Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

skade88 writes "As earlier rumors suggested, Google Fiber will indeed roll out in Austin, Texas, with the first homes receiving service in mid-2014. The delay is due to the need for a whole new fiber network to be deployed for the service. It will only be deployed within the Austin City limits. Google says in early 2014 they will allow people in Austin register their address for service. They plan to deploy to the neighborhoods with the most interest."

Comments

Why not Houston?

[fewnorms]

Still think this should've gone to Houston. Search google, there's a TON of dark fiber already in the Houston area. With a bit of help, that could've been a great infrastructure right there. Oh well, guess since Austin is the hip place to be in Texas, we just get bypassed :)

Re:Why not Houston?

[alen]

the channel selection is so so. i bet google is doing their research and picking markets where this won't be an issue

Re:Why not Houston?

[gameboyhippo]

Yo! I hear you like bandwidth, so Google should have googled Houston so you can have fiber with your fiber.

Re:Why not Houston?

[interkin3tic]

Just throwing this out there: perhaps google figured that Houston public officials were already bought and paid for by one or two telecoms, and would be determined to make this second test a failure. Houston isn't exactly known for having honest public officials acting in the interests of the public. I remember hearing that public transit or even biking was near impossible in houston due likely to gas and car companies' influence.

I feel your pain, living in Chicago. Google fiber is never coming here. Even AT&T can't buy decent 4G speeds here.

Re:Why not Houston?

[firex726]

Houston has a lot of exclusivity deals, lived all over the place and they have all had a monopoly provider.

Re:Why not Houston?

[fewnorms]

I remember hearing that public transit or even biking was near impossible in houston due likely to gas and car companies' influence.

Well, that's not entirely true. There's been huge improvements for bikers in general by the upgrades and construction of miles and miles of bike trails. Here's some more info on those trails. You can get from most suburbs all the way to Downtown by staying on (nicely maintained) trails these days, which is pretty nice.
Now as far as public transport is concerned, you're somewhat correct in terms of the quality not being very high, nor extensive. We have one measly light rail track, but completely focused on connecting downtown Houston with the very close-by Medical Center. Apparently they're looking at adding a second route at the moment.
However, don't forget that in a city as sprawling as Houston, connecting suburbs is a nightmare. We're spread out over roughly 600 square miles. That's a LOT of land to cover for any kind of public transportation. Cars are a daily part of life in a city like this. No car almost equals no job nor social life around here.

Re:Why not Houston?

[Anonymous Coward]

Houston isn't exactly known for having honest public officials [...]

And Austin is?

Re:Why not Houston?

[ruiner5000]

Grande which is what my business has, along with ATT Uverse as a back up, and Time Warner which I have at home. And then ATT DSL. That is it for consumers.

Google is going strictly, and only by demand.

Re:Why not Houston?

[KingMotley]

I feel your pain, living in Chicago. Google fiber is never coming here. Even AT&T can't buy decent 4G speeds here.

I doubt google will come to Chicago any time soon. Too big of a city, too many regulations, too much paperwork.

That said, I don't seem to have any issues with AT&T in the Chicagoland area. Sitting in an office building downtown (the largest one), I'm getting 67ms ping, 4.39Mbps down, 2.73Mbps up in the middle of the afternoon. It is fast enough that I don't even bother connecting my phone to our wifi network, it's actually faster except for when everyone goes home. Then our wifi is much faster, but I don't ever bother unless I'm using my phone to do testing on internal servers.

Re:Why not Houston?

[ruiner5000]

Houston has no software development close to Austin. Oh wait, they gave us that horrible Aliens: Colonial Marines in Sugarland. Forgot about that one. If only they had Google Fiber it would have been better, then they just needed it Dallas so Gearbox could hook up.

Re:Why not Houston?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, if only Houston had more high tech companies. I mean, having NASA headquartered there with all of those subcontractors is nice and all, but I'd hardly call it high tech, ya know?

Sarcasm aside (and despite the fact that I did three internships in the space industry in Houston while in college), I do agree that Austin makes more sense, since Google will get a better bang for their buck. Austin is a trendy place that hosts a major festival (SXSW) that attracts a lot of tech journalists and has a reputation for bringing cell and Internet connectivity to its knees when it's in town. If Google can suddenly make everyone's connections go super fast and work well, it'll get nationwide recognition from all of those journalists.

Not to mention that Houston is, geographically, one of the largest cities in the nation, as well as the fourth most populated in the nation, making it a much larger endeavor than the comparatively small city of Austin.

Re:Why not Houston?

[Wheelie_boy]

Because Austin, like KC, owns its own electric utility. That makes it way easier to string fiber along the power right of ways. Plus, yeah, Austin is cool.

Re:Why not Houston?

