Slashdot Mirror


Google Fiber Pondering 9 New Metro Areas

New submitter GreyWanderingRogue writes "Google is looking to expand beyond the three current cities using Google Fiber. They're currently still in the discussion stages, but they've invited 34 cities in 9 major metropolitan areas to talk about deployment. They'll need to study 'topography (e.g. hills, flood zones), housing density, and the condition of local infrastructure' in each of the cities, so it will be interesting to see how many make it to completion. Check the map to see if you're one of the lucky few. The Atlanta, Portland and Raleigh-Durham areas each have a cluster of cities being considered. Not in one of these cities? It might be a while yet..."

172 comments

  1. I'd rather eat google fiber... by BisuDagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    then go one more day with Comcast. Jacksonville, Fl makes me a sad puppy. Looks like I'm waiting even longer for something good to come along.

    1. Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 2

      Part of your high fiber diet?

    2. Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of your high fiber diet?

      He needs help passing what he's been fed by Comcast.

    3. Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs help passing what he's been fed by Comcast.

      Considering that they keep giving less and less (while charging more and more!), that shouldn't be too hard. Seriously.

    4. Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd use NetZero dial-up over crapcast.

    5. Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... by samwichse · · Score: 1
  2. San Antonio! by Neruocomp · · Score: 0

    Austin has all the big names, but San Antonio is just a better city.

    --
    Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it
    1. Re:San Antonio! by Megane · · Score: 1

      It's a great place to live, but good luck finding tech jobs there. And San Antonio is not exactly my definition of "densely populated". Sure it's like #9 or #10 in US city population, but it's like #29 or so in metro population because there isn't much of the metro area that consists of other incorporated cities. (Maybe it'll give Fry's a reason to finally build a store there, ha ha.)

      Now if they can just get started on lighting up Austin, I'd be happy.

      And I think RTP is a good choice for a GF city.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:San Antonio! by Neruocomp · · Score: 0

      We have plenty of tech jobs, not of the kind glorified by Google or Facebook, but Rackspace and USAA are major employers. Also do your research, San Antonio is #7 in city population and #25 in metro population. Not to mention in the top 20 for fastest growing cities.

      --
      Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it
    3. Re:San Antonio! by mistapotta · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the existence of miles of fiber just waiting in San Antonio is part of the reason they're considering it.

    4. Re:San Antonio! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      apparently not. There is a real reason why those that can afford it and have to live in Texas, will choose Austin.
      That is also why Google picked Austin over a place like San Ant.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:San Antonio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know. San Antonio strikes me as good a place for a Gay Fuck as any other. Heck, those texans love to be fucked. After all, they elected W and then later, perry.

    6. Re:San Antonio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've spent about a decade living in both San Antonio and Austin. If you're a nerd, Austin is better by far. San Antonio has lots to offer. It's a bigger city with a more diverse culture. It has a road system that wasn't designed by stoned hippies who hate sprawl. However, if you're a nerd, Austin is where you find jobs and friends with common interests.

    7. Re:San Antonio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know. San Antonio strikes me as good a place for a Gay Fuck as any other. Heck, those texans love to be fucked. After all, they elected W and then later, perry.

      You must be that guy I met in the bathroom of The Bonham Exchange.

      Why haven't you called me?

    8. Re:San Antonio! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      apparently not. There is a real reason why those that can afford it and have to live in Texas, will choose Austin.

      Only if you're a nerd or hippie with money - otherwise you'd choose Dallas or Houston if you've got cash.

      The fact that Google is looking at San Antonio before considering Dallas/Houston for their fiber service should tell you something.

    9. Re:San Antonio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Cities with liberals in control are pushing for more services for their citizens. And castro is a liberal. In fact, nearly all of these locations are controlled by liberals (interestingly, KC is not, but that is the major exception).

    10. Re:San Antonio! by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      apparently not. There is a real reason why those that can afford it and have to live in Texas, will choose Austin.

      Only if you're a nerd or hippie with money - otherwise you'd choose Dallas or Houston if you've got cash.

      The fact that Google is looking at San Antonio before considering Dallas/Houston for their fiber service should tell you something.

      Yes they don't want to fight Comcast just yet.

    11. Re:San Antonio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great and all if you like being a redneck hick.

  3. NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time that Google looks towards the Triangle area in NC to possibly implement their fiber. Does the no server clause prevent a business from using this, or might they have business models? I tried to enter a chat on their website, but unfortunately since I'm not in a currently provided area they don't want to chat with me.

    1. Re:NC by Megane · · Score: 1

      IIRC, their answer to that is "we'll figure out what to do about it later". So right now they don't support that, but they know they will need to eventually. I don't think they'll mind people doing low-impact non-commercial server stuff, but that wasn't your question.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "no server clause" was recently updated: https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=2440874&ctx=topic:

      "To operate servers for commercial purposes. However, personal, non-commercial use of servers that complies with this AUP is acceptable, including using virtual private networks (VPN) to access services in your home and using hardware or applications that include server capabilities for uses like multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, and home security."

      So non-commercial use is explicitly OK. Not that it helps with the business case.

