Slashdot Mirror
How Google Fiber Could Do Some National Good, Or At Least Scare the Carriers
Nerval's Lobster writes "Within hours of Google announcing that Austin, Texas would be the next lucky recipient of its Google Fiber initiative, AT&T released a statement indicating that it was willing to build a high-speed broadband network in the city, too. 'AT&T announced that in conjunction with its previously announced Project VIP expansion of broadband access, it is prepared to build an advanced fiber optic infrastructure in Austin, Texas, capable of delivering speeds up to 1 gigabit per second,' read the statement. But there's a not-so-slight catch: AT&T wants whatever conditions Google received from the city of Austin. Google itself has provided precious little guidance about its future plans. 'We are still in the very early stages of it,' Google CEO Larry Page told media and analysts during the company's Jan. 22 earnings call, according to a transcript. 'Obviously, we are going to a small number of people and so, but we are excited about the possibilities.' But if Google Fiber keeps expanding, it could compel AT&T and other infrastructure providers to boost their broadband service and offer it on more reasonable terms — nothing like some competition to make things a little better for the collective customer base. In that sense, even if Google Fiber doesn't expand into a national program (and imagine the costs of that), its existence will still do some larger good."
AT&T's statement sounds like they are setting up a law suit to prevent Google from supplying what they have so far refused to supply. I can see their lawyers saying "We did not get the EXACT same deal, so it's unfair and must be stopped. Our client can't go forward with investments until the matter is settled." Once it's "settled" there is no reason to invest.
1Gbps speed for the first 2GB, then $10 per GB after. Or maybe they'll just throttle you down to 6Mbps for the rest of the month.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
we already paid AT&T and other telcos for national broadband back the 90s; they don't deserve nor do they get the same deal google does. they need to provide what we paid them to do (the thieves used the money to buy up competitors)
What Google is doing is ruining the profit margins for AT&T by introducing a little something called "competition". This is, in many ways, a bad thing.
Show some respect for your elders and stop rocking the boat, Google. Know your place and stay there.
... welcome our new fiber overlords!
I like to see 1GB speed before 2050.
The city of Austin already stated that Google got no special considerations or incentives to offer the service. I hope everyone leaves AT&T and Time Warner in droves. Unfortunately the installation extends only to the city limits, I live just outside. Would snap it up in a flash.
You're actually a hardcore libertarian trying desperately to make socialists look bad through strawman arguments. We get that. But in the interest of keeping the appearance up, please explain why you (pretend to) believe the public and private networks are mutually exclusive.
Google should setup a section to measure interest in other states / cities with information on how citizens can be Google Fiber "Ambassadors" for areas in which Google hasn't announced any plans to move into.. something like this page for those in the area, but for the rest of us would love to spread the word and garner support to lay the groundwork for Google to move in.
City: "Ok, no franchise contract anymore"
AT&T: "Umm, ok, maybe not so equal terms."
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Right, because I want the Federal Government to have an even more direct say about what i should be browsing and how.
Since most people can't move to where Google Fiber is being deployed they have to wait for it to come to their current location. This might not ever happen. So the ISPs in that area only have to react IF Google announces a move into their market. They don't have to do anything before because they have an absolutely trapped and captive customer base. People can't shop around for ISPs because that would involve changing residence, and few people have the means to relocate on such a whim as internet speeds.
So unless Google announces a country wide deployment, and means it, the ISPs are just going to keep sitting on their hands, claiming customers don't want faster speeds, or that it would simply cost too much to deliver it to them.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I've read that Google received no "special" treatment for bringing fiber to Austin. AT&T calls foul because now they have competition, these people are total asshats. Why weren't you working on gigabit access before Google FIber showed up? Oh right, that fantastic oligopoly market, screwing over the consumer at every step.
"National good" and private companies cannot be put together in the same sentence.
Yes they can. It was/is GOOD that phone/cable co's built out their networks to provide service to *everyone*. That is in the 'National Good'.
It's only possible with strict government oversight though since a corporations motives are almost exclusively monetarily based.
