10 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  People and businesses will not be please if they lose internet for more than a few hours. I am going to guess that yanking the backbone lines of copper out and replacing it with fiber is going to take a significant amount of time.
8. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I don't care how it gets to me. I just wish they offered it NORTH OF THE RIVER! It doesn't make sense to not offer it north of the MO where there is a major tech company in the area who employs nerds who are all drooling over this.
  Well, the solution is simple; You just need to park your van DOWN BY THE RIVER!
9. Re:And... by KhabaLox · 2012-09-10 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Parent and GP should report back here in sixth months with how much this has affected property values.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
10. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:46 · Score: -1
  
  Kansas city resident here. The fiber is being mounted on existing poles, not underground.
11. Re:And... by Kiyyik · 2012-09-10 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, hopefully they'll have gotten their butts down here by then, but we'll have to see. Still, it is an interesting question, though I can't imagine too much of a real estate migration being driven by fiber, except by outlier geeks like us ;)
12. Re:And... by rabtech · 2012-09-10 05:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Digging is ok in most parts of the country. But lets pick a 'big city' New York. Do you have any idea how much infrastructure is under those roads already? Oh which is used and which isnt? Not so simple a task anymore is it?
  This is much less of a problem then most people realize. My north-Dallas suburb has all underground utilities (including electricity) running under the sidewalks (due to legacy layout there is no right-of-way zone) and Verizon managed to run fiber with zero issues and without digging up the sidewalks. Unfortunately Dallas proper is ATT so no fiber for those inside the city limits, which is funny because the much higher density would make it a better payoff. NYC is more complicated but ultimately it can (and is) being done.
  The utilities tend to be segmented vertically, with more sensitive ones buried deeper, then with same-class services being spread out horizontally. The fiber was run by using machines that navigate conduit through the ground without actually digging the entire length up. This also allows you to run new conduit under existing services without disturbing them. I'm not sure how much sensing those machines have but it would be fairly easy to have metal-sensors, radar, ultrasound, etc in the dig head, along with actuation to allow you to steer it. This would let you avoid almost any issues by sensing when you are near a gas line or legacy copper and steering the cutting head around it (the conduit itself is flexible plastic). Funny enough, the densest downtown cores all have underground utility tunnels and the like which makes running lines there even easier.
  What we do know is that Verizon was able to reduce their capex spend on legacy copper infrastructure in FIOS areas and that the actual rollout was less expensive and faster than anticipated. It will certainly pay for itself in less than 20 years. They also claim to have spent 20 billion on it, but when you look at their capex budgets over the past few years you can see that a lot of that is offset by less spending on the copper plant.
  Think about that for a minute... For maybe 100 billion (less than 1/5 of the defense budget) we could roll out gigabit fiber to 90% of all homes and businesses in the United States. There is a ton of dark fiber criss-crossing the country for backbone purposes.
  The problem isn't money and it isn't technical. The problem is that our institutions are dysfunctional (by design). Our Telco companies would rather pump the short-term stock price than invest in infrastructure - the new Verizon CEO killed future FIOS rollouts and did the handshake deal with cable to avoid competing with each other so they can focus on wireless revenue - a place where data caps and high prices ensure huge profits.
  Our government has been hijacked by the "no new taxes ever" crowd, who deliberately cut taxes to introduce deficits, to justify cutting government services and reducing the pay/benefits (and thus quality) of government employees**. Then they point to the government they deliberately broke as justification for further cuts.
  **Why is it that you only need to spend money to buy a good CEO? Why can't the government spend money to buy good civil servants? Or get more employees to reduce lines at places like the DMV or INS?
  No new infrastructure has ever succeeded without massive government intervention. Part of that is you can only get financing when you can show a good chance of return on investment... but with new infrastructure you are stuck with the chicken and egg problem. Without the infrastructure there is no demand and without demand private enterprise won't build the infrastructure.
  Government financed, cleared the way for, and rolled out the army to protect the trans-continental railroad. Without the largesse of the federal government the railroads would have only built the profitable lines to certain areas, on incompatible track gauges (check the history books). Without government-mandated air brakes and knuckle couplers we'd sti
  
  --
  Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
13. Re:And... by interkin3tic · 2012-09-10 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  Also a lot of tree-lined streets in KC. I doubt that would actually impede things, but I'd imagine some concerned neighborhoods association would make a lot of FUD about that regardless of the truth. When I lived there, Kansas City defeated a light-rail proposal largely due to suburban concerns that it would bring people from downtown to the suburbs to rape, pillage, and murder. I wouldn't say as a city, they're particularly ignorant or paranoid, but they're not perfect obviously.
14. Re:And... by interkin3tic · 2012-09-10 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  Is competition heating up there despite the fact that google isn't coming there yet? I was wondering if comcrap or anyone else would be trying to up their offer and keep customers from being lured away. Maybe you'll get some of that?
15. Re:And... by drkstr1 · 2012-09-10 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Parent and GP should pitch in and set up a proxy/cache server with a colo inside the service area.
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
16. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  This gets modded insightful +4 on this site? Has the slashdot readership finally gone full retard?
17. Re:And... by gameboyhippo · 2012-09-10 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  No... The ISPs in KC are Time Warner and AT&T. I'm barely outside the "fiberhood", so perhaps the rest of the city is getting some awesome deals. Perhaps I should give AT&T a call and see what they can do for me to prevent me from going Google (despite the fact that I'm a few blocks away from the fiberhood).
18. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Digging there isn't the expense, the issue is going to be the installation of the fiber into publicly owned access points ("manholes", subway tunnels, cross river tunnels, etc.). There's a lot of rules and regulations there, and you have to use certain labor organizations to do the work (i.e. mafia owned, union run, expensive, slow and always overbudget). You may question my politics, but I lived there for most of my life...nothing in or around NY can be done legally, without a lot of money being spent.
19. Re:And... by SilentStaid · 2012-09-10 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  My fault, I modded it "Funny" thinking he was sarcastic. Posting to undo that.
20. Re:And... by Kiyyik · 2012-09-10 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, TW just mailed me a flyer for free TV service for one year if I buy into their Ultimate Internet package, but their connection is dodgy at best, so I don't see that happening. And AT&T fiber isn't even close to gigabit here. So at this point I'm just waiting.
21. Re:And... by wiedzmin · 2012-09-10 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or, they could simply "blow" the fiber through one of the existing conduits/pipes.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
22. Re:And... by wiedzmin · 2012-09-10 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Can't yank the copper, most of the time copper is responsible for 911 services, and removing it is a huge, huge liability, no matter how many people use their cellphones for it these days.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
23. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Will this have huge, ugly, distribution boxes placed in inappropriate areas, like people's front lawns? The many in differing areas, or even countries, have railed about?
24. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  You're speaking the truth, but not in a language most americans can understand.
25. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Then why pull the copper lines out? Just leave them in for emergencies, out-of-band signalling, or lease them to alternative service providers (if they are government-owned lines and they haven't been already) - you know, ensure competition so market forces can actually work?
26. Re:And... by Githaron · 2012-09-10 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  That would depend on whether or not there is room available for both.
27. Re:And... by flirno · 2012-09-11 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  That would be nice if they existed. The infrastructure here is OLD.
obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:04 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new gigabit overlords.
Google can shove that fiber right up its shiny met by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:08 · Score: -1

