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.
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.
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.
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
"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"?
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
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.
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
Surely you don't trust the lying scum at AT&T with your info?
"unlimited everything" is not true, and the service is NOT available everywhere except "most cities and towns" (there are plenty of spots with no coverage even in freeways), and in a lot of cities you get a lot of dropped calls since, well, "for most people, it works. so the problem is not us, it's you".
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.
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???
Check out the cell phone prices and broadband infrastructure in those Eurosocialist countries compared to the US. You may teach YOURSELF something.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)