They've rested on their laurels too long now without that strict oversight and it's time to stir up the pot again...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Seriously, what else could *possibly* motivate AT&T to announce "Austin" rather than one of the hundred other similar markets they could be moving into? Are they looking forward to making half as much revenue as they would if they entered a city with no gigabit competition? Are they proud that they'll be increasing the maximum speed available to Austinites by 0% rather than increasing the maximum speed available in another city by 9900%?
Of course not. They're showing Google, "moving in on our turf won't be profitable, because we'll try to undercut you every time you make a move, so you might as well give up and leave us with our oligopoly."
It'll be fascinating to see what Google's response (both in terms of words and actions) will be. Does "don't be evil" include "don't concede to evil"?
Nothing is stopping AT&T/Verizon/Comcast from providing the same service everywhere right now.
If Google is willing to do it in exchange for advertising revenue...this is bad, how exactly?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I live in one of the older neighborhoods in north-central austin, and I cannot even get reliable DSL from AT&T at home. Some of the newer neighborhoods in west and northwest austin do have the choice of AT&T uverse, but not mine, even though the AT&T fiber runs down the railroad easement at the end of my street. I have exactly 1 choice - Time Warner, and while the performance of my TWC service is very good when traffic stays within the TWC austin network, the downlink bandwidth going to the internet averages 800KB/sec at my house.
I am very much looking forward to some competition. If Google fiber really delivers even 1/4 of 1 GBit/sec speeds all the way to the internet I will gladly pay $70/month for that service.
most people can't move to where Google Fiber is being deployed
It appears sglewis100 disagrees with this premise. I'd like to see some arguments either way about choosing where to live based on availability of telecommunications service. For example, It might be easier for people who are already looking for a job to make this a consideration when deciding where to apply.
I'll care more about what AT&T wants and needs when they manage to make an Internet connection that stays on steadily for more than six hours at a time. Around here, both AT&T and Charter are notorious for cutting off when the wind gets too stiff.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
That might be a legitimate assertion to level against AT&T with its pathetic Uverse kluge, but emphatically not so with Google Fiber.
For GFiber, there is no existing subsidized infrastructure. Google trenched and pulled new fiber all over KCK and KCMO. And it's not a fiber-copper hybrid kluge. It's new glass all the way to the side of your house. It's also 1Gbit symmetric . Google also built new NOCs for the traffic and a satellite farm. And while AT&T's press release mumbles, "up to 1 Gbit," that's GFiber's starting point.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
we already paid AT&T and other telcos for national broadband back the 90s; they don't deserve nor do they get the same deal google does. they need to provide what we paid them to do (the thieves used the money to buy up competitors)
The problem is not laying down fiber or building infrastructure: The problem is that nobody else can because of contractual agreements. And who's fault is this? Not the federal government. In fact, not even the state government. The primary malfactor here is municipalities. Take away their ability to ink exclusive contracts, and this whole issue would dry up in a few years. There's agreements still in force from the 90s saying they'd deliver "broadband internet" of 1mbit/s as long as they have exclusive rights to lay cable and stuff for 20 years.
Even in cases where the agreements aren't exclusive (larger cities, mostly, who have more negotiating power), there is still so much red tape, and so many different layers of bureauacracy to get through before any actual work can be done, that companies smaller than Google have no hope of ever breaking into the market. This is an artificially-created monopoly created not by the telecos, but by municipalities.
You want broadband internet? Crush city hall and hand control over to the state or federal government. Take these small-time politicians out of the mix.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Or go back to the Bell System. It worked, and it provided universal, affordable service. And while we're at it, bring back Bell Labs - put the "R" back in American "R&D".
The first hint of competition, and they are ready to roll out gigabit connections. Imagine what would happen if we had competition throughout the rest of north america.
HELL YES!