[saveferrousoxide]

627 sq miles vs 271 sq miles. Toss in the UT campus (50k+ students crammed into per capita income, AMD, Motorola, and Samsung, and I think the choice actually becomes pretty clear. Houston has small areas where the money is consolidated, oil firms, Rice, and...NASA's kinda close-ish?

Re:Why not Houston?

[saveferrousoxide]

wow, that butchered my post:

50k+ students crammed into per capita income

...50k+ students crammed into < 100 acres), a higher per capita income...

Re:Why not Houston?

[AK Marc]

. I remember hearing that public transit or even biking was near impossible in houston due likely to gas and car companies' influence.

Nah, that's just a guess because in Texas, I'd often see choices where they spent *more* money to make it bike unfriendly. My car broke down when I was driving myself to school in Dallas (there was no bus option from near me), and I had to take a bus once. 15 minute drive, 2 hour bus, one transfer. When I entered the working world, I always checked bus schedules. One was a 10 minute drive (under 5 in no traffic), and 4 hours by bus, 2 transfers. It would have been faster to walk to work than take the bus. My experience is that's not unusual. The system wasn't designed to get people "around" but to get them from he 'burbs to downtown, even though those who live in the burbs generally don't work in downtown, and the few that do wouldn't take public transport. And before anyone asks, I lived a short walk from a major intersection.

The only way to make a system worse would be deliberate sabotage. And from things like that, rumors get started.

Re:Why not Houston?

[Dripdry]

4.39 Mbps?
Yessiree, the time AT&T spent ten years giving people speeds just barely fast enough that they wouldn't tear the cable out of the wall then tear the executives in two for charging $75/mo, oh those were the good years. Golden years! Wish we had'em back yessirree.

We had about 7-9Mbps up in Andersonville when I was living there last year and it was adequate, but could have been better. The upstream was awful, though.

It is 2013, we should demand better for all the money we pay to these yahoos.

Re:Why not Houston?

[ruiner5000]

Not really, Carmack is teaching NASA more than ever and making code changes to his software at the pad and actually building rockets. He says a modern game is far more complex, and Austin, not Houston has the game developers.

Re:Why not Houston?

[ruiner5000]

IBM, National Instruments, Intel, Google, Apple, Dell, Rackspace, Hostgator, Data Foundry, Sematech, Spansion, Applied Semiconductor, Blizzard, EA, Microsoft, NCSoft, Bioware, Flextronics, 3M, Whole Foods, Oracle, you know, not much. But Houston did have Reliant.

Re:Why not Houston?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Houston is a minority-majority city. Yeah, that. Not trendy at all. *cough* Awkward.

Re:Why not Houston?

[Anubis IV]

Okay...but that's irrelevant. What we care about in this context is how much data is getting pushed through the pipes (remember, this is fiber for Internet connectivity), not how complex the code is, and some of those different NASA systems are pushing absolutely massive amounts of data back and forth, even though the complexity of the systems involved is relatively low.

So, sure, a modern game may be more complex than a rocket, but that doesn't mean that a modern game is pushing more data down the pipe than what NASA's mission control is getting in real-time from the ISS, for instance.

Re:Why not Houston?

[bradrum]

1. Owning their own electric utility.
2. I am guessing there is already a pretty good amount of fiber in the city already....
3. High levels of actual city official interest. Meaning they are will to actually make the difficult choices happen to make this happen.
4. High visibility when South by Southwest rolls through every year.
5. Tons of apartments and properties that will go out of their way to install this stuff to lure the kids in. I used to live in apartment in Austin that was one of the first in the nation to install high speed wireless internet. This is a huge renters market.
6. Its a much smaller town than the gigantic blob cities like Dallas or Houston.

Re:Why not Houston?

[IANAAC]

However, don't forget that in a city as sprawling as Houston, connecting suburbs is a nightmare. We're spread out over roughly 600 square miles. That's a LOT of land to cover for any kind of public transportation. Cars are a daily part of life in a city like this. No car almost equals no job nor social life around here.

And yet Chicago, roughly 10,000 square miles, manages to do so nicely (contrary to what locals bitch about).

Re:Why not Houston?

[Saethan]

10k sq miles, sure, if you're counting the metro area - which in Houston's case would also make it over 10k sq miles.

Re:Why not Houston?

[IANAAC]

Yes, I'm counting the metro area. Which is covered by several well-networked public transit systems. Coverage is doable, if the priorities are there. Houston's priorities aren't in public transit. That was my point.

Re:Why not Houston?

[VortexCortex]

7. Austin is a Liberal Oasis in the otherwise Conservative state.
8. It's a hip college town, and the Capital of Texas.
9. Quake Con and other Gaming Cons.
10. Austin is the Silicon Valley of the South.
11. Crytek, ID, and slew of other technology & game companies call Austin Home.
12. The plan fits right in with: "Keep Austin Weird"

I live in H-town and was thinking of Austin as a future home for my indie game company just to be nearer to all the amazing talent and tech (esp. game) companies there. Google Fiber access would be delicious icing on an already very tasty cake.