al ass! It won't work people it will make bleed out your eyes and genitalia. I know because I work for a cable company.
I don't get fiber by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 03:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fiber was a big dream of perfection like 5 years ago. Now I get a 10x1Mb connection for like $30 with Time Warner and it pings at about 19ms. I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointless. Both my roommate and I can watch netflix in HD at the same time with bandwidth to spare. Even Nvidia driver download finish in like 2 minutes. I do website design quite a bit so a faster upload would be really, really nice but that doesn't apply to a whole lot of other customers out there. Giant Steam game downloads apply to a certain percentage but not even that often for hardware gamers. Is the only reason for fiber (in home personal use) p2p downloading? Because I don't see what else would be driving it other than flashy marketing meets stupid people.
1. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you live? What you're reporting absolutely does not seem to be the norm for most people in the US. For instance, here Time Warner is more like $50, and it tops out at about 4 Mb down in my testing.
2. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because 640kb of ram ought to be enough for anybody right?
3. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Fiber may not be relevant for most of the population at this very minute, but let's look ahead 5, 10, even 20 years to future needs, and consider how important it is to get a high-speed communications infrastructure built *now*. If you want further proof, look back 5, 10, 20 years, and consider just how much bandwidth and data transfer needs have increased dramatically since then: the same thing will happen going forward, and will keep happening.
4. Re:I don't get fiber by Mr.+Kinky · 2012-09-10 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  10x 1Mb wat?
5. Re:I don't get fiber by hypergreatthing · 2012-09-10 03:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ohh wow.
  I live in an area that gets fios, 150mbit down/ 65 up.
  Sure torrents are faster. Usenet is even faster, but everything is just so much quicker. Those downloads you wait 2 minutes for? Try like 5 seconds on my end. There's really no wait time for things. I have a openvpn set up between my home and a remote location and copying things to my backup site is much quicker and faster. I can even open videos on the other site and watch them real time without having to download them. I don't really get the concept of "ohh this is enough, i don't need any more". There's always a use for more bandwidth and speed. Plus it drives the prices down due to competition. Maybe the fastest speed isn't worth the price, but you'd better bet the competition will take note and offer better deals.
6. Re:I don't get fiber by Crasoose · 2012-09-10 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You're a total geek and you can't figure out what to do with a better upload speed than 1Mbps? Turn in your geek card, your time has come.
7. Re:I don't get fiber by h4rr4r · 2012-09-10 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have 25/25 and am considering going faster.
  10x1mb seems slow, why would you not want to go faster?
  Do you never access data from your home computers while somewhere else?
  Here is what drives it:
  Skype and other HD video chat, Steam and Desura and the like, Hosting your own data by yourself, legal p2p, illegal p2p, and the whole host of things that will be created to take advantage of it.
8. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up, so a 10 x 1 Mbps connection
9. Re:I don't get fiber by afidel · 2012-09-10 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  Live content requires more bandwidth, the Olympics coverage from NBC was running about 7Mbps and it was barely adequate, double the bandwidth likely would have resulted in a significantly better picture. Add to that the fact that an average household can have 4 streams going and you could easily get to 60Mbps of just video streams, and that's for today's technology. Google is mostly looking at what next generation uses may spring up when bandwidth becomes ubiquitous, think of it as a private version of Internet 2.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
10. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  but you'd better bet the competition will take note and offer better deals.
  What is this "competition" that you speak of?
11. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's all about future-proofing and simplifying the infrastructure. You're talking about 2x HIGHLY COMPRESSED HD video streams. Frankly, the quality of that feed is marginal. 10Mb is not even close to enough for 1080p @ Bluray bandwidths.
  10x1 or even 30x10 is fast enough "right now", but will single-conductor cable be able to deliver 1Gb speeds? 10Gb? 100Gb? 10 years from now we will want/need more bandwidth, not less.
  Also cable modems are band-aids for an existing infrastructure; You're switching from Fiber (most likely) to Coax to Ethernet. Sticking with Fiber-Fiber-Ethernet would be much simpler and possibly cheaper to implement and maintain.
  One more big item (for me anyway): Lightning. Fiber optic simply cannot pass electricity. I have a lot of lightning suppression at my house (amateur radio) and I haven't had a single radio die due to lightning...but I've been through 5x routers, 2x TV's, 2x receiver, 3x Game consoles because the cable and/or telephone company can't seem to figure out grounding properly.
12. Re:I don't get fiber by Overzeetop · 2012-09-10 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  I wish I had it, 'cause I get it. I'm on 4M/768k DSL service - it's the fastest I can get without getting worked over by (historically unreliable, but faster) Comcast cable - those are my only two terrestrial options. I'm effectively locked out of all of the cloud services because my upstream is so slow. Even with 1Mb, your upstream makes it difficult to backup to a cloud service. I have ~250GB-300GB of data, closer to 450GB of data if you include audio, but that's months of upload time. I've done it once, then the service - LiveDrive - went down for 3 weeks and lost about 3/4 of my data. It affected how I worked, but I always keep up to date off-line copies so I didn't lose anything. Still, the thought of saturating my connections for months (and degrading VoIP and slowing down everything else we do) has kept me from getting on to other services.
  Having 100/100 symmetrical (or faster) internet is nice because you're no longer waiting for data. Even at 10Mb, you're spending minutes waiting for downloads. That sounds funny for those of us who remember 300baud (or slower) modems, but there's no reason why waiting should be a given for internet. For a given price, I would rather have a 500GB cap/quota and Gb internet speed than a 4Mb line (which can download 1.2TB/mo).
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
13. Re:I don't get fiber by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-09-10 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  The question isn't whether what you have now is enough to do what you're already doing. Obviously, it's sufficient even if it could be better. The question is, what aren't you doing that you would be doing if you had a 50x50 connection? What aren't you doing that you would be doing if everyone had a 50x50 connection?
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
14. Re:I don't get fiber by war4peace · 2012-09-10 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's all a matter of perspective. Being used to slooow speeds makes people not need more. It's simple habit. On the other hand, I pay the equivalent of 10 dollars a month for 100 mbit/s optical fiber transfer speed, at least metropolitan. Of course, downloading from external sources slows the transfer down to cca 20 mbit/s but I admit I mostly use metropolitan for heavy transfers. I sometimes transfer gigabytes of data (mostly pictures) to friends or family within the metropolitan network and it's blazing fast.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
15. Re:I don't get fiber by xaxa · 2012-09-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've just moved house in London, and the new place can't get cable broadband, only ADSL. We've gone from 60Mbit/s down, 3Mbit/s up, to 13Mbit/s down, something (1?) up. (There was an option of 100 down, 5 up at the old place, but it was twice the price, so we didn't bother with it.)
  It's not the end of the world, and the other things about the new place (location, cost etc) make up for it. But it's going to be more annoying -- I'm going to have to go back to checking if my flatmate is gaming before starting a large download, and uploading photographs is going to take 3 times longer.
  This company: https://hyperoptic.com/web/guest/home is doing fibre-to-the-building in the UK, but they're just starting out and don't seem to have many buildings yet. I'll sign up as soon as they do!
16. Re:I don't get fiber by sjames · 2012-09-10 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  Consider, streaming down 2 live HDTV mpeg streams. You're already past your max down. Now, try to have a video conference connection (even just between 2 parties) now your over your upstream capability as well.
  Meanwhile, there's a lot of potential uses that never see the light of day because they're obviously impractical while people are limited to 10x1 Mbps.
  For example, might it be nice if you could VPN in to work and mount the corporate fileserver directly onto your PC? That's not going to be a lot of fun at 10x1. It's annoyingly slow at 10x10 if your work with significant amounts of data.
  Meanwhile, many people will just be fed up with an ISP that knows there's nowhere else for them to go.
17. Re:I don't get fiber by cfulton · 2012-09-10 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  A total geek, but you don't see the day when fiber to the house could be necessary. A day might be coming when several 3D Billion Pixel movie streams are coming into the residential environment. Capacity will almost always be used by something.
  
  --
  No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
18. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The usual separator there is the slash.
19. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  56k was a big dream of perfection like 5 years ago. Now I get a 28.8k connection for like $30 with CompuServe and it pings at about 100ms. I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointless.
  -- Quote from you, or someone easily interchangeable with you, from around 15-20 years ago.
  Or do I need to go back to how my old 1200 baud Commodore modem changed everything over the old 300 baud? I'm certain some of the REAL old-timers said the same thing back when wide-scale long-range networking over phone lines was REALLY in its infancy. They could probably tell you alllllll about how available bandwidth changes the way people think, and they'd probably have better stories than my zippy quick 300 baud modem.
  Maybe we could also go back to how much smaller the US became in a big damn hurry when the Pony Express was running. Send a letter from the original colonies out to the west coast in under a week?!? Of what use is THAT? Come now, I maintain correspondence with my cousins, searching for their riches out in the gold mines, and I daresay any means of communication faster than the months it takes independent couriers to dispatch a missive to the mining towns would be preposterous and unnecessary!
20. Re:I don't get fiber by timeOday · 2012-09-10 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think the most significant thing here is is 1 Gb Upstream . The Internet's underlying technology is fundamentally peer-to-peer, but the subsequent evolution of the Internet has been firmly rooted in the assumption of clients and servers. I feel the Internet is getting too centralized. With 1 Gb upstream, you could serve a popular website or other service from your home (granted, not youtube.. but don't worry you won't be that successful :)
  Now you will say, "nobody wants to do that." Ok, but why? There's no inherent reason hosting your own email server or website has to be a pain, if there were user-friendly software and hardware to do it.
21. Re:I don't get fiber by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  An area with around 150,000 somewhat wealthy people in Wisconsin. I think they have enough customers to run a pretty nice infrastructure at a nice price. it was 3 megabits like 7 years ago but they kept upping it. In real bandwidth tests at our old house, new house, then my new apartment, all test at exactly what they state I get too. You should move to Wisconsin lol. By the way, they now have in my area Turbo (22-28 Mb) and wideband (50+ Mb) and that's over copper with a fiber backbone so why do we need fiber for homes again? I even tested random addresses and they all qualified for wideband because it's not as location-sensitive as DSL.
22. Re:I don't get fiber by timeOday · 2012-09-10 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Oh crap, I just noticed a complaint below about server hosting not allowed. Now I think it is pointless.
  As a point of reference, I've hosted my own ssh/website/email on my Comcast account for over 10 years without any trouble. And since they have a bandwidth cap, I figure that should settle the issue... so long as I'm within the limit why would they complain?
23. Re:I don't get fiber by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly? Host a website? No static IP and I have a multi-host. Host a gaming server? All my games have better company servers. Host a Linux distro image? Why? Why would I pay more money just to do that? So nothing particularly legal comes to mind. There's not 1 single thing I can think of that fits "Oh man, if only I had a faster connection, I could..." And in case you missed it, via copper coax, Time Warner offers a 50Mb connection in my area. Why do we need fiber for home users again? Time Warner has a fiber backbone. I don't need them cutting holes in my walls to put fiber in when I can get 50Mb over a coax cable lol.
24. Re:I don't get fiber by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Skype operates at their maximum allowed free account bandwidth already on my connection as far as I can tell. Steam I download a game for about 1 every 3 months tops. I don't leave my computer running while I'm gone because my room gets too hot and you know, the electrical bill and hard drive wear and tear. Anything I need to access while away is on a synced thumb drive. Keep in mind, I'm an IT manager and computer repair business owner. 99% of other people have even less need for high bandwidth than me and even I don't really need it. In case you missed my other post, Time Warner also offers 50 megabit connections for home users via copper on its premium service. Kinda tears fiber apart lol.
25. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  2 minutes for a Nvidia driver download? lol. The point is to NOT be slow.
26. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Geeks don't actually need valid economical reasons for any of this. Turn in your geek card already..
27. Re:I don't get fiber by TCM · 2012-09-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Total geek" my ass. Nobody uses a "10x1" notation.
  