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
'Affordable'? Seriously, do some research. It was ridiculously expensive for what was offered. And you got to enjoy fees for damn near anything. It wasn't at all the panacea you're fantasizing about.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
In Tennessee, the Electric Powerboard of Chattanooga, who has been running lines and setting up utility poles across its area for the better part of a century (they sold their power generation capabilities to the TVA, and became a customer of that larger agency), decided to get into the Internet business.
They managed to do so, despite the entrenched networks trying to sue to prevent it.
Said networks still passed a law banning any other municipal entity from doing the same thing.
Oh well, at least I could get a Gig.
You want broadband internet? Crush city hall and hand control over to the state or federal government. Take these small-time politicians out of the mix.
You started strong then went Full Retard.
You never go full retard.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Even if they provide equal or better, they've lost me. When you have absolute control and abuse your customers, why would they even entertain sticking with you when the playing field becomes level? You've already proven your customer service at that point.
Do you honestly believe that the state and the feds are any less corrupt? After all, they all got ahead through machine politics on the local level, eventually taking the show on the road. You can't win any other way. The telcos would prefer one stop shopping in DC, and in truth Washington is protecting their national monopolies. I mean, who owns the backbone? How many tier 1 providers are there?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Google is setting up Nets. The choice of Cities is carefully planned.
According to the city of Austin the only "deal" google got was priority permit handling. So yeah, man up AT&T.
Absent some meaningful campaign finance reform, I don't expect state and federal politicians to stand up to the telcos any more than local ones do -- in fact, I'd honestly expect less. When municipalities try to set up their own (cheaper, faster, self-funded) broadband networks, the telcos go to the state government and try to get them shut down, because apparently the fact that they aren't trying to make a profit gives them a big advantage against for profit companies, which, interestingly, is the precise opposite of the usual argument given in favor of free market capitalism.
That being said, if Google manages to push this out into the news and people start exerting sufficient pressure on their state lawmakers, it's possible that something positive might come of it. It's amazing how much flooding congressional offices with calls and letters and accomplish.
And that's the problem. He's right and it goes against every dumb thing you were taught in grade school. You're taught American Exceptionalism and how scary the commies and their governments were. But fact is that small governments get picked apart by corporations. Divide and conquer. Remember that picture of the snake cut to bits? Seriously, there's a reason we have a Federal gov't, and the power your average multi-national wields today would make the British empire run for the hills.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I suspect that the vast majority of the carriers are only vaguely nervous about this, in that they have deluded themselves with pat on the back surveys that somehow manage to show that their customers have few complaints and are generally either loyal or not motivated to switch. The reality is that you would be hard pressed to find an area in North America that wouldn't leap onto a service like Google fiber if their local rates remained as they are.
No doubt there are a few in the cable/telco industry who are quaking in their boots not just because they realize the clear and present danger to their profits but that they know their own companies are bloated and that where a new upstart will be lean and profitable at much lower prices the old companies will have to cut to the bone to remain profitable.
My guess is that the big old companies are thinking that google can't be everywhere that quickly and that places like Kansas are just quirky experiments that Google will abandon. They might even have done calculations that show that what Google is doing is impossible.
A great example of this would be when Germany was allowing the free market to compete for long distance. The incumbent telco basically swore that long distance would go from the present $1 per minute to at least $2 or more per minute. Within 18 months it was down to around $0.05 per minute. I am not sure that the incumbent was actually lying; really wrong but from his position sitting on his old school business model was just so distorted that he lived in a whole other universe.
If Google Fiber comes to my town I am all over that in a second.
You want broadband internet? Crush city hall and hand control over to the state or federal government
- ha ha, I think this qualifies for mega crazy, do the same thing as before on a grander scale and expect different results.
I would suggest doing the opposite of what is known not to work and this means allowing people to exercise their property rights instead giving it up to any level of sata.... government bureaucrat.
You can't handle the truth.
Yep, I was working for SBC (now known as AT&T) during the time you are talking about. SBC used the money to buy AT&T after buying everything else they could find that was worth buying, and that was cheap enough to buy.
We at Google, "Do No Evil." So trust us with even more information about you and yours that you pay us to learn.
This link is an advertorial/promotion piece, not real journalism.