Re:Why not Houston?

[falconwolf]

And yet Chicago, roughly 10,000 square miles, manages to do so nicely (contrary to what locals bitch about).

The Chicago area is 234 sq miles (606.1 km). Jacksonville, FL at 885 sq miles (2,292 km) is the largest city in the 48 contiguous states and is more than twice Chicago's size but still is not nearly as big as 10,000 square miles.

Falcon

Re:Why not Houston?

[drinkypoo]

Just throwing this out there: perhaps google figured that Houston public officials were already bought and paid for by one or two telecoms,

That doesn't really differentiate them. The answer is probably more banal, like they were offered a better tax deal, or Austin just happens to have the specific population and density they were looking for, or they decided they'd rather work in Austin than in Houston. The more I think about it, the more I think that last one is the answer. If you've been to both places, you understand. Also, Austin's politicians are not precisely known for their integrity.

Re:Why not Houston?

[macromorgan]

QuakeCon is in Dallas (was in Grapevine last year I believe).

Re:Why not Houston?

[dublin]

Actually, having lived many years in both cites, and as an Austin native back in town for the last 15 years, I can affirm that Austin's public officials are *far* more corrupt and "bought and paid for" than Houston's, especially when it comes to telecom.

There is effectively no broadband competition in Austin - good high speed connections here cost several times what they do in Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio. (This is only partly due to the notably superior fiber infrastructures that MFS built in those other cities.)

Austin's city council is completely in the pocket of Time Warner, and has effectively prevented any real competition. A decade ago, Grande Communications wanted to put in a first-class network here in Austin, giving TW some much-needed competition. Instead of promoting competition, coverage, and better services, the city council forced Grande to run fiber to the poor "underserved" east Austin neighborhoods first - Grande barely avoided bankruptcy, as the take rate for high-end digital services was predictably dismal in the city's ghettos. As a result, they did not have the cash to build out the network into the parts of town where there was demand and they could actually recover their cost. The situation is nearly as dismal with AT&T, which is actively discouraged from running fiber for U-verse through much of town, lest in interfere with Time Warner's corrupt but city-protected monopoly. Also predictably, TW offers pitiful service and really doesn't give a damn whether it works or not - it really is the worst service of any kind I've ever paid for, but I have no alternative where I live.

Re:Why not Houston?

[dublin]

1. Owning their own electric utility.

And yet there are a great many of us here in Austin and San Antonio that would dearly love nothing more than to be able to choose our own power providers as residents of other Texas cites can. (Yes, I would happily pay more!) Austin Electric is deliberately making corrupt political decisions that must drive the future cost of electricity through the roof, but that's OK with the city council because AE is their invisible piggy bank that's just one more tax on everyone in town...

2. I am guessing there is already a pretty good amount of fiber in the city already....

Not so much as you'd think. Central and West Austin are a couple of inches of dirt over hard limestone, so trenching is difficult and expensive. Fiber-wise, Austin lags every other major city in Texas substantially.

3. High levels of actual city official interest. Meaning they are will to actually make the difficult choices happen to make this happen.

Actually, they will be more than happy to bend over just like KC did and give Google lots of free stuff with no protection for consumers/citizens. See all the recent tax-free deals favoring megacorporations at the expense of all other companies in the area.

4. High visibility when South by Southwest rolls through every year.
5. Tons of apartments and properties that will go out of their way to install this stuff to lure the kids in. I used to live in apartment in Austin that was one of the first in the nation to install high speed wireless internet. This is a huge renters market.

Probably true - the Austin city council wants to eliminate everything but high-rise urban housing. You can't build a desirable, sustainable, and stable community that way. Austin is arguably one of the most family-hostile cities in the country. The Austin schools are awful (I am still overcoming my AISD education), the only real options are the dynamic and vibrant (but expensive) private schools, or decent public schools north and west of town in non-AISD districts (Round Rock Westwood and Eanes Westlake are the best).

6. Its a much smaller town than the gigantic blob cities like Dallas or Houston.

True, Houston and Dallas are much bigger geographically, but they're also much bigger population-wise, too. Remember, you're talking about comparisons the 4th and 9th largest cites in the US (and San Antonio is 7th!) Houston is nearly three times the size of Austin, population-wise, although it is admittedly a huge city geographically - lots of cheap, flat land, few natural barriers, and minimal government interference lead to a large, but amazingly functional city - IMO, much more functional than Austin.