  --
  Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
28. Re:I don't get fiber by h4rr4r · 2012-09-10 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Tears fiber apart?
  I can get 150/150 on FIOS if I want to pay for it. That kills cable.
  You sound like you are getting old, being a manager and all, you don't use as much data as younger folks like myself. I bet far more than 1% uses more data than you. Why sync a thumb drive when I can pull the data right off one of the machines at my house? With 25Mb up and 4G all around town, that is nice and fast.
  I do run one computer 24x7 it is hidden away and no one can see or hear it. The $5 a month in electricity is well worth it. I do turn if off if I am going on vacation for more than a couple days or out of the country.
29. Re:I don't get fiber by Githaron · 2012-09-10 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Think bigger. Gigabit speeds open the market to whole new applications of the internet. Just because we wouldn't use it to its full potential immediately doesn't mean that we won't eventually do so.
30. Re:I don't get fiber by rtb61 · 2012-09-10 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Think of a family connection. Four people watching different programs at the same time. Now how many people make or receive phone calls whilst watching a video program. Now add in downloading other software whilst watching a program, just for example legally bought steam games. Now ramp up that phone call to a video call and add in email or something you will see more often now that fibre has become available vid-mail.
  Now I wont bother totalling that all up because of course that steam game wants it to be downloaded as fast as possible same with the vid-mail. Of course people will be passing a lot more video around the internet especially with phones becoming much more capable at producing it. Even without wanting maximum download speed for the items mentioned a digital family could readily suck 25 MB download and you can see how burst into 100 MB is desirable when people are waiting for the game they have just bought.
  Then of course there are things like scenery channel for people without a view but who have a 90inch LED LCD screen, I have a view and believe me they are well worth it. With falling prices in video displays having a live scenery feed, whilst watching a program are feasible. Just as previewing multiple video streams simultaneously is desirable when possible.
  Now add in modern age things like live health monitoring when people are suffering an illness so they can be at home rather than in a hospital or for the elderly. Face it you are the cave man, squatting in a cave not knowing or understanding why people would want to live in a timber framed house, what could they possible need or want that is not provided by a cave.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
31. Re:I don't get fiber by grumbel · 2012-09-10 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Try backing up your 3TB HDD over a 1Mbit/s upload link, it will take you a year, at 1Gbit/s you might be able to do it overnight if you drive is fast enough. The point with super fast Internet isn't that you can now watch Youtube a little better, but that it will allow applications that would have been impossible before. And yes, that of course includes things such as P2P, as with 1Gbit/s up and downstream, a content addressable anonymous network such as Freenet could get really interesting and provide some serious competition to services like Youtube, as you no longer would need to have a central service do the hosting, it could be hosted by everybody. It could bring the Internet back to what it once was, a network between equal peers, not between producers and consumers.
32. Re:I don't get fiber by CastrTroy · 2012-09-10 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't much I'd be doing different. However, what I would want is a completely unmetered connection. I'd be fin with 5 Mbit if I had unlimited throughput. I only pay for a 18 Mbit line because that's the one that offers a high enough per month capacity. This is what I hope that fibre will bring to the table. Unlimited monthly usage at whatever speed I have signed up for.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
33. Re:I don't get fiber by Githaron · 2012-09-10 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you would be able to serve current generation internet services from home. Next generation services are going to suck down a lot more bandwidth than the current generation services.
34. Re:I don't get fiber by KhabaLox · 2012-09-10 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Now I get a 10x1Mb connection . . . and even I think going any faster would be pointless.
  No one will ever need more than 640K.
  If you build it, they will come.
  Look, you may not need 100 or 1000 Mbps now. But what about when you want to stream 3D content? Or what if we start streaming lossless J2K videos, instead of the super compressed HD video you get now? The point of the Google "experiment" is to see what is possible when this type of bandwidth is available. They are trying to bypass the chicken/egg problem. On the other hand, it's not likely that such a small scale deployment will spur any of the large scale investment that will really take advantage of that bandwidth, as such an investment would need a whole country (or at least state) of consumers to make it worthwhile.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
35. Re:I don't get fiber by icebraining · 2012-09-10 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Most websites are essentially the same as they were in the 90s; just a bunch of text and a few images. I don't know what "Next generation services" are you referring to, but I'm pretty sure that current service models will be around for a long time.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
36. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointles
  And what about that paltry 1 meg uplink? Can't host servers worth shit on that.
37. Re:I don't get fiber by interkin3tic · 2012-09-10 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you. Many of us can't get anything faster than the 3G connection on my phone. I guess that makes me stupid for not living wherever you live.
38. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm paying $140 per month for HD cable (no premium channels) and 25 down/4 up, a DVR that records 160GB of content and can only handle two shows at once, and a 300 GB usage cap with $10 per 50 GB over, so if my kids, my wife, and I want to use Netflix and Hulu Plus a lot, we have problems. If I use bittorrent - which I use for Linux distributions - I have to throttle the bandwidth heavily or the upload transfer prevents streaming video or anything else from working while I run bittorrent. (You can believe what you want, but I don't pirate anything.)
  
  Now Google comes along with $120 for HD cable, 1Gbps down/1Gbps up, a DVR that records 2TB of content and 8 shows at once, with no usage caps. That's far more for less money, plus I can use bittorrent and streaming HD video in four rooms with no problems (we are a family of six), plus I could host my personal website right out of my house with no added cost except some dynamic DNS and no bandwidth throughput limits or total transfer caps.
39. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Even Nvidia driver download finish in like 2 minutes.
  Pffft. You call that fast? I can download an HP printer driver in ONLY 4 DAYS! Now that's what I call bandwidth, baby!
40. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  25/5 or even 10/2 is good enough for most people - but right now, at least near me, it's $55 per month - so you're getting 1-3% of the Google Fiber bandwidth for 80% of the cost. I'd be totally satisfied if I could get 1-3% of the Google Fiber bandwidth for even 10-15% of the cost, but Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner haven't moved substantially on cable internet pricing in ten years and clearly have no interest in moving much on it until competition appears.
  
  For that reason alone, this is cause to celebrate - you can guarantee that every additional major city that gets Google Fiber will have a real price war on high speed internet access. Kansas City has no such price war, at least so far, because Time Warner has been caught with their pants down. But they won't fold without a fight - maybe the next city to be offered Google Fiber will have Time Warner offers of 10 down/1 up for $20 per month, or $15. That's something to celebrate. And of course many of these providers have monthly transfer caps, and Google Fiber does not.
  
  But separately, the DVR service for Google Fiber television service ($120 per month instead of $70, but no $300 setup fee) carries a DVR that records 500 hours of HD video and can record 8 shows at once, and your television remove for it is a Google 7 inch tablet. I don't know of any other service that gives you both that much storage and also 8 show simultaneous recording and lets use use a tablet as your primary television remote. Here again, it's a shot across the bow aimed at the other television companies, showing consumers what we could be getting but are not because they other companies would rather have higher profits than focus on better features for their customers.
  
  And maybe if you had 1Gbps home download and upload bandwidth, hosting your own website would be something 'normal' people do for fun. Few non-geeks do it today because of the cost and complexity. Free software for building your own website is getting better and easier to use every day, and if 1 Gbps upload speeds with zero bandwidth restrictions are part of your default home internet connection package, then the cost for hosting your own site drops dramatically.
41. Re:I don't get fiber by zlives · 2012-09-10 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  but you will never need better then 640 (x480) image resolution... ;)
  i for one welcome our 4k tv overlords
42. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  With respect to running a computer 24/7: we are rapidly approaching a time when the smart phone you had before your most recent upgrade is powerful enough to serve as a decent home server. Then the power costs (and cooling costs) of running your own home server 24/7 become insignificant.
43. Re:I don't get fiber by h4rr4r · 2012-09-10 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  My old smartphone would do a fine job at that, if it had enough storage.
  Right now I am just using an old Core 2 Quad. Sure more electric cost than the D1, but not really noticeable on the bill. I use it as my HTPC as well, so it would be in use a lot anyway.
44. Re:I don't get fiber by AvitarX · 2012-09-10 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, aside from newsgroups, the rare other download, and speed test sites, I am never hitting my peak of 16Mbps, I was assuming it was a matter of remote sites.
  I would assume the (for now) the vast majority of that 160mps would be wasted (especially since I still use a 100 mpbs router).
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
45. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  I am used to cable at that service level or a bit higher (I think the service I am on is more like 20/2, but it's shared with my landlord, so I don't actually know the details). I am a graduate student, so I spend a lot of time using wired university internet. Even for web browsing, it is just so much faster that when I have been away for a while I notice myself pausing to wait for websites to load before I notice that they have in fact already loaded. Not having to really wait for downloads is also nice.
46. Re:I don't get fiber by Hadlock · 2012-09-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I am getting 22x2mb for $30 a month here in Dallas. They have a "faster tier" for $20 more, but I think they're the same level of service, the faster tier is either an idiot tax or there's a flaw in their QoS system.
  
  My mom out in the suburbs of north Dallas gets 50x10mb for $50/mo.
  