But the ISPs are. They have no incentive to offer speed or unlimited usage. More and more people are cutting the cord for TV and phone lines. Bring me a nice fast and unlimited (or higher than the ridiculous 60GB limit in Montreal), and I'll manage with OTA and online streaming. I just to live long enough to see *real* competition in Canada
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I live just out side of Austin (groan... there goes my property value...) and I've been watching this mess for a long time. Austin started to build a network like this one back in the '90s. Then the telcos used their pet politicos to get a law pass in Texas that makes it illegal for a City to build its own network. That was the end of high speed Internet hopes for cities in Texas. Then, AT&T. Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast got pissed off because the cities were requiring them to build out what passed for high speed Internet through out entire cities if they wanted to build it at all. So..... they went to their pet politicos (the folks we refer as the people in the owners box at the legislature) and got the law changed so that only the state gets to tell them where they can or can't build their networks, so AT&T is putting in fiber to the curb in new developments with million dollar homes and in working class neighborhoods you are lucky to get minimal DSL.
Now Google is rolling out gigabit Internet to with in half a mile of my home, but not to my home. I could just cry. This is going to kill Round Rock. And, believe me, ever since Dell moved here Austin has been gunning for Round Rock.
Well, yes, that's part of it, but there are other hurdles as well.
For example, one of the reasons Kansas City got picked is that the municipality owns the poles. More precisely, as I recall, KCK owns all their poles, and KCMO owns many (most?) of the poles, with the rest owned by AT&T.
Another "problem" is local environmental regulations. I put "problem" in quotes because avoiding unnecessary environmental damage is a laudable goal. However, accomplishing this goal is usually a huge pain in the butt -- EIS reports take months to compile, and then can be challenged by essentially anyone for any reason. Where and how are you going to trench? Are there any legacy pollutants in the dirt? How will you handle that? What happens if you discover a culturally significant site while digging (e.g. Native American burial ground)? Will you need to disturb the protected osprey nest sitting on the seventh pole along the 400 block of Horton Street? What kind of fiber bundle are you pulling? Will it leach toxic materials in the heat/rain/snow? How much noise to you intend to make while doing this? Will the city have to re-route traffic around downtown while you're trenching?
So, yeah, it can be a huge pain in the neck even without factoring in whiny incumbent competitors.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Your sarcasm detector might be in need of repair.
He's trying to generalize a principle, but he's pulling out the wrong aspect to generalize. "Small town politicians screw it up; we need larger scale politicians." That's a misunderstanding of the problem... it's a bit like saying "All these small radishes taste terrible; I think we need large radishes. Obviously, small things taste bad.'
that"s heresy one must not speak false of our corporate elders. good point, but i'm sure some corporate sycophant will try to rationalize your point..
This isn't something for the Feds. This is the kind of thing State governments are supposed to regulate, much like they do electric power service.
Yeah, because that really worked out well for the cellular companies. You need to turn the cock back about 30 years.
Hmm, cell phones went from suitcase sized devices in the trunk that cost $3 / minute to a fully capable computer in your pocket with unlimited everything for $35 / month. You say that's the result of deregulation?
Stop and ponder that for a minute. You might have just taught yourself something.
We start to see the mythical benefits of "deregulation". With real competition, a real free market, consumers win. Too many industries that claim they are operating in a free market are really extracting maximum profits from a "fixed" free market.
Well at least he didn't mention condo boards or HOA's. Could've boosted his credibility a smidge.
Funniest of all he probably keeps his wireless locked in the fridge so his neighbors can't share.
Remember the good old days when students and universities built their own internet infrastructure?
Neither do I.
Oh yeah, you were talking about the Feds. Haha, funny, they're too busy printing money that oughta keep'm busy for another couple years.
Which country do you think CREATED the internet? It is precisely the "incorrect American theories" you want to get rid of that created the internet in the first place!
Reaganomics, you say. Reaganomics boils down to "cut taxes and increase R&D.