Other than its natural beauty, Austin really has a lot less going for it than most other Texas cities. (Yes that even applies to tech talent - the pools in Dallas and Houston are markedly superior, and San Antoniois gaining fast, since Austin's city government and venture capital community has driven much of the vital innovation to other cites in recent years. (viz, San Antonio and biotech, for just one example...) It's actually amazing how many tech businesses choose to stay in Austin given the outright hostility of the city to any kind of profit-making enterprise (unless owned by a multinational corporation that will line the pockets of the state's most corrupt politicians - then the city will grant permanent tax-exemptions!)

Re:Why not Houston?

[IANAAC]

Had you read my previous response in this very thread, you'd have noticed I was talking about metro Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Metropolitan_Area

Re:Why not Houston?

[KingMotley]

You realize we are talking about cellular internet speeds, right? 4.39Mbps on my phone is just fine for such a crowded area. Just checked at my house, and I get 21.84Mbps down, 7.00Mbps up... On my phone, over the AT&T cellular network. I don't see how that is "bad".

Re:Why not Houston?

[falconwolf]

Had you read my previous response in this very thread, you'd have noticed I was talking about metro Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Metropolitan_Area

That post must of been below mine. Am I supposed to read all posts before replying? Now interestingly the wiki article you link to says that the Chicago area encloses parts of 3 different states, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. While I thought the greater Chicago area may include Gary, Indiana, I didn't know it included any of Wisconsin.

So, to follow up, can a person take public transit to go from Wisconsin to Gary, Indiana? That is other than Greyhound and other national or regional transportation systems? After all your reply was about public transit. And the Greater Houston is also 10,000 sq miles.

Since we're considering metro areas, why don't we expand that to include Megalopolis (city type)? Then Chicago is only a part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis.

Falcon

Re:Why not Houston?

[IANAAC]

So, to follow up, can a person take public transit to go from Wisconsin to Gary, Indiana?

Yes, you can. You would need to use two different train transit systems, but they're well timed and run many routes each day.

a national roll out is only 100 years away

[alen]

at the rate they are going

Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away

[symbolset]

In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.

Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away

[taliesinangelus]

Sadly, the telecom lobbyists have gotten to some places first and have nixed municipal fiber through legislation. In North Carolina, for example.

Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

at the rate they are going

Why would you expect a national rollout ever? Do you think anybody wants to end up on the 'universal service' hook(unless they get to tack on some serious slush-fund fees on everybody else, of course, just to 'cover expenses') and required to run new lines to the ass end of nowhere?

At least we might be able to get some of the US' major cities up to developed-world levels of connectivity by 2030 or so...

Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away

[falconwolf]

In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.

What FCC broadband page would that be? The only FCC page I found linked to is WCB Announces Workshop on Gigabit Community Broadband Networks but it does not say how to build gigabit fiber. It may be in the video on the page, but that is more than 5 hours long. Searching FCC how to build gigabit municipal fiber networks doesn't return the how to either in the first five pages of results. Only the first result is an FCC link.

Falcon

Should there be a Law?

Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away

[falconwolf]

In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.

What FCC broadband page? I didn't see a link this.

Falcon

I like the speed

[Anonymous Coward]

but I don't like:

- Google already has access to galaxies worth of data from ads, web beacons, etc.
- Now they will have all that, plus your DNS queries
- They will have your actual name, address, phone number, etc.
- Will they allow you to switch DNS providers?
- Will they allow backdoor boxes in their data centers?
- To whom are they accountable?

Questions, questions...

Re:I like the speed

[XanC]

You could rent a VPS with lots of data transfer, configure a VPN, and pipe everything through that.

Re:I like the speed

[SQLGuru]

If you have a public DNS, how could they stop you from using a different one? But really, they'd have the IPs even without the NSLookUp and they can do their own query to get the name if they really needed it.

SOMEONE already has your surfing habits......would you rather be part of a small population where you can be singled out or part of a large population where you become a lot more "anonymous".....

Re:I like the speed

[cooperaaaron]

I don't care. Google has all of my information and NOTHING has come of that. Noone is knocking on my door trying to sell me anything. Noone is sending me spam ( outside of the normal amount that ALL gets routed to my spam folder ). Noone seems to actively bug me about ANYTHING. I feel safe, and that's my opinion and experience.

Re:I like the speed

[VortexCortex]

but I don't like:

- Google already has access to galaxies worth of data from ads, web beacons, etc.
- Now they will have all that, plus your DNS queries

Why wait for fiber? I already send my DNS queries to Google's 8.8.8.8 name server because it's faster than my congested ISP's server.

- They will have your actual name, address, phone number, etc.

Hmm, just like everyone else one the Internet can if they really want it. In fact, if you whois my .com you get my full name, address, telephone. Subpoena your ISP with your IP address and I've got the same, they'll give it to the cops for free. In fact Google's one of the few companies actually standing up for their users when it comes to the Cops' information requests.