  I think if you live in a tech/finance oriented city makes a huge difference in the QoS. Dallas is home to dozens (if not hundreds) of enormous data centers, plus several large finance companies' headquarters, a major branch of the federal reserve bank and a bunch of regional branches of federal agencies, all of whom need fat pipes. If you live in the country, or in a declining industrial center, or worse, the suburbs of a declining industrial center, the commercial demand for fat pipes isn't going to be there to prop up the residential speeds. The only reason Cincinnati and Detroit have halfway decent internet is because they're directly between Chicago and New York.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
47. Re:I don't get fiber by omnichad · 2012-09-10 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Won't matter as much until everyone has it. But I have an antenna at home that gets digital TV at roughly 20Mbps. I can watch it anywhere on my LAN, but not outside my home without transcoding. Would be awesome to pull up my home TV antenna at full quality from anywhere regardless of what streaming services are out there that can do 2Mbps "HD." Only equipment required would be an HDHomerun box.
48. Re:I don't get fiber by Belial6 · 2012-09-10 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  No joke. My 8 year old son uses more data than the parent poster.
49. Re:I don't get fiber by mattack2 · 2012-09-10 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Is there *also* a separate hard button remote available, or do you HAVE to use a tablet for it?
  I use a TiVo iPhone app once in a rare while to type text (e.g. creating a wishlist), but that's very rare. For actual watching, I want a hard button remote so I can use it without looking at it.
50. Re:I don't get fiber by mattack2 · 2012-09-10 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so the smartphone equivalent part of the server is now using comparatively little energyâ¦ But what about the drive(s) running 24x7?
51. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  There's not 1 single thing I can think of that fits "Oh man, if only I had a faster connection, I could..."
  Offsite backups of your personal docs like photos and such?
52. Re:I don't get fiber by Sarius64 · 2012-09-10 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Post a VPN in front of it - taken care of!
53. Re:I don't get fiber by dgatwood · 2012-09-10 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ... so why do we need fiber for homes again?
  Because the bandwidth of the fiber is shared among all the people at your node. If everyone simultaneously cranked up iTunes or BitTorrent and started downloading movies at the same time, I doubt you would maintain that 20+ Mbps service speed.
  Also because your speeds and cost are so atypical that it isn't even funny. Most Internet service in rural areas seems to average about $50 a month and provides less bandwidth.
  Finally, because we're rapidly approaching the point where Internet bandwidth is hopelessly insufficient to meet users' needs. With users wanting to watch downloaded or streaming movies, perform network-based backups, use virtual computers (e.g. using VLC) that are maintained and backed up by someone else, etc., the performance and throughput of the outgoing pipe is getting more and more critical for a good user experience, and it just hasn't kept up with internal infrastructure speeds.
  It's hard to even find a switch these days that isn't gigabit, yet as soon as you leave the premises, you're at a clunky single-to-low-double-digit megabit speed—about two orders of magnitude slower. That's just not acceptable. We're at the point where there's little reason to further upgrade the speeds of internal networks, mainly because of the lack of performance upstream. That's really rather bad news for all the industries that depend on the sale of upgraded equipment, and it potentially holds back lots of useful innovations—concepts that we haven't even dared to dream about because they are so completely infeasible over double-digit megabit networks.... Distributed social networking. Mass-market acceptance of video-and-voice-over-IP. True virtual/cloud computing (doing video editing using a hard drive in another state, for example). And so on.
  Gigabit (uplink and downlink) to the premises would solve SO many problems.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
54. Re:I don't get fiber by Chemisor · 2012-09-10 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Fiber allows longer links with fewer repeaters, which is a nice alternative to simple Comcast coax cable links which go down every time it rains.
55. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Well, lucky you. Now that AT&T is focing their U-Verse transition, I checked around to verify every wired internet option available to me.
  Joy.
  I can get AT&T U-Verse or SuddenLink. SuddenLink appears to be the only ISP with an even worse reputation than Comcast.
  If you don't want fiber, fine, but some of us will pay quite a bit for it.
56. Re:I don't get fiber by misexistentialist · 2012-09-10 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Promo rate, actual price is $60, the 50mb/s is a "premium tier" that costs more, and upload is a joke if you want to do stuff like post to youtube or backup files online. TW is also mulling over caps, though I agree that they can be an alternative if they have a reason to compete for customers rather than just compete on share price by screwing customers
57. Re:I don't get fiber by Ichijo · 2012-09-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Uploading photos from a digital camera at full resolution can take a minute per photo at 1Mbps upstream.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
58. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  You may be a self-proclaimed geek but that doesn't mean you know a damn thing about technology.
  I personally use my internet connection to stream ripped Blu-Ray movies ,stream tv recordings, stream music, stream/upload recordings from multiple HD security cameras set up around my home, download tv shows from itunes, stream HD movies from netflix, etc. etc.
  I assure you I could put the extra bandwidth to use
59. Re:I don't get fiber by Dishevel · 2012-09-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  I have a teenage daughter, a wife, me, my deaf in laws all living under one roof.
  We have 3 computers, 2 iPads, an Asus transformer Prime, 3 android smartphones, 2 internet connected TVs, PS3 and a Wii online and most of the time one of those deaf people are talking to someone on video relay. I can burn through some bandwidth.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
60. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Time Warner is one of the ISPs that signed pact with RIAA and will boot you off if you are using torrent.
61. Re:I don't get fiber by BlackThorne_DK · 2012-09-10 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  My backup runs on a 4/1 mbit DSL line. It takes forever to back up my photos and home videos, that I have stored on my NAS server.
  Also, due to RIAA and Apple braindead rules (which may not apply to you yanks), I need to keep my own backup of all my iTunes music and video content, since I cannot download it again after I've bought it.
  And yes, I should get by with incremental downloads, but my offsite backup service likes to take a full backup every week or two. Right now that ties up my upload for hours when it does so. I got 47 gig of totally legal storage to back up over my puny 1Mbit upload.
  Also my 5.2gig Dropbox likes to chime in now and again, although it's not that often, that it's a problem.
  That's why I need more upload...
62. Re:I don't get fiber by antdude · 2012-09-10 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Do you live in Kansas for TWC's 10/1 at 30 bucks? I currently pay $52.99 (does not include its cable modem fee) for its Internet service, and that's in L.A. :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
63. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Good question, and good point. I don't know, and I hope they do have a hard button remote for regular old channel surfing. But for managing a DVR and searching for specific content, I think a tablet is a fantastic idea - as long as the tablet itself and the user interface for the television system are good.
64. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  A 7200 RPM hard drive uses less than 10 watts while working, so even with a few drives in some kind of external enclosure you're only talking about maybe 25 watt-hours maximum use per regular hour. Even with a pretty busy home server it's less than half a kwh per day, maybe 2-3 kwh per day total when you factor in the cooling cost to offset the generated heat.
  
  It's the rest of your desktop: the Intel Core series processor, motherboard, fans, and especially dedicated video card or cards that draw the big energy numbers. The hard disks alone aren't too bad.
65. Re:I don't get fiber by guruevi · 2012-09-10 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  That is not because you have too much bandwidth, that is because your bandwidth is so oversold that you simply NEVER HAVE IT.
  We have 2x 500Mbps fiber at work ($10,000/month), I regularly pull well over 50 Mbps from Apple, Amazon S3, Google and several other sites (basically seconds for just about anything). Ubuntu comes in literally under a minute and that's from a site 2 states away, the Adobe CS6 DVD in about 10 minutes.
  It's not that it's not available or useful, it's just that nobody in the US has that kind of access besides large business. I have 10/1Mbps from TW but only get between 1 and 8 Mbps throughput from my job site which has the same fucking provider connected to the same PoP a mile or two away.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
66. Re:I don't get fiber by DuckDodgers · 2012-09-10 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect a Core 2 Quad just idling uses maybe 100 Watts, so running it around the clock will add 100 Watt-hours * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year / 1000 Watt-hours per kwh = 876 kwh per year. At my rate of $0.20 per kwh that's $175.20 per year, plus power draw from actual usage over and above idle, plus additional power spent cooling the house to offset the heat generated by the computer.
  
  A more efficient computer can cut those annual costs in half, and over the five year or so lifetime of the device that probably covers the cost of setting it up... but it's not a huge savings, just a little one. That's why I suggested that eventually people will just re-purpose old phones - they already own the hardware, so the setup cost is just the drives and the time spent configuring the software.
67. Re:I don't get fiber by mattack2 · 2012-09-10 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, the managing part I agree with (a tablet could be a good interface).
  But even beyond "channel surfing" (which I rarely, but occasionally do), just simply being able to hit skip back, 30 second skip forward, rewind, pause, FF as hard buttons are useful.
68. Re:I don't get fiber by guruevi · 2012-09-10 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Besides that you won't need surge protectors on your cable (you should really talk to your insurance company and sue them as that is bordering on negligent) you're forgetting that Fiber is capable of seemingly infinite bandwidth. Now it's gigabit, 10GbE is already very affordable and 100GbE is available as well if you have a little bank. But a single strand of fiber can carry 100Tbps over 100 miles with current technology and we've seen researchers find many solutions to those limitations as well while copper (although theoretically possible over very short distances) has too much problems with noise and filtering to make it usable. We have some stretch left in copper (DOCSIS3 could give you 500Mbps) but if you're going to re-invest you may as well start fibering the place.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
69. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  And current CPU's are faster than anyone could possibly need.
  Morons, your bus is leaving.
70. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  gigabit is kind of slow for LAN, and yet for home users if you want faster than gigabit you're kind of stuck. you can do link aggregation with two cables, but that only helps when doing multiple parallel connnections, not just copying a file over the network.
  for some reason lan speeds have stagnated. i had gigabit cards at home over 10 years ago. (that said, i was operating at around 350 megabit, and now it's more like 920 megabit)
71. Re:I don't get fiber by h4rr4r · 2012-09-11 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  That number seems about right.
  Once phones that support USB on the GO start being outdated that will probably happen.
72. Re:I don't get fiber by AvitarX · 2012-09-11 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  when I make this observation I am pulling all 16 mbps from usenet-news.net.
  pause it, try something else (a typical ubuntu mirror, though I found one that regularly gives.me 4-8 mbps now).
  It's very rare that I find somewhere that matches Usenet speed on any given day.
  I was at an office building, and my.connection to godaddy ftp was pretty quick.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
73. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  10x1! That's an awful ratio. The only thing worse I know of was the old NZ DSL plans of Xx128k where X is a number from 256k to 7.5Mbit. 7.5Mbit just doesn't work with a 128k uplink, you practically saturate it with request and ACK packets.
74. Re:I don't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  Fiber was a big dream of perfection like 5 years ago. Now I get a 10x1Mb connection for like $30 with Time Warner and it pings at about 19ms. I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointless. Both my roommate and I can watch netflix in HD at the same time with bandwidth to spare. Even Nvidia driver download finish in like 2 minutes. I do website design quite a bit so a faster upload would be really, really nice but that doesn't apply to a whole lot of other customers out there. Giant Steam game downloads apply to a certain percentage but not even that often for hardware gamers. Is the only reason for fiber (in home personal use) p2p downloading? Because I don't see what else would be driving it other than flashy marketing meets stupid people.
  It's to handle the massive amounts of data for applications and technologies we have yet to invent, DUH!!!!!
Google Fiber makes your Internet much more Regular by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Nuff said.... You don't want the real graphic details do you?
EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

(my support email to google fiber-)
Hello,
I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your
current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of
any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201
which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel
services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence
connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have
communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a
more official channel. Please tell me if I've misunderstood the concept
of "Net Neutrality" or your Terms of Service. All I want is to host a
linux lamp server. I.e. web pages and files served with apache via IPv6
to other IPv6 clients on the internet. And probably I'd want to host a
quake3 server as well as other entrepreneurial servers I conceive of and
deploy due to the abundance of helpful free and open source server
software available to me.
A length debate on the subject (57 posts, 15 authors) was recently held
on the discussion forum for the Kansas Unix and Linux User's Association
(ironicly hosted on google groups rather than someone's server at home
running linux+mailman). I encourage an official response clarifying the
situation from Google.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/kulua-l/LxsOtdglNM0
Thanks for any feedback, Regards,
-dmc
Douglas McClendon
da...@cloudsession.com
(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.
--- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-
"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "
where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"
In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.
[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)
1. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:19 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  You're an idiot. Every ISP has the ToS like this. Looking at that "debate" you linked makes you look like an even bigger fool. No wonder you're unemployed and trolling the internet.
2. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. Indeed, pretty much every isp on the planet does have terms like that. Then they pretty much don't enforce them unless you do something obvious and stupid, like try to run the next thepiratebay. I've run a personal ssh server, a couple bots for a game, and a public (but not highly-trafficked) http server on my verizon home connection for most of a year, which I'm technically not allowed to do any of according to their rules, but screw them.
3. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by DigiShaman · 2012-09-10 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, I'm sure they'll offer a "business class" of service for those needing to work from home. You'll pay a lot more, but at least you will have unrestricted (as long as it's legal. No hacking allowed, etc.) access and bandwidth to use. Generally that's the case with all business class offerings.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
4. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I understand the whole 'business class' thing. I'm trying however to make a legal point that the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201(aka net neutrality), can logicly be seen as criminilizing such differentiation of service through network level (or I would argue, evil-tos level) blocking. The whole 'neutral' aspect of 'network neutrality'.
5. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by tmosley · 2012-09-10 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  You have to pay more for commercial level services, silly-billy.
6. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  FCC-10-201, paragraph 13, last sentence. It sure sounds to me as though _all end users_ are allowed to create content, applications, services, and devices with their 'neutral' fixed broadband internet service links.
  "Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users
  and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to
  create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
  maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges—
  including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy
  and civic life.19"
7. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-10 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  I think the idea of preventing "services" is laughable. There are too many remote access "services" and the like that they really can't stamp down on lest they start a shit storm.
  I mean, is Teamviewer a "service"? Is LogMeIn a "service"? SSH... maybe. HTTP definitely, but even a personal web service is iffy.
  I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town.
8. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
  Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
  I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
9. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by sjames · 2012-09-10 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  The world would be a slightly better place if people could run a proper PUBLIC server off of a home connection. The two primary reasons to restrict servers is that the bandwidth is vastly oversold and they're trying to cripple your ability to actually use the upstream or because a service provider would rather bill you $1000/month for a T.
  I'm not sure why Google is doing it unless they are mostly deploying the fiber to balance their outbound traffic.
10. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  MOD PARENT UP (until determined to be a made-up story instead of factually accurate)
11. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by msauve · 2012-09-10 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just define things like they do with "X servers." The end with the screen/keyboard is the server.
  