  4. I really hope... by TWX · · Score: 1

    ...that they consider my area. The two consumer-grade broadband solutions kind of suck even though we were a pilot city for the original cablemodem spec, but oh, I would so love to have fiber to the NID, even if I'd have to buy my own single-mode gbic to make it happen...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I really hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...that they consider my area.

      Me too! Come over to Albuquerque, Google. Please! It's almost on a straight line between Kansas City and Phoenix, so it shouldn't be too hard to add us into your network.

  5. Note to end of story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google bought the tax payer funded network in Provo, Utah for $1.

    http://transmission.xmission.com/2014/02/19/google-fiber-in-salt-lake-city

    1. Re:Note to end of story... by Petron · · Score: 1

      I'll buy that for a dollar!

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  6. Exchanging one bad master for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

    1. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

      Do it trust a company with a history of supporting open source software, and open standards, that lest me see the data the collected when i am using their services and edit and or delete it, more than I trust a cable company or cell service provider? yes I do trust Google more.

      Is Google perfect? No they have made mistakes but they try to not be evil more often then not, and that is far more than I can say about most other companies in their line(s) of business.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

      Unfiltered? Sure.
      Untracked and without extra targeted ads? No.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      You've obviously not had to deal with Comcast tech support.

      I cannot think of a worse master.

    4. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well most cable ISPs also provide advertising networks, so it's not a big jump to move to another one.

      Google isn't actually an advertising company though, they just get revenue from advertising. Similarly Comcast is a cable company that also gets revenue from advertising.

    5. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They try not to get caught more often than not.

    6. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      No they have made mistakes but they try to not be evil more often then not, and that is far more than I can say about most other companies in their line(s) of business.

      They might not be so evil at present. But what happens years down the road when they decide to be evil? They'll have this enormous treasure trove of data, and widespread control of information infrastructure. You know it's inevitable, right? They will not have this anti-evil philosophy forever...and in the meantime they chum the water...we eat happily...they begin pulling the net in around us.

    7. Re: Exchanging one bad master for another by krups+gusto · · Score: 0

      I don't trust any company.  But your implication is that non advertising companies are more likely to protect your privacy.  Why not assume your cable company is selling that same info on the side for extra money?  Maximizing shareholder value and all that.

    8. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They might not be so evil at present. But what happens years down the road when they decide to be evil? They'll have this enormous treasure trove of data, and widespread control of information infrastructure.

      The cable and phone companies have had more data for over a decade, and they are already evil. Moving from a known evil to a potential evil is s good thing.

      You know it's inevitable, right?

      It is not inevitable, for two reasons.

      First, companies become evil when the people making decisions find it in their interest to be evil. As long as Google is insanely profitable and requires user trust to stay profitable, they have no reason to be evil.

      Second, the two founders together have more than half of the voting shares. They can say "no" to anything other shareholders say. They can fire any manager, without any other shareholder's consent. They are already too rich to care about any extra money evil actions might make. They are identified with Google, and any evil Google does reflects on them personally. Google will never do anything they think is evil, and they have a track record of good judgment.

       

      They will not have this anti-evil philosophy forever...and in the meantime they chum the water...we eat happily...they begin pulling the net in around us.

      The phone company has a log of your cell phone's location at all times. They are already willing to do anything for a buck. Why not rant about them? If you whine about what the innocent might be guilty of in some imagery future, while tolerating the actions of the truly guilty, you are part of the problem.

    9. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by Some_Llama · · Score: 2

      comcast and att already ARE evil, so if it's a choice over who could be evil in the future and who IS evil now, i'll take a chance with the future...

    10. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      They might not be so evil at present. But what happens years down the road when they decide to be evil?

      no corporation is ever evil, they are just profit seeking. google is profitable if they have a lot of users, so it's in their best interest to keep them happy. doing things people don't like w/ their data doesn't make them happy. more than most other companies that possess your personal data, google has a motive to not abuse it.

      also, have you considered what happens if your health insurance company becomes evil? your mortgage provider? your auto insurance company? you have a lot to worry about.

    11. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      profit seeking over customer service in a customer service industry is evil, so yes companies are evil.

    12. Re:Exchanging one bad master for another by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      http colon backslash backslash www dot youtube dot com forward slash watch?v=AmD_8cBqhW0 best part is when he says tapping the esc key for 20 minutes while saying ganesha is great.

  7. No Love for the North? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison? Maybe they don't like the letter M.

    1. Re:No Love for the North? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Boo hoo, somebody call the wahmbulance ... no the north is some sort of frigid hell that only the natives could love ... damn Inuits.

      Full disclosure ... I live in the Twin Cities and the cost for service is extortionate just like everywhere that doesn't have GF

  8. I just hope that when it gets here, it is reliable by erice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A friend of mine has had Google Fiber in Kansas City for several months. She still keeps here DSL as backup because Google Fiber goes down frequently, sometimes several times in one day.

  9. Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by megalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not run fiber in the entire valley instead of just Scottsdale and Tempe? The north and west sides of Phoenix has a lot of families that could use 1 Gbs or 10 Gbs Internet.