What are all you crazies waiting for? No one's tried to klli me or even steal my delicious homebrew (games and beer)! Despite being able to link my online persona directly to my physical address.

- Will they allow you to switch DNS providers?

WTF are you even saying? Of course you can change the destination of your DNS queries, It's not like they block all other servers on the Internet... Noob much? Also, if they're serving your traffic they don't NEED DNS queries to see where you're going... Dumbass.

- Will they allow backdoor boxes in their data centers?

This is the USA. That's standard required by law now. Everything is logged. EVERYTHING. Voice, data, everything. Even if it wasn't you'd be a fool not to encrypt anything you want to consider private or sensitive. PGP has been around for ages. Google even targets me with security related ads on my Gmail account (which is one of many email addresses I have, because why not? Redundancy).

- To whom are they accountable?

Their customers and the governments they operate within.

Questions, questions...

I question my local ISP Oligopoly FAR more than I do Google. I know what Google's up to. I give them info I want them to have, and use encryption / relays if I want something to be "private"

What's to say the recipient isn't working for the feds? My own brother would share my "private" emails with anyone for a hundred bux (or however much he thought he could get out of them). What's to say your recipients are any different:

"Sir, madam, we're investigating Anonymous Coward, we think the people he's in with are bad apples. He's a good kid and we're not really after him, it's those other guys he's hanging with -- You know the ones, right? Right... Still, you have to keep this quiet. If we don't install the taps on your lines we won't have the evidence to exonerate him, show he was just a patsy...

I have nothing to hide, but I don't shit with the door open; At the same time I don't worry about terrorists busting down my bathroom door. If you worry about Google, then make sure you cut up your Credit Cards and Close your Bank account too. They have all your personal data AND everything you ACTUALLY purchase, are in bed with the feds, and have "security" so laughable that ANYONE who exerted a bit of pressure could get EVERYTHING they wanted to know about you anyway.

Protip: You made your Tinfoil Hat out of useless Aluminum Foil! You can't even buy tinfoil anymore! It's a conspiracy!

Re:I like the speed

[VortexCortex]

- They will have your actual name, address, phone number, etc.

Hmm, just like everyone else one the Internet can if they really want it. In fact, if you whois my .com you get my full name, address, telephone. Subpoena your ISP with your IP address and I've got the same, they'll give it to the cops for free. In fact Google's one of the few companies actually standing up for their users when it comes to the Cops' information requests.

Relevant link: Google stands up for Gmail users, requires cops to get a warrant

My message is: I trust them about as much an anyone else I do business with. That is to say: Not much. Fortunately, "Trust" isn't something that should be required these days.

is it worth it?

[boguslinks]

Is there some benefit to these super duper broadband speeds besides talking about how cool it is? It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.

Re:is it worth it?

[alen]

you can laugh at the idiots on youtube in HD

Re:is it worth it?

[SQLGuru]

Streaming one HD movie is fine if you live by yourself......but I've got a house where everyone (5 members) is connected and streaming content....not all of it is HD movies, but I do consume quite a bit of bandwidth on a regular basis.

Re:is it worth it?

[admdrew]

Crappy overpriced existing broadband ought to be enough for anybody

- boguslinks, 2013

Seriously, though, I really don't understand your question. Are you honestly asking if there's a benefit to higher consumer bandwidth?

Re:is it worth it?

[silas_moeckel]

Telecommuting, it can save more gas than any hybrid pretty much if you work in an office you can telecommute. Huge quality of life benefits from this when combined with flexible hours etc. The huge this is google is the only major thing since modems and ISDN that's symmetric it's a gig down and a gig up.

Re:is it worth it?

[XanC]

You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time.

Re:is it worth it?

[Hunter Shoptaw]

I've heard this question raised before. No, not about Google Fiber, about Dial-up vs DSL and DSL vs Cable. Every time we come to an increase in the abilities of technology, many people ask the exact same question. The answer is yes, it is totally worth it. Think of all the things you can do today that you take for granted that you couldn't do or wouldn't have had the patience to do with previous technologies. Oddly enough, this isn't a question that's exclusive to the tech community. I heard the same thing about a local highway when they raised the speed limit.

Re:is it worth it?

[tech.kyle]

The video still has to buffer. Super-duper broadband would reduce buffering times, but there is a good point here. As IT at a local ISP, I see a lot of our "super-duper, blow-your-socks-off" connections only average 8-10 Mbps, and that's with a dedicated server on the other end. Downloading things like linux/utility ISOs completely depends on the speed of the server and congestion of the internet in general. Even if one can find multiple mirrors to download from, I find that even torrenting something well seeded like the latest release of Ubuntu will struggle to see over 25 Mbps (although I got lucky when I tested this just now).