  Want to run Apache? It's merely a client for the I/O services a browser offers, etc.
  
  Client/server is an artificial, and arbitrary, distinction - ignore it.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
12. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-10 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'm sure they'll offer a "business class" of service for those needing to work from home. You'll pay a lot more, but at least you will have unrestricted (as long as it's legal. No hacking allowed, etc.) access and bandwidth to use. Generally that's the case with all business class offerings.
  What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
13. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town."
  I'd like to believe that basic automatic network management features of the relevant hardware, or at worst, more intelligent custom software written by google, can trivially enforce sharing of network resources in an application and service agnostic way. The only way you should be able to bring down any segment of the network would be through some serious blatantly criminal level hacking. Or accidentally helping Google to discover a bug they fix the next day.
  That is why I'm fighting the language of the terms of service here, rather than just caring about what happens at the network level.
14. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Get a VPS somewhere and host your crap there. Small servers don't really matter, but why would you think its a good idea to run a server at home? Put something in a data center, colo, vps, dedicated, whatever. They have the power and network infrastructure that you DONT have at home and would be stupid to do at home. Your home is NOT a data center, get over it. Home internet connections are "last mile", that means they are at the very ends of small streets on the information highway. For $20/mo you can host a server with the same amount of more bandwidth than comcast residential connection will afford you.
  Your home is not a data center, get over yourself.
15. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  "What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?"
  If you hack/crack any system you don't have permission to, I'd presume yes, else I'd presume no. I think when you hack a shell to a server you own, there is no substantive difference as far as being banned from a network than if you had logged in with ssh normally. Of course, if your method results in some side-effect traffic going to any system other than one you own or have rights to 'crack', then yeah, I hope you get banned from the network immediately. $0.02...
16. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  When you register the account under Pen Test Services, LLC I doubt they would, but you never know.
17. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by sjames · 2012-09-10 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  You honestly sound like you were thinking "or I'll have my big brother beat you up" at the end of that. REALLY!
  You go ahead and get the server in a datacenter. Some people might actually have a legitimate reason to want a server at home (for example. I don't think I can get a USB cable long enough to reach the nearest colo provider). Not everyone thinks their server needs 523 gadzillion 9's uptime. They're fine with a server up most of the time, probably fairly low traffic. It's not like I'm suggesting running Facebook from home.
  Why wouldn't I think it's a good idea to run a small low priority server at home, other than an overly restrictive TOS?
  There are plenty of good reasons to colo a server and there are plenty of reasons to run one at home instead.
  Meanwhile, perhaps YOU should get over yourself.
18. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  What does "crazy" mean? Anything that gets on the radar as potentially commercially competing with any existing or future commercial google endeavor or aspiration?
19. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  No shit, I have a residential Cox connection, and do all sorts of shady shit. Apparently not enough to ever even get a warning from them. We're talking lots of services listening on various ports. Lots of downloads and uploads from shady places. Etc. You're not even supposed to have more than one computer behind your firewall.
20. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  No different than my comcast ToS
21. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by geminidomino · 2012-09-10 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  That is not, perhaps, the effective justification that you may have hoped to express.
  All the cable providers are scummy (that whole "conflict of interest" thing), but Comcast is the EA of ISP world.
22. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by mattack2 · 2012-09-10 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't Comcast prevent one from running servers too?
  No, that doesn't make it right, I thought that was a common restriction for "standard" home internet service.
  I didn't realize this was a net neutrality argument.
23. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by mattack2 · 2012-09-10 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  So then why can't they write it into legaleze that you can't do something that will (*) negatively impact other users on your section of the fiber [does fiber work that way?], or (*) serve more than XYZ GB/TB/whatever a month?
  Seems to me they could make it clear that you're free to do what you want, within some limits.
24. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause
  Solution: order his minions to remove the clause or be fired.
25. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP)
  Hahahahahaha.
  
  Hahahaha.
  
  Ha. Haha. Ha. Wow.
  
  You think your BS in CE entitles you to opine on all things legal? Are you Mr. Lawyer now? I wrote an email that sounded just like that when my ISP told me I couldn't host a game server for my buddies. I was 12.
  
  Jesus Christ, can you even fit your inflated head through the doorway when you come home every day, or do you have to use the garage door?
26. Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed by olau · 2012-09-10 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Because a lawyer wrote it, and if you don't give a lawyer clear orders regarding stuff like this, they'll forbid everything they can possibly think of. Not because they're evil, it's just part of the training (risk management). They've probably heard of a dozen cases where some company got in trouble because they didn't forbid something and then screwed up afterwards.
  It's the same reason you can't have a beancounter in charge of innovation. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, they could write something in if they wanted to.
One cool thing by afidel · 2012-09-10 03:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

If the residents pay the $300 install fee they get 10Mbps speed for 10 years without paying any further fee. For many of the poorer neighborhoods this was the only way to get enough households to participate to justify the buildout.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
1. Re:One cool thing by h4rr4r · 2012-09-10 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Do they have to pay that all at once?
  Seems like google could have made a little extra scratch by letting them pay it off monthly for $40 for a year and probably gotten more folks singing up. $300 is a large chunk of change for some folks.
2. Re:One cool thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  You have the option to pay it over 12 months @ $25/month.
3. Re:One cool thing by Grizzley9 · 2012-09-10 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  If the residents pay the $300 install fee they get 10Mbps speed for 10 years without paying any further fee. For many of the poorer neighborhoods this was the only way to get enough households to participate to justify the buildout.
  That seems avg on speed right now (or below) but what will 10Mbps look like in 10 years? Pitifully slow. I'd think with Google Fiber the speed would be around 10x that.
4. Re:One cool thing by afidel · 2012-09-10 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps Google will revisit what they deliver for free in the future, as it stands these residents are getting $30-50/month worth of service for free so it's pretty hard to complain.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
5. Re:One cool thing by thelovebus · 2012-09-10 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  The plans & pricing page mentions that the $300 fee can be paid over the course of a year:
  "$300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and fees". (from https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/)
6. Re:One cool thing by Grizzley9 · 2012-09-10 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps Google will revisit what they deliver for free in the future, as it stands these residents are getting $30-50/month worth of service for free so it's pretty hard to complain.
  I don't disagree with that but it seems similar to the "20MB online storage for free!" that cable companies used to give out with your account no too long ago that quickly became near worthless.
7. Re:One cool thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  It's a construction fee. Costs a lot of money to run fiber to your house. There's no guarantee a person won't sign up then cancel a month later.
  Not to mention full speeds are supposed to be gigabit, this is just an enticement.
8. Re:One cool thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  There is the option to pay $25/month for a year. The total is still just $300.
$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:13 · Score: 0

I take it that it will boost home values? Maybe? I dunno. I do love fiber speeds. Perhaps for $400 you can ask for single mode instead multimode? ROFL!
1. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by amoeba1911 · 2012-09-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  $300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day.
2. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 03:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  $300 is a lot of money? Are you kidding me? Dude, I work a white collar job at like $65k/year. I have a mortgage to pay on an 1800sqft house. $300 isn't a lot of money. They get broadband for 10 years with no fee, that's like $2.50/mo
  I spent $350 outright on my Galaxy Nexus so I didn't buy any $50 contract phone for 24 months with a +$20 bill ($480 + $50 = $530 for the phone, no I spent $350). I have a watch that costs more than my mortgage payment. I pay my mortgage and my car payment every month and I still save up an extra 3 mortgage payments and a car payment (I'll have that house paid off shortly).
  I mean seriously, the most basic welfare and unemployment necessity costs more than $300 and requires paying more than a $100 monthly fee to use, and burns like $50/mo in electricity.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Shit was so cash.
4. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by magarity · 2012-09-10 03:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  $300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day.
  250 cents / 31 days = less than a penny a day ...
  another victim of the public education system.
5. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Cro+Magnon · 2012-09-10 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you make $65k/year, in some parts of the city, you'd probably be a one percenter. I know people who are on disability, I don't know what they "make", but it's not even remotely near 65K. I also know people with low end jobs that don't approach 65K. What seems reasonable, or even cheap to the average slashdotter, might be quite high for many people.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
6. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly if I lived in the area I wouldn't be able to afford it without some kind of payment plan being offered so I could pay it off over a year.
  
  That is a crap ton of money at once to someone who is unemployed or heavily underemployed like myself. $30-$50 a month for a connection is one thing, but $300 represents about 3/5 of my monthly earnings.
  
  Also, FWIW, the only places I've seen big oversized supertelevisons like that are in big oversized superdwellings like yours. People I know generally want hardware they can actually fit in their living space. On a similar note, I have rent to pay to a 300sq ft apartment ($425). And my phone cost $20--about $15 more than my watch.
7. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by raymansean · 2012-09-10 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  $300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day. Please deposit 12,000,000 of those pennies into my bank account, I will gladly pay you $120,000 USD upon verification from my bank ;-).
  
  In all seriousness, google is charging their "customer" $300 for this service for 10Yrs, and they are then charging their true customer for the ability to know all the online activity of the "customer." It is like Google is reading right from the cable companies play book.
  