1981 Reagan's first budget expands DARPA funding
1982 DARPA uses Reagan funding to develop Internet Protocol (IP)
1984 After turning the Carter recession into a boom, Reagan is re-elected in a landslide
1987 Ordinary consumers have internet service in their house
1988 The best president since Kennedy finishes up his two terms
It takes a giant, ancient company like AT&T 5-10 years to make big strategic decisions, hiring consulting firms to analyze this and that, then another five years to actually build out fiber in a big city. So they have to decide this year to start getting off their asses if they don't want Google to potentially slaughter them several years from now.
The most likely outcome is that AT&T, Comcast etc will take some of their money (including potentially money they were given by the government supposedly to build high-speed broadband) and use it to lobby federal, state and local governments to get Google stopped.
No shit. Fuck the downmods.
If drinkypoo and I agree on an idea, it must be the right choice.
When I read your column, I remembered this post from Robert X Cringely back in 2001 where he solved a similar problem:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2001/pulpit_20010628_000421.html
Not sure if this would help, but it's certainly an idea!
I think the competition is great! Ashland, Oregon setup a fiber network back in the early 2000's, maybe late 90's. At the time, it was the fastest game in town. Then, @Home came in... and was pissed off.. but at least in Ashland they have competition. You have two competitive carriers offering TV via cable (AFN TV and Charter) and 2 cable companies offering internet, AFN Internet and Charter.
It's been great. They both bounce off each other and that's created higher speeds and lower prices in Ashland.
The AFN is owned by the city of course -- but hey, competition is helpful.. especially when in most areas you don't have two cable TV or cable internet providers. Or phone companies.
I think more municipalities should either get on the Google bandwagon as they can and/or consider their own. It seems odd to me also that Microsoft and Intel and such can be sued for monopoly yet, in most cities nationwide.. the cable/internet/phone company is a monopoly. A state/federal sanctioned monopoly. It's crap.
Never mind 1Gbps, where the F*** is 100mbps standard in cable companies at least !?
Many states only have 15mbps and 30mbps boost for $65+/month. Dedicated 100mbps,
would be more then enought to make better infrustructure all over the country.
But I would love to see Google Fiber all over the US, this would be huge internet boost for all.
I know what I would say to AT&T if I were the city planners here in Austin. "How about I give you the bird..." *flips AT&T off* "... do nothing more, and let the added competition and free market drive you to do it without these demands. Have a nice day!"
Well they may not be any less corrupt, but at least they are a lot more visible target than the BOD of ATT or Comcast.
Goog also wastes little effort in the craptastic "value add" portal shit that Comcast, ATT, etc want you to use. It is the ISP equivalent to the uninstallable shovelware added to most smartphones, or Apple really not being happy allowing Goog apps (service frontends) on iOS.
I fully support public networks, but I see no reason at all to ban private networks if someone thinks they can do a better job than the public offering.
It was/is GOOD that phone/cable co's built out their networks to provide service to *everyone*. That is in the 'National Good'.
(1) If by "everyone", you mean "not actually everyone". There are plenty of rural areas in the US where you can't get cable TV because it's just not economical for them to run the cables to your house. If you happen to not have too many tall trees around you can typically get Dish Network Satellite services, but that certainly doesn't get you broadband Internet service.
(2) One of the dirty little secrets about cable TV is that most of the set top boxes are barely inside the limit for the RF interference they generate. But wait, there's more? If you have a high urban density, it's not unheard of to have such high noise levels that you can't get over the air television, and your only choice for television programming turns out to be cable or Dish as a workaround to the high RF noise floor. This is not an accident.
Also, it doesn't have to be a rural area; I live 50 feet too far from the LATE smack in the middle of Silicon Valley to get high speed DSL; because if they guarantee me a higher data rate at that distance, they could (but probably would not) come in in violation of the tariff. So I'm either stuck on a baseband Cable connection with a bunch of Oracle engineers who would _clearly_ never hack your cable modem, or 4G wireless (luckily there's an unlimited service in the area right now, but I don't expect that to last).