That doesn't mean that it's pointless though. A few people watching something in HD can bring down a slower "average" connection and increase latencies. Netflix here, youtube there, and little Billy trying to play "Call of Battlefield 5: Namecalling Warfare" might start to suffer. More bandwidth to spare, the less jitter you have.

Personally, I don't see the need for fiber as a last-mile solution, especially for residential connections. Fiber to your neighborhood with cable or DSL as last mile should be enough for most people, not that it wouldn't be awesome to have. Yes, the want and need for very high speed internet is approaching and yes, it's something to look at in the future when bandwith needs grow, but there's still room for improvement for existing cable/DSL technologies.

That being said, I want it. I want it bad.

Re:is it worth it?

[jdogalt]

Telecommuting, it can save more gas than any hybrid pretty much if you work in an office you can telecommute. Huge quality of life benefits from this when combined with flexible hours etc. The huge this is google is the only major thing since modems and ISDN that's symmetric it's a gig down and a gig up.

Public Service Announcement: Google Fiber requires you contact them for 'details' if you intend to use the service for a business. I believe this is in violation of FCC-10-201 'Network Neutrality' transparency. Of course I'm more concerned with their terms of service prohibitting hosting any server of any kind, as I consider that a violation of the blocking prong of the Network Neutrality rules (though the case of the residential client blocked from the remote server is the more common understanding of the blocking rule). In any event, for 7 and a half months now, I have had an outstanding NN(form 2000F) complaint with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224). It is currently in "enforcement review" after having been bounced once to the Kansas Attorney General who was not interested in pursuing the matter, though referred me back to the FCC for help. I think it is important to realize how google is participating in a widespread practice of disempowering residential internet users from the ability to provide traditionally unforseen and innovative services to the rest of the internet, in order to protect the established players (cough *them* cough) existing moneymaking servers from new competition, enabled by such advancements as the IPv6 solution to the scarce IP address problem. In fact, if you follow enough of my information warfare links here, you'll find that Google's CEO even agrees with me fairly strongly, but is apparently content to let the lawyers dictate the shape of Google's Gigabit residential internet of the near future. So be it.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891

Re:is it worth it?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Have you thought about getting the family do something TOGETHER? Maybe even something that doesn't require an internet connection?

2 kids doing homework, 1 kid streaming a movie, Dad catching up on some work/laughing at youtube, Mom planning the next weeks meals (or the other way around if you prefer).
IOW, a typical evening. You don't have to be 'together' 24/7.

Re:is it worth it?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Is there some benefit to these super duper broadband speeds besides talking about how cool it is? It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.

Go back to 1995 and ask this same question using a 28.8 modem.

Re:is it worth it?

[silas_moeckel]

This is the same BS every providers gives and has nothing to do with telecommuting. I have not heard any telco try to play the that's business game since ISDN died over a decade ago. Cheap rate for an un-metered gige is about 1k a month from like likes of Cogent, L3, or HE if you were in a lit building.

That all said the we need to separate the access from the last mile. City's and towns are fairly good at infrastructure an all passive optics C/Dwdm could do wonders to freeing up traditional sticking points. Allowing all comers to cross connect lets Google or whoever innovate on the access side.

Re:is it worth it?

[Hadlock]

Lots of big, old houses in my city near downtown are populated with 4, 5 couples (~10 people living in one house). 20mbps gets painfully slow very quickly if two people are torrenting and you want to do HD streaming, especially at peak hours like 7-9pm when everyone is winding down for bed.

Re:is it worth it?

[DickBreath]

> Have you thought about getting the family do something TOGETHER?
> Maybe even something that doesn't require an internet connection?

Isn't that illegal in most states?

Re:is it worth it?

[evilviper]

It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.

A significant fraction, though. 1x Blu-ray is 36Mbps. That means waiting 1 hour for a 2.5 hour movie to download, or running out of bandwidth if 3 people want to stream different movies at the same time.

Admittedly, content from Netflix, Hulu, etc., is re-compressed to sizes that are considerably lower than that, but that's mainly because they HAVE TO.

Off-site backups are a big one, too.

And with services like dropbox or mega, these speeds could seem slow, when you click on that DVD iso, and have to sit around for several minutes, waiting for it to transfer. If cloud storage is the way we're going, even gigabit isn't going to be fast enough pretty soon.

Verizon has been advertising their FIOS Quantum, with 300Mbps speeds, at astronomical prices.

Re:is it worth it?

[falconwolf]

You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time.

That depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. I have a 750 GB hard disc drive in the PC I'm typing this on and it is mostly full. I want to replace the PC with another, as my main computer. Currently I use a 3 TB external drive for backups, along with smaller drives too. I have another PC I want to use as my main PC, it has a 120 GB HDD as well as a second HDD that's 4 TB. The first drive is for the OSes used and software to run so the second one is for my data. Of course as it's a laptop I can and will still use this PC. But I do not expect to use the internet to transfer my data for storage and backups.