  --
  insert inflammatory comment here!
8. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-10 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  $2.50 == 250c
  250 cents \ 31 days != $0.1
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
9. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-10 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  gerrr slashdot killed my less than sign.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
10. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by skine · 2012-09-10 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  Poor you with your white collar job and reasonable salary.
11. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by oddjob1244 · 2012-09-10 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to pay just $300 and get free service. UTOPIA fiber in my area cost 10x that amount as an install cost and you still have to pay a month charge. http://utopianet.org/blogs/news/utopia-remains-a-mystery-to-many-murray-residents
12. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  You're rich. You don't know you're rich. We get it. You might want to do a little research on how "$65k/year" fits into the world's income levels.
13. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  The 300 dollars has an option for a payment plan over the course of a year.
  If you're replacing an existing internet connection, 25 bucks a month will likely save you money. I know I just have internet through TWKC (Time Warner Kansas City) and I pay around 50 bucks a month.
  If you go with the faster internet service (at 70 a month) they waive the 300 dollar installation charge.
14. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by michrech · 2012-09-10 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  $425 a month rent for 300sq/ft?! My mortgage is $454 (I pay an extra $40 on top directly toward the principle, so the total payment I make is $494 per month) for a 1080sq/ft house with roughly 1/3 acre of land... Plus, I wouldn't call 1800sq/ft an 'oversized superdwelling' considering the far larger homes available in my area (a town of 17.5k people), though I could see where adding 1500sq/ft to what you're living in now could make that seem absolutely huge... :)
  
  --
  bork bork bork!
15. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anarchduke · 2012-09-10 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  I see you are an obnoxious, arrogant douche. You should just put that in your signature lest anyone confuse you with someone who has a clue.
  
  Its great that you make $65k/yr. To you, who earns more per year than the median household income in the United States, I am sure that $300 is not a lot of money. The median household income is $51,914 and more than 50% of people in this country earn minimum wage. Since you are possibly ignorant of the fact, that is $7.25/hour. To a person earning minimum wage, that $300 is more than their gross earnings for a week.
  Do you consider $1300 to be a lot of money? That about 1 weeks gross income for someone making $65K per year.
  You need some Perspective. You gross in one week what someone on minimum wage makes in a month. And those people have expenditures that take up a much greater percentage of their income than your expenditures do. To you a flat tire is a pain in the ass; you just run up to the store and buy one. To them, having to replace a tire means losing water or electricity for a week until they get it turned back on, then having to skip a few meals to pay for the late fees losing electricity cost them.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
16. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Githaron · 2012-09-10 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Is that in Google's TOS for the internet connection?
17. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Celarnor · 2012-09-10 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course buying your own home is going to be cheaper than renting. That's one of the luxuries you get when your income and credit score gets high enough. (http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/21/housing-math-buying-is-now-cheaper-than-renting-98-of-the-time/)
  
  But its not that bad. Rather luxurious by my standards, actually. Before I got my current job and moved here, I was paying $325 a month for a room in a 4-roommate household with broken windows in all the common areas and barely functional heat, in a really bad part of Rochester. I don't mean bad as in 'there's unscrupulous-looking individuals walking about outside in the early morning hours', I mean gunfire and 'look outside and on a regular basis there'd be a small army of cops breaking down a door down the street' bad.
  
  I live in the city close to work, too, which is pretty much mandatory because otherwise this $4/gallon gas crap would literally price me out of employment.
18. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  Minimum payment plan for the basic service is $25 a month, payable during the first year of service.
19. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  50% of people in this country earn minimum wage?
  Cite, please.
20. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He should apply to Verizon.
21. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  As someone on disability, here is what I make (roughly, this is after 15 years of work, making at least $50k the entire time):
  
  - I personally get ~1750 a month
  - My wife and my two children each get something a little over 250 a month.
  
  That makes it pretty close to $30k a year
22. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by "in some parts of the city," but Wikipedia claims that the top percentile of household income starts at $560,000 per year in the US. The median household income in 2009 in the US (most recent number Wikipedia mentions) is $49,777. While Kansas City has a lower cost of living and thus a lower median income than the US as a whole, it's not by much. Making $65,000 per year does not make you anything close to a one percenter by any reasonable definition.
23. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  It's never REALLY the mortgage payments that hold most people back from owning. It's the down payment. With subprime (and zero-DP) mortgages drying up after those who need them and the banks who issue them were (rightly in most cases) villified, FHA is more or less the only source of mortgages for individuals with hardships and can't afford a traditional 10+% DP, and I doubt it will hang on for long. Long story short, and I'm sure you realized this before you chimed in, people on limited incomes (ex. those making $500 a month as OP is) often can't afford to offset any fraction of their income for long-term savings and many people are on limited incomes these days.
  Also, you didn't specify what kind of family you have, and there's no reason for you to have done so, but keep in mind that for a single person 1800 sqft IS tremendous. You can live comfortably in a space that large with two, even three people (my wife and I used family assistance to buy a condo with 1300 sqft and we maintain a guest bedroom with an additional den and spacious living room).
24. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Especially when he says median household income is $51,914. That's 3-4 full-time earners per household, at minimum wage.
25. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, 50% of people in this country make minimum wage "OR LESS". 37% of this country is either too old or young to work, then you add on top of that about 15% of the population that don't earn a wage for their work (stay at home caretakers, CEOs, immigrants that don't file taxes, disabilities, unemployed for > 2 years), and then you add the unemployed (these are per your cited stats).
26. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Move elsewhere. I'm buying a 1250 sq ft condo for $285/mo on a 15-year mortgage. Zero down.
27. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  $1750/mo is livable for me, if you mean after taxes. Once I pay off my car loan, lower is livable. It's tough, but that's because I've done things that I shouldn't have done if I had a tighter budget.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
28. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  A 42 inch TV isn't huge. I personally have a 32 inch and, while I think it's massive, I recall projection TVs being popular in 2000 that were 6 feet wide. We're talking 6 feet of 3:4, so think 5/3 of 72 inch that being 120 inch diagonal. Now I mean I've seen the $30,000 plasma TVs that are that big, but this is a $3000-ish projection TV. That's gimongous.
  I've routinely seen people on food stamps complaining about their $150 cable TV or satellite bills, although now satellite can be had for $20/mo unless you have all the movie channels. I've seen a few people bitch that they couldn't afford rent and can't handle the $300 cable TV bill, which is a wtf for me. This happens in this city. Food stampers with $150-$300 TV bills.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
29. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. I rented for the longest time because owning would have been out of my reach. I had excellent credit, but the P&I on a house smaller than the one I have at 3% would have been $1200(!) and it was only 1.5 times the size of my $750/mo apartment. On top of that came PMI and property taxes, it would have been about $1500/mo, plus maintenance. Home owners insurance is about $400/year too but that's like $30/mo.
  Buying is cheaper than renting NOW. It's a good time to buy.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
30. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't consider $1300 to be a lot of money. I'm going to throw about that much to fix the roof and some brickwork. Also sump pump, going to buy TWO furnaces (a hydronic off the water heater and one sized for the house that's dedicated to heating the water heater as a back-up), and install a new 400L water heater (solar driven, so it'll provide solar heating and hot water free, plus I get 5 SREC worth about $200 on the market these days per year; if the tank goes cold, the gas furnace will kick on and heat the tank).
  My expenses are high, some $20k/year. I intend to slim that down to about $4000/year within the next 4 years. That includes food, gasoline, my home, car insurance, home insurance, utilities (gas, electric, phone). I'll be eliminating my mortgage, my car loan, a fair chunk of my heating bill, half my car insurance (removing collision since I don't drive much and I'll save up money to buy another car if I destroy it), and part of my food bill (by cooking more at home). Just my rent at the apartment was $9000/year.
  Hell at that level I could just buy one of these empty houses, rebuild them, and let HUD rent them out for me. They'll give me $500/mo, that's like $6000/year. The burn-outs around here aren't worth fixing up because you'll never recover your costs (unless you do the work yourself), and the neighborhoods suffer. I could fix several up and rent them or sell them, tidy up the neighborhood some, and in short order the income would make me quite comfortable... then I could quit this white collar shit, pay a management company or HUD to do all the work for me, and just go build houses for a living. Something that feels like I'm actually doing something.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
31. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  $51,914 is the median income, I make $65k, and they're like "ok so you're an out-of-touch rich asshole." I was an out-of-touch rich asshole when I made $45k too; apparently I'm rich until I make minimum wage.
  All I can say is you motherfuckers suck with money and that's why you're poor. When I'm making $80k or so we can talk about me being rich because my income's high.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
32. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356
  Your wage is $5,417. The world average is $1,480.
  Your wage is 166% of the United States average and 366% of the world average.
33. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Geez. I pay ~$630/mo for a 950sqft apartment.
34. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Kjella · 2012-09-10 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  $51,914 is the median income, I make $65k, and they're like "ok so you're an out-of-touch rich asshole."
  Median household income and there's on average 2.6 persons per household. You alone make more than most families. Get yourself a deadbeat wife who shares a kid 60/40 with her ex to support and give $13k to charity, then you're down to being average - and you'd have to give up a lot more to be poor. Besides I've found that the difference in disposable income and total income is two totally different things. If you make say $3000 a month and have $2000 in expenses, then a person who earns 20% less has 60% less disposable income ($1000 vs $400). Those extra dollars on the top make a huge difference.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
35. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-10 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah my disposable income is high. I'm trying to get my yearly mandatory expenses down to a grand total of around $4000.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
36. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well they should have just worked harder then. Clearly, bluefoxlucid is like Atlas, holding the entire world up on his shoulders. How dare you bark at him like some junkyard dog!
37. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  another victim of the public education system.
  This is /. He was home taught. By his mom. In the basement.
38. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Celarnor · 2012-09-10 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  $1300 is a shit ton of money. That'd get me 2 classes closer to my degree (I'm only 3 quarters away from finishing, but I hit the financial aid cap--no more loans or grants for me :() and into some real development work.
  
  After living and work expenses, with the current availability of work orders at my job extended over twelve months, I can't even save that much in a YEAR if I spent absolutely nowhere except the gas station. It has nothing to do with being 'bad with money'. The money just doesn't exist for us the way it does for you in a torrential downpour. We don't have to worry about 'principles & interest' on anything, because we're too busy debating things like "Which is more important this month--electricity or car insurance?" and putting off paying the other utilities until the mileage reimbursement check comes from work, then the next month carrying a balance on a different utility to pay off the late fees on the first...
  