    1. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Durrik · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was thinking the same thing. Why not Chandler (SE side), where Intel has two fabs, Freescale has an office, Microchip is located and a bunch of other big high tech companies? You're going to have a hell of a lot of high tech workers just begging for gigabit Internet. But that may be the reason, they may not want tech savvy people at it, because then they'll have a heavy stress test.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    2. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      From what I hear, it is mostly based on how much the city is willing to bend backwards to accommodate a quick rollout. Google doesnt have to work with uncooperative cities.

    3. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Scottsdale and Tempe seem good, but Chandler/Gilbert seem pretty glaring omissions.

      Nobody cares about the West Side except the stadium area. It's all slowly turning into Metro Center.

    4. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by megalon · · Score: 1

      It would not be that hard to do. Just follow the I-10, I-17, Hwy 101 and Hwy 303 for the backbone fiber.

    5. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      303? The retirement communities on Lake Pleasant Parkway need fiber, for sure, but I'm not sure they need faster internet.

    6. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by oracleofbargth · · Score: 2

      From what I hear, it is mostly based on how much the city is willing to bend backwards to accommodate a quick rollout. Google doesnt have to work with uncooperative cities.

      This is true. Overland Park got dropped because the city government was being uncooperative.

    7. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about supplying those in need, it's about knee-capping the incumbent ISPs in their major profit centers.

    8. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      They will hit it all. They are simply starting in those areas, because the locals have made fast internet a priority.
      Of course, if the other locations are ran by idiots who do not care, then Google will likely not do it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the cities in Atlanta that Google is targeting, I think it has something to do with population density. Low-density suburbs need not apply. :(

    10. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's about knee-capping the incumbent ISPs in their major profit centers.

      And this is not a Bad Thing (TM)

    11. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's part of it, another is the expected uptake from the people that live there, and population density (though Scottsdale is less dense than Chandler, they'd be expected to have a much higher uptake. The same goes for Tempe.

      If you spend a lot of money to cover an area, and only 1:100 use your service, you're losing/lost money... if it takes 1:10 to break even, that would be insane.

      Not to mention that Cox isn't near as bad as what other people in the country are dealing with regarding AT&T and Comcast. A lot of people wouldn't switch.

    12. Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be just a waste - dialup will be fine there.

      They should concentrate on the Tricounty area and the Startling 67's.

  10. Fuck you, Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in rural PA and I can't get DSL or a cable modem.

    How about hooking us po' folk up instead?

    1. Re:Fuck you, Google by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      You could try some of the horrible satellite internet, but it beats dial up to be sure.

      Other option would be a community funded fiber line and then a wireless ISP
      for the town there.

      Some rural towns have down their own Internet Co-ops, if your small enough
      the Tecos won't sabotage you too bad.

      http://www.ncic.net/

      http://www.micemn.net/

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  11. atl/ga corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    coworkers & I were just talking about need to proactively appoint an independent prosecutor w/expedited subpoena/investigative power to find/expose and financial ties between comcast/at&t and any politicians who will inevitably try to block/obstruct this!

    1. Re:atl/ga corruption by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Hope you are ready for an IRS audit, lol.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  12. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kansas Citian here. I've never had problems with Google Fiber going down. I've had instances where my wi-fi seemed to momentarily drop, but that happened occasionally with my old router too and it hasn't ever lasted more than a few seconds. The only prolonged outage that I've noticed was an hour or so when (ironically) I couldn't access google.com, but the rest of the internet still worked fine.

  13. New Slogan for Google by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

    "No matter how much we suck, we still don't ComcastTimeWarner suck. Yet."

    1. Re:New Slogan for Google by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Based on my experience with TW internet, and my mom's with TW cable, it would take a hell of a lot of suck to compete with them. Don't know about Comcast, but it sounds like they're no improvement over TW.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:New Slogan for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on my experience with TW internet, and my mom's with TW cable, it would take a hell of a lot of suck to compete with them. Don't know about Comcast, but it sounds like they're no improvement over TW.

      (Former) Comcast customer here. Yes, you are correct: it would take a whole lot of suck to compete with them. Anything--and I mean anything up to and including going completely free of all cable service--would be better than those rubes.

    3. Re:New Slogan for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be on Comcast and now I'm on Time Warner. It's difficult to decide which one is worse. Both have abysmal tech support.

      I had a power surge at my house that fried their modem(nothing else on my surge protector was damaged...just their modem). None of the lights came on, and it still took me 40 minutes on the phone with TWC to convince them that I needed a new modem, at which point they told me: we can be there Tuesday from 8AM - 2 PM, and if we don't show up on Tuesday we'll be there on Wednesday probably. I know its hard to guess how much time a tech will spend on one job, but ffs...a 2 day window is ridiculous. I can't take off 2 days just because their modem is shit.

      I told them to not worry about it, that I would buy my own modem to fix the problem. Then they tried to set up a time to pick up their defunct equipment with the same crazy 2 day bull shit. I told them I'd drive it to their location at my own convenience, and they actually seemed upset by that.

      The second I can switch away from TWC I'm going to. There's a local ISP here that is far superior, I've had them before, but they don't service my area. Whoever moves internet into my area next gets my business.

    4. Re:New Slogan for