Falcon

Re:is it worth it?

[XanC]

With 1Gbit upstream, your 750GB hard drive could be completely transferred in something like two hours.

Re:is it worth it?

[falconwolf]

Is there some benefit to these super duper broadband speeds besides talking about how cool it is? It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.

640K of memory should be enough for anybody.

Falcon

Re:is it worth it?

[falconwolf]

With 1Gbit upstream, your 750GB hard drive could be completely transferred in something like two hours.

And my 3TB drive? 8 hours? My 4 TB drive would take more than 10 hours. So again "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time" depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. Of course 4TB is what I have now, who knows how big my storage will be in 1, 2, or 5 years? Saying "1Gbit upstream is reasonable" is just as ridiculous as saying "nobody will ever need 640KB of memory". Nobody can accurately see what the future will bring. That is except for a supernatural supreme deity, which I don't believe in.

Falcon

Re:is it worth it?

[XanC]

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about; this all started with me coming up with a use for which 1Gbit is useful. You make it sound like I'm saying we should all stick with 5Mbps cable modems, when I'm saying exactly the opposite.

Re:is it worth it?

[falconwolf]

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about; this all started with me coming up with a use for which 1Gbit is useful. You make it sound like I'm saying we should all stick with 5Mbps cable modems, when I'm saying exactly the opposite.

I am arguing with your statement that "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time." As I've said twice, and will again, that statement depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined.

Falcon

SXSW

[Scot Seese]

Of all the possible candidates in the U.S., Google chooses to roll Google Fiber out to the city that hosts South By Southwest every year, where countless thousands of media, music & technology movers, shakers and influencers congregate along with the journalists covering them.

Google will recoup the est. $50m rollout costs for Austin in just 1-2 festivals from word of mouth and countless thousands of mentions by journalists in national & international articles. Fifty million, you say? They'll get $200m worth of free advertising back in 2 years, when the "OMFG it's SO FAST" comments start bleeding into every story you see out of South by.

Re:SXSW

[admdrew]

In addition to the 'good karma' they'll get at SXSW, Austin is home to a large number of high-tech companies.

Re:SXSW

[Danathar]

Yea, makes the ROI on having that conference in Austin pretty incredible.

Seems kinda strange to choose that city though, given how much hi-tech it already is. I don't live in San Francisco but it seems if they wanted to impress the digirati SF would of been a better choice than Austin.

Re:SXSW

[ruiner5000]

Time Warner is only offer 50Mbps, and if you are very lucky you can get 110Mbps Grande. I don't call that very high tech. I think you underestimate the extra cost of California in doing business versus in Texas.

Re:SXSW

[bradrum]

Austin is a huge renters/buyers market of very tech savvy people. Apartment complexes go out their way to install this shit to try and get more renters in Austin. Very friendly city laws and city run utilities top it off. You know a lot of towns that can offer that?

Google fiber isn't some charity project or government funded effort to bring high speed to unprivileged kids in Kentucky or something. They are looking to actually make money. In Austin, they can make money.

Re:so likey no CSN houston even when auston is in

[alen]

austin is a hipster town where SXSW takes place every year

Houston has 2 sports teams that i know of

google's fiber channel list has no HBO and no expensive sports packages. I bet houston has a lot more sports fans than austin.
no HBO option
and the spanish language stations seem to be missing a few big names

Re:so likey no CSN houston even when auston is in

[ruiner5000]

Are you kidding? You don't know Austin do you?

Google Fiber locations

[theurge14]

"Why not San Francisco or Austin or somewhere where all the tech is?"

The better question is why not a place like Kansas City where the front lines of the consumer broadband battle are being fought? Isn't the main point of all this to expose what a farce typical broadband service is like in the US? How do you do that convincingly in a place as saturated with tech?

Re:Google Fiber locations

[Danathar]

Uh....Kansas City was the first city they rolled out? Where have you been? On a desert island?

Re:Google Fiber locations

[Hunter Shoptaw]

I don't understand a word of what you just wrote. Kansas City is getting Fiber. If you meant places LIKE KC, then I think the problem is trying to identify what makes a good location. It has to be a place where the effect will be seen, but with enough capital available to actually get it installed. It was rough here in KC getting people to understand why they even wanted it, much less that its a good thing and Google's not trying to just take your money. Then there's the idiots who decried if because 1Gb/s is stupid since only KC will have it. The biggest problem faced in KC is the lack of understanding of basic electronics and infrastructure. I think Austin is a good choice. There's a better technological grasp while still being a city that such a project will be widely noticed.

Re:Google Fiber locations

[theurge14]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I know KC has it, I used to live there. My point was why does it have to be a "tech city" in order to have it. Again, sorry for being unclear.

