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.
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)
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.
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.
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
Came here to say the same thing. I'll add that AT&T is probably planning to use dumping, one of the classic anti-competitive behaviors.
In classic dumping, the incumbent (AT&T) offers the service at price calculated to drive the competition out of business. Given Google's $60 billion in current accounts (as of GOOG's last 10-K), I don't think this plan will work. If Google were structured normally and started losing money, the shareholders would start pressuring management to pull the plug on the broadband ventures. However, given GOOG's two-class ownership structure, shareholder pressure is minimized. So Larry Page can keep this up just as long as he pleases (as long as GOOG continues to make money in its other ventures).
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.
I don't think Google cares if AT&T undercuts them. They are not doing this to become a profitable ISP, they are doing this to shake up the last mile provider so that they can upgrade internet services to their customers and market new google products and better gather data for their ultimate customers; advertisers. If Google fiber takes off and goes national, Google wins. If Google wakes up the ISPs and forces them to compete with better broadband nationally. Google wins and will shut down fiber ..
That's the end game .. faster internet, better google service. Doesn't matter who delivers it....
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
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.
There is something state government can do to get the municipalities in line: mandate competition. Put simply, all contracts which grant a sole monopoly on right of way for communications lines should be made illegal by state law. This is well within our rights, as contracts are merely legal fictions. This alone would help many. Then the state has to follow this up by enforcing it. But note that this is only giving the state the power to take a specific power away from municipalities, but it doesn't grant them the power to actually make the decisions. Trying to solve the problem in one fell swoop by giving centralized government more purchasing power is not going to help. History tells us, in fact, that it will make things worse. Instead of having one choice in your town, you'll end up with one choice in the whole state or even nation. History tell us that is highly undesirable. Please remember the lessons of history.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"