So for some rather piss poor definition of things, the infrastructure is "built out".
That's a good read, and thanks to your memory. Love me some good ol' boy engineering.
Several years ago, just this very thing was used to shut down a fledgling ferry-boat service among the Hawaiian islands, so the parent is definitely not kidding. Google "Hawaii Superferry".
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Holy mother of fuck, he overspent.
I buy wireless routers with external antenna connectors at yard sales and flea markets. I have two WRT54GS units, of different versions, total cost $20. And you can get yagis on eBay for $20 each.
Even if you buy everything new, you should pay a LOT less than what Cringely did, just by buying shit that makes sense. Airport? How about a Linksys running Tomato?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Tell me more.
Indiana already did this, removed the ability for local cities & counties to regulate these matters.
Internet progress has not improved.
Your opinion is in conflict with the facts.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Exactly. ATT & others have proven they don't care.
Telcos got BILLIONS from the federal government to improve rural broadband in the 90's and 00's. I live 20 miles outside Austin city limits. I STILL only get dial-up from the telcos, I can't even get shitty ISDN. I have to use a radio wireless service (run by a small business 30 miles in a small town in the other direction) to get even 1mbps internet service.
In short, fuck the telcos, fuck Time Warner, who won't run a cable down our road even with hundreds of potential customers for a simple 5 miles of cable. Maybe Google will force these assholes to provide service to the rest of us.
Yup, FIOS is notorious about this stuff. The installers are basically under the gun to install their shovelware on your PCs when deploying the service - they really don't want to take no for an answer. When having it installed I used my work laptop as the PC the service was intended for and informed the installer that my employer has a policy against non-standard software, which seemed to get around this.
Ostensibly they want local software for troubleshooting and so that you don't have a crazy MTU setting or something that will degrade your service. However, they will go ahead and put 14 more icons on your desktop for their partners, bookmarks in your browser, and reconfigure who knows what to point to their shovelware.
There are plenty of rural areas in the US where you can't get cable TV because it's just not economical for them to run the cables to your house.
And there'd be a whole lot more areas that aren't even rural that wouldn't have been economical without cable franchises. You know what else exists out there in the boonies? Phone lines. Same thing. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...
What's that saying? The exception proves the rule.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Whoosh!
You missed the date on the article, it was from 2001 when 802.11 hardware was still expensive and a year and a half before the WRT54G v1.0 came out.
You missed the date on the article, it was from 2001 when 802.11 hardware was still expensive and a year and a half before the WRT54G v1.0 came out.
Well, you win the internets I guess. My bad. Even then there were other options, though. I have some 802.11b options here too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hope Google ventures into Banking domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_leaks
Casteism
It's also 1Gbit symmetric .
If all you want out of your symmetry is to upload large videos to youtube and other established players, then yes, it is symmetric. If however you want to use your upstream bandwidth to, say, do the first thing that should come to most slashdot reader's minds- run a server providing your own alternate services to Google's cloud offerings, then you are *squarely* out of luck. Because GoogleFiber is same as the old boss- hosting any kind of server is prohibited. Using the service for business requires you contact them for non-transparent pricing 'details' (aka, their calculated level of 'tribute'). (as if trading your visual attention (reading GoogleAds) for advanced computing services (youtube/gmail/etc) is not 'business')
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
I remember reading that one of the major providers in Kansas said the same thing, and the local government said, "OK. You can have the same deal." and so far I haven't heard anything about non-Google gigabit up there.
To the cockfaces that downmodded us: downmod this, asswipe. Burn your mod points. I'll still be sitting at Karma: Fuck You Awesome forever.
What nonsense.
Nothing prohibits a third party / overbuilder from laying broadband in a given town, except the fact that the potential subscriber base isn't willing to pay FMV for the service. Google doesn't care whether it profits on KC or Austin; everyone else does.
There are real-world logistical issues that require some serious engineering and construction management, and therefore are subject to local regulation, as any physical infrastructure is, but that isn't an insurmountable obstacle, again, if the people are willing to pay for it.