Re:Google Fiber locations

[theurge14]

Sorry for being unclear, indeed I did mean places like KC.

Re:Google Fiber locations

[JavaNPerl]

Well it is supposed to be coming to Olathe, although they skipped quite a few of the 'burbs to make that leap.

Re:Google Fiber locations

[klui]

People who don't follow tech wouldn't know about the benefits of having gigabit and won't subscribe. That's why people here feel Google should concentrate on tech-savvy locations. People complain about a $5 difference. So people who are ignorant will ask "Why should I spend $70/month when my current habits are satisfied with my $65/month package?"

Houston has 4 Major league teams

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a big sports fan, but I enjoy seeing any game live. Houston has a great set of sports teams now.

Houston Major league Teams with Dedicated Stadiums:
Houston Astros - Baseball
Houston Texans - Football
Houston Rockets - Basketball
Houston Dynamo - Soccer
----
Houston Aeros - Minor League Hockey - They share the Toyota center with the Rockets.

Re:Houston has 4 Major league teams

[fewnorms]

The Aeros are most likely leaving Houston though :(

Re:Houston has 4 Major league teams

[toastar]

It's not a NHL team though.

Re:Houston has 4 Major league teams

[fewnorms]

I never said they were? The guy specifically mentioned them being Minor League Hockey....

Re:Meaning

[Hunter Shoptaw]

That's a BS post. I'm in the heart of the KC roll out and Google has lowered the bar at least once on neighborhoods getting in. They base interest by the percentage of the population of the fiberhood that enrolls for the $10 deposit. This is true "vote with your dollar" work here. It's really about how much the community is willing to go out and spread the word and get their neighbors on board.

Both ends of the spectrum

[snadrus]

I get that they're showing both ends of the spectrum: a "Hard to get broadband" area, & a high-tech, high-saturation area.
I just hope they don't need to dig much to install that fiber. Austin is on some solid stone & can take weeks to cut a hole big enough for a swimming pool.

Re:Both ends of the spectrum

[ruiner5000]

Uhh, my house settles because of the clay it is on. Solid stone? Really? We are widely on caliche. I have dug the fence posts to prove it. We are on top of limestone, about the easiest thing you can dig up. It crumbles.

AT&T announces gigabit network in Austin

[paulbsch]

Just after Google's announcement, AT&T made an announcement that it will bring a gigabit network to ATX: https://www.google.com/search?q=at%26t+gigabit+austin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Re:AT&T announces gigabit network in Austin

[symbolset]

Obviously they would like to drive Google's adoption rate down and costs up so as to put a stop to this gigabit nonsense before it goes national. Cut off the air supply even if they have to engage in dumping, but only in areas Google is targeting, not TWC areas they have agreed to stay out of. Not going to work. They are still ATT.

Re:AT&T announces gigabit network in Austin

[dustman81]

I live in an area that has a Time Warner Cable/AT&T duopoly. The fastest speed TWC offers is 50Mb for $100/month. AT&T offers 24Mb, if you're lucky (i.e. live next to one of their VRADs and have clean copper). AT&T saying they can offer 1Gb is laughable.

Re:AT&T announces gigabit network in Austin

[symbolset]

To be balanced and fair this comment needs a response from the incumbent internet and cable TV providers. Fortunately there is one.

Re:come to australia.....

[DickBreath]

> what the fuck runs the back bone to the internet?

An AOL dial up connection over AT&T quality lines.

Re:Meaning

[symbolset]

Agree. They have a year. If they can't get 5% of their neighbors to sign up for this in a year Google actually should work somewhere they are more wanted instead. The best KC neighborhoods actually got over 100%. More homes signed up than Google thought there were.

Damn...

[B33rNinj4]

I live just outside the projected install area. :(

kansas city gives it up for google....,

[falconwolf]

kansas city gives it up for google...., provides the first, third, and last paragraph of six paragraphs on what Kansas City gave up to Google printed in a Harper's Magazine article of the same title. The online article is only available to magazine subscribers.

In the second paragraph there's this:
"According to its contract, Kansas City must give Google access to its underground conduits, fiber, poles, rack space, nodes, buildings, facilities, and available land. It cannot charge the company for 'access to, or use of any city facilities...nor will it impose any permit and inspection fees.' And what does the city get in return? It has no say in the pricing of Google's services, nor can it ensure that Google will deliver fiber-optic service to all of the city's residents. Google's offices, meeting spaces, and showrooms are provided free of charge, and the city pays the company's electric bill. The major, moreover, is barred from commenting on Google's activities without the express permission of Google."

The Harper's page linked to does have this correction, "The space the company maintains in city-owned buildings is indeed free; its other local facilities are privately rented." Otherwise it appears Google is getting more than Kansas City is getting in return. And that does not count all the marketing data Google gains with all the eyeballs of surfers.

Falcon