  'Rich' is getting enough money injected into your account on a regular basis that you don't have to worry about this delicate financial dance and can afford to use your money to invest and/or add value to your existing assets. Anarchduke was right, you could use some perspective. Do you want to come live in the hood and clean malware off people's computers for nigh-minimum wage with me?
39. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Pfft, I pay $1850/mo for a 275 sqft apartment in my little town of 1.6M people (excluding the boroughs).
40. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by arose · 2012-09-10 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, just who does Google share all of anyone's activity with?
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
41. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by stdarg · 2012-09-10 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  To them, having to replace a tire means losing water or electricity for a week until they get it turned back on, then having to skip a few meals to pay for the late fees losing electricity cost them.
  You have an overly romantic view of poverty in the US! This isn't the 1930s era Dust Bowl. Someone too poor to afford a tire is on welfare (or should be). How does skipping meals save you money when you're on food stamps? Why would your kids skip meals if they're in the national school lunch program?
  Being poor is unfortunate and difficult but let's not pretend that people are out there starving or going without electricity because of inconveniences like flat tires. If someone is in that bad of shape that they have no heat and they skip meals it's probably because of drugs, alcohol, lottery tickets or other gambling, smoking, etc.
42. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-11 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  So wait, people making $125/week at Foxconn factories are rich now, right? I mean they get a lot more than $17/week like other Chinese factory workers and it's more than enough money to get by. I hear all this outrage that the yellow working class gets $125/wk but it's like they spend $100/mo on rent and now they have $500/mo...
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
43. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-11 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, what about our senators? They get $179k paychecks, should we give them more? A US Senator must reside in his state, he must be present in his state, but he also must be in DC. Because of this, they spend tens of thousands of dollars a year just flying around, plus hotel, food, etc. $179k goes quick when every 2 days or multiple times a day you're getting on a private short-notice jet to fly between Iowa and Washington DC.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
44. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by dywolf · 2012-09-11 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  your financial situation isnt everyones, so stop epeening your money situation around.
  I make twice as much as you. I still think $300 is a lot of money cause my budget cannot spare it. but then I probably also have 3x or 4x the bills you do.
  so take your "insightful" mod and stick back in your pants.
  ---
  now. as to the $300 itself, think of it as a real estate investment, cause a home with google fiber (or any fiber) access is obviously going to have a huge advatange on the home market vs houses without it.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
45. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-11 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa, you make $130k and you're broke? Curious what you have dragging you down.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
46. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by dywolf · 2012-09-11 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Suck with money? You need a reality check cause you are leading a damn blessed life so far and should count yourself lucky. You really do not appreciate how good you have had it.
  grew up poor. Joined military, pissed away all my money like most young 5 and out military kids. Used GI Bill for college while working. But still not enough so we got student loans. welcome to the in debt life style. in the middle of that there was the car dying, not repairable, so car loan for a used car. more debt.
  credit card bills. emergency medical stuff you dont need to know about bills. not getting a job after graduation cause graduated in the middle of the recession. Get married and add wife's debt to your own.
  Life happens. You've just beeen lucky that it hasnt happened to you yet.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
47. Re:$300 is a lot of money. by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, I've been jobless, drained my savings, dug into backups on top of backups, gotten to the wire in credit card debt and had a big car loan. I can live on my own in the big city on entry level salary; I have mid-level junior salary right now.
  The community I'm moving into is kind of crime ridden, but 11 shootings in 2 months in a 2 mile radius versus 31 where I live now. My parents hate it, it's full of blacks, they say blacks will shoot me and hit my car a lot and slash my tires ... the neighbors are all nice, I talked with them while surveying the house.
  Long story short, found out the burned down house next to mine has been down 3 or 4 years, and everyone wants it fixed, but nobody will fix it because it'll cost more in labor than you can sell it for. I'm thinking, maybe I'll buy it and rebuild it from the inside out for a hobby, get some work done, have a contractor drop by once in a while to survey it and tell me what needs to be done structurally/to code/etc. I have a guy that's got a normal hourly rate of $30/hr and can help with the work, I've seen his work--in fact I've seen a whole building he's built (multi-room, full attic, electrical wiring, etc) that's held up for around 15 years without so much as a roof leak. I'll get him to lend some labor and supervision, since I'm inexperienced--it'll be like an apprenticeship, I can pay for an education, $30/hr is like $240/day.
  I figure I can rebuild it and let HUD rent it out, they'll give me a little over $500/mo and they'll find tenants, maintain it, even pay for repairs if it's damaged. In the mean time, I'll at least get that overgrown yard cleaned up. Two buildings across the street too, one bricked shut (no idea on price) and one falling apart (selling for $80,000 and my ready-to-live-in wet for $50k? I'll buy it for $30k, if that, maybe $20k). That right there is $1500/mo, I can live on that but I can't afford to build houses on it.
  Maybe I"ll quit my job when I have 4 or 5 of these. Less income sure, but I can build out the neighborhood. Make the place a bit nicer, you know? That's a real job. My job you don't see shit from, I keep www.yourfavoritenewsco.com up and get paid $65k for it.
  You think "life happens"? You haven't had "life happen" yet. Wait until you realize you've got endless disposable income and your life isn't worth shit. Enjoy raising your stupid, worthless kids and putting them through the public social conditioning system so they can get diplomas and be good little functional members of society doing stupid, worthless jobs like Web design. But at least there's whiskey and your hollow, empty marriage to your hot trophy wife that's probably screwing the mailman, right?
  Everything I've ever done no longer exists. I've been a hero, I've created the most amazing things, solved complex problems with a wave of my hand, pulled everyone's asses out of the fire. All that shit doesn't matter, and it's all been torn out and replaced. It never mattered, we would have always just worked around the problem some other way. And they pay me good money for this... I didn't even go to college, I went to a community college and got an associate's degree in goofing off and getting As.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
The $300 is important by joelwhitehouse · 2012-09-10 03:17 · Score: 2

Google can afford to lose $300 per customer in a limited market like KC. But most customers won't just throw away $300 on something they don't plan to use. By collecting $300 per customer, Google is ensuring that their users are motivated to use their service.
1. Re:The $300 is important by symbolset · 2012-09-10 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  At $300 install Google is probably already losing money. Hopefully the cable tv option will be popular.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
Not a bad deal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:21 · Score: 0

Where I live just to get wireless signal set up (at little better than dial-up speeds) it cost a $150 installation fee for the antenna. $300 for fiber level speeds would seem like a gift from God in this part of the country.
Another cool thing by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-10 03:28 · Score: 1

Google gets a comprehensive record of online activity for thousands of individuals living in Kansas City. There's got to be a big benefit in that.
To Google, anyway.
Google Fiber will certainly be useful for people - and if it were available to me, I'd most likely sign up - but let's not ignore the fact there is a tangible benefit to Google as well.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Another cool thing by afidel · 2012-09-10 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine, though I would posit that every ISP has access to the same information, and with the advent of switched digital video the cable companies have that and detailed access to what television stations people are watching (why are we relying on a handful of Nielson households for viewership data?)
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
2. Re:Another cool thing by X0563511 · 2012-09-10 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm OK with that. Expecting such things to be done altruistically is cute, but not realistic.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Another cool thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  (why are we relying on a handful of Nielson households for viewership data?)
  Because lots of people still get their TV over the air. Remember the hubbub with the digital switch?
4. Re:Another cool thing by afidel · 2012-09-10 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Less than 15% of households receive OTA TV and of those less than 4% are due to not having a pay tv option, the rest are just cheap. Most advertisers don't care that much about that demographic so they should be using superior metrics for the audience they DO care about.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Fiber in Québec city by gfilion · 2012-09-10 03:31 · Score: 1

I live in Québec city and we're the lucky ones: Bell Canada decided to start their Fiber to the home program (Bell Fibe) in our town!
I paid 50$ for the install, the tech spend 4 hours installing the fiber in my apartment and told me that it once took him 8 hours to do the install in an old house.
Now I have 50/50 Internet (50 Mbps downlink, 50 Mbps uplink with a 250 GB/month cap) for 63$ per month and I'm really enjoying it!
Granted, it's part of a bitter turf war with the cable provider (Videotron) but that's another example of competition being good for the consumers!
1. Re:Fiber in Québec city by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Bell fibe =/= fiber.
  Bell does not sell FTTH. It's actually VDSL.The marketing goons fooled you.
  http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/12/myth-bell-fibe-tv-is-fiber-to-the-home/
2. Re:Fiber in Québec city by LanMan04 · 2012-09-10 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Now I have 50/50 Internet (50 Mbps downlink, 50 Mbps uplink with a 250 GB/month cap) for 63$ per month and I'm really enjoying it!
  Woah woah woah, 250GB cap with those speeds??
  You could use up your entire monthly allotment by maxing out JUST download speeds for 11 hours.
  What the hell is the point of speed like that if you can't use it to move lots of data? It's like getting a Ferrari and only being to drive it for 5 hours a month...
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
3. Re:Fiber in Québec city by misexistentialist · 2012-09-10 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  What a waste, capping FTTH at dsl transfer rates. Sure, you'll notice a difference sometimes, but it's at a point of diminishing returns without more headroom, and the $50 install fee isn't worth it when a free coax hookup has the similar capability.
4. Re:Fiber in Québec city by phntm · 2012-09-10 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  in israel we get adsl and cable at 100mbit download (10 up) for roughly 45$
  sure the latency isn't great but the coax/phone line is not the blame, they switch their traffic to datacenters on the other side of the country and the roundtrip takes about 20ms toll.
  no setup needed in most cases, just a new modem.
5. Re:Fiber in Québec city by Twinbee · 2012-09-16 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Hi, a bit offtopic I guess, but I think some years ago, I was marked as one of your 'foes'. I don't usually bother with the whole fan/foe/freak thing, but I'm just curious if there was particular reason.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by CQDX · 2012-09-10 03:37 · Score: 1

Why KC and not near Google's home? I live only about 10 miles form Google HQ and my neighborhood can only get AT&T Uverse over copper. It's ok but you would think we'd have at least one fiber provider by now.
1. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Hatta · 2012-09-10 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  If it succeeds in SF, you know it will work wherever there is an affluent and educated populace. If it succeeds in KC, you know it will work anywhere.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Revotron · 2012-09-10 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't Google already give you free Wifi?
3. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  ^ This
  
  If you can get the crackheads on Prospect and Troost to pony up $300 for something that doesn't spin, doesn't go on a car, and doesn't have a remote control, then convincing anyone else in a better neighborhood should be a cakewalk.
4. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by CQDX · 2012-09-10 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they rolled out something very recently, their wi-fi is only in Mountain view, about 10 square miles or so. I don't live near there. And it's not high speed like fiber.
5. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by ReverendLoki · 2012-09-10 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  The demographics of the KC Metro reflect aspects of a lot of other cities. We have our affluent and tech savvy neighborhoods, our economically depressed areas, a bit of everything. We also have city governments who are being very flexible in this, and making it easier for Google to roll out their test bed. Plus, the metro is dominated by two of the biggest service providers effected by this experiment - Time Warner Cable in the city proper, and Comcast in outlying metro areas. Remember, part of the purpose of this is to show that this sort of rollout is viable, which can serve as evidence in their own net neutrality efforts (mainly, against end service providers trying to charge content providers for access to their users).
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
6. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by gameboyhippo · 2012-09-10 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? Getting an Associates Degree in "Gender Studies of the 14th Century" does not make you educated or affluent. It makes you a liberal. There's a difference.
7. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Hatta · 2012-09-10 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference, but liberalism is correlated with education. There's a reason for that.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
8. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  Liberalism is correlated with liberal arts education. Because idiots study the liberal arts, graduate without job prospects, and now must rely on Big Daddy Government to provide more for them while they work at Starbucks trying to pay off their foolishly-spent student loans.
  
  The normal people who go to school to actually study something useful graduate, find a job, and then become conservatives when they see how much of their hard-earned paycheck is taken from them to give to people who just stopped trying.
9. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by Hatta · 2012-09-10 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Blanket denial in the face of facts is also well correlated with conservativism.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
10. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by dywolf · 2012-09-11 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's total bullshit.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
11. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by dywolf · 2012-09-11 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yea. Salon. A totally unbiased source there. Like asking Pravda what it thinks about Communism.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
12. Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area by dywolf · 2012-09-11 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  So being more educated makes you more likely to not just accept what you are told but to question it and seek your own answers? And that's a bad thing?
  But being liberal makes you more likely to just accept what your told, even with an education?
  How I love being devils advocate and having fun with sketchy conclusions. You're an idiot.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Come to my City!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:39 · Score: 0

I would pay 300$ to get off the DSL/Cable Duopololy....
Resident of KC here by Revotron · 2012-09-10 03:44 · Score: 1

I've never seen so many people get so excited about something they don't really understand... actually, yes I have - presidential elections!

But seriously, it's actually relieving to see so many people, even those in the "bad" neighborhoods in KC, actually going out of their way to preregister. It gives me new hope that people might actually be capable of some foresight every now and then.

Of course, then there's that annoying nameless voice on the radio here singing the praises of Google Fiber and urging people to preregister now for "speeds of up to a gigabyte"[sic]... That annoys me every time I hear it. I know it's not Google putting those ads out because they'd actually get it right.
What a difference a few days makes by TubeSteak · 2012-09-10 03:44 · Score: 4, Informative

I just read this Wired article a few days ago:
Google Fiber Splits Along Kansas City's Digital Divide
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide/
Basically, the signup for Google Fiber was split along the line dividing historically white and black neighborhoods.

But Liimatta [who runs a Kansas City nonprofit that works to bring broadband access to low-income residents] says the pre-registration process itself set a high bar for those already on the wrong side of the digital divide. To pre-register, residents needed to be willing to pony up $10. They also needed a credit or debit card, a Google Wallet account, and a Gmail account, which are harder to come by if you never had internet access in the first place. "Many don't even have bank accounts," Liimatta says. "That's why there are so many check-cashing places out there."
The fact that they managed to get these neighborhoods qualified in 3 days says a lot about the lengths Google went to.
The Wired article talks about Google sending out teams to knock on doors and expedite signups for families that don't have internet already.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
1. Re:What a difference a few days makes by ReverendLoki · 2012-09-10 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I believe a lot of that was the result of educating residents on what this whole thing means. I've had to explain exactly what some of the advantages were myself to a half dozen people or so I thought would have picked up on it themselves.
  That, and the primary means for signing up was via the web, and I believe that for a lot of these households, fiber is going to be their first broadband connection to the Internet. I think there was a phone number you could use as well, but it wasn't very well published; even I couldn't tell you what it was.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
2. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  I live in a 'not so ritzy' area of Kansas City KS. and I can agree with that as stated.
  The more affluent areas were up and registered within a few days, the poorer areas took significantly longer. One evening, people were canvassing the neighborhood to make sure residents were aware and had signed up . I signed up the first day that I could.
3. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Cro+Magnon · 2012-09-10 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I live in a 'not so ritzy' area of Kansas City KS. and I can agree with that as stated.
  The more affluent areas were up and registered within a few days, the poorer areas took significantly longer. One evening, people were canvassing the neighborhood to make sure residents were aware and had signed up . I signed up the first day that I could.
  Same here, except I'm in KCMO. My area was fairly slow in signing up, but one thing that helped was that some of the neighborhood organizers were pushing for it.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
4. Re:What a difference a few days makes by AKabral · 2012-09-10 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  1. yeah, because having an internet connection is obviously a signal that one's household is an indicator of the people in that household either being productive or being on the brink of becoming productive... So now that these poor black folk have an internet connection they are going to become 'bankable (get bank accounts), good jobs and better education(al opportunities). I find it relatively stupid that people think signing up for broadband is supposed to bridge some 'digital divide'. Why don't we start focusing on the 'paycheck divide' which is probably a much more reliable indicator of opportunity being converted into economic reality... So let's applaud google's "get out the broadband effort" and forget about how Lilliputian of a distance that step gets one across the 'digital divide'... 2. I was just about to post the same article.
  
  --
  The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before. - Thorstein
5. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  This can be remedied in spirit and in part by someone white or rich+coloured setting up a lab with a few pcs connected to Google Fiber as a non-profit.
  At least it gets goodwill and removes a couple more invisible boundaries between the two groups
6. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Internet access is certainly not a cure-all for poverty, but does mean access to a large amount of free educational materials (including things like being able to Google a health problem instead of guessing if it's worth the cost a doctor's visit) and free entertainment as well much better communications (compared to phone or mail) which can help find employment as well as saving time and money. Also, for creative types, the internet can be a way to find a market.
  I'm not disagreeing with you that it's a pretty small step, but it is non-trivial.
7. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, it means they'll sit on Facebook, YouTube, and Netflix all day instead of finding a job. Rent to own places and check loans are common in these neighborhoods because these folks will not comprehend budgeting and working. They've never been taught, and if they have been taught, being organized is too "white". I guess being poor, a father of 25 kids by different mothers, and government-dependent due to "disability" is all that you are allowed to be if you're "black"? We don't need pitty, we need people willing to pound doors and teach addiction recovery, budgeting, and job searching. If people don't respond then, give up. They are doomed to be on the bottom of the pile. Someone has to be.
8. Re:What a difference a few days makes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah because we really need more websites with people showing off their hoopty and their latest "ice grill"....I can see it now, Tyrone hosting his "Babymomma.com" website to try to reconnect illegitimate children with their babydaddy to collect back child support from Pookie.
  I think Uncle Ruckus said it best, "There's not a n*gga alive that's even smart enough to operate a poi-sonal computah......not even a macintosh"
  Hell if they ever figured out that there was gold in the CPU's nobody's computer would be safe. They'd be melting them down for the scrap gold and taking it to Gold-into-Cash.
Homeowners... don't forget that... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:01 · Score: 0

...those cheap WiFi security cameras, that you put up under around your house, under the eaves, front porch, back patio awning, etc., and have configured via port-forwarding thru your WiFi router to email motion-triggered picts to your smartphone and also allow you to watch them live from your smartphone.... well, they're all servers too.
(plus One Informative) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:02 · Score: -1

politics openly. 1mplementation to Ma7 also want
Larry Page Agrees (partly) with me? by jdogalt · 2012-09-10 04:02 · Score: 2, Informative

This was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Sounds plausible enough that I'll post it again to help its visibility-
Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
There was a trial in palo alto. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:05 · Score: 0

I suspect you should talk to your city fathers if you have a problem with the situation.
#irc.trool7alk.com by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:06 · Score: -1

developers movrning. Now I have
I don't see why they're doing this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:08 · Score: 0

Are they really doing this to record everyone's data? All data. Not trolling, but i don't see why they want to be an ISP unless that is what they're doing.
Wonder why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:15 · Score: 0, Insightful

After so many years of getting screwed by AT&T,COMCAST,TIME Warner and others. The people of kansas city can't wait to get google's service, at a much lower cost.
Re: Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:34 · Score: 0

Must be different in different cities. In Boston, Verizon will not install FIOS in the city. It might be political since the city always has its hand out for contributions, or it might be the expense. DSL is the only thing available and its 7 mbs service maxes at at about 5 for me, 3 in our old building. Cablevision is literally digging holes to each building that signs up to lay cable (and it's trying to sell phone and TV services as well). MaxWifFi might be the only way to go in Boston.
uhdtv content by mostadorthsander · 2012-09-10 06:10 · Score: 1

hey I developed with a trial version of Adobe Premiere since I was only testing the software a 2 gigabyte 7 second UHDTV (7680 x 4320) avi video @ http://www.haloink.com/movies/uhdtv/uhdtvtest.avi I do not have a UHDTV monitor or video card... I want at least a 1 TB per second internet connection...
Chattaooga Says Welcome to Kansas City. by tetrahedrassface · 2012-09-10 06:36 · Score: 1

We've had fiber for a few years now. It's blindingly fast. It has forces even Comcast to wake up and smell the revolution. This is not only great for Chattanooga and Kansas City but hopefully will be emulated across the country. Good job Google!
Would it have been so hard to say 89%? by Dean+Edmonds · 2012-09-10 09:33 · Score: 1

180 out of 212 is ~89.1%

--
-deane
Qualified and signed up? I missed something by chrismcb · 2012-09-10 14:24 · Score: 1

at least 180 out of 202 "fiberhoods" have already qualified for its service

In just six weeks, nearly 90 percent of eligible neighborhoods around Kansas City have signed up for Google Fiber.
How is "qualified" == "signed up?"
The article goes on to say that it is still processing verification requests. So, how does this mean the neighborhoods have signed up? Looks to me like 202 signed up, and so far only 180 have been verified. The article goes on to say, some won't qualify, and they'll have to qualify again next year.
Could they have been a bit more clear?
Kansas City by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:08 · Score: 0

I live here. The marketing hype and misinformation about whats really going on here with this is getting funny. About the only thing Google is giving us right now is free Ice Cream "sammiches" from their Google ice cream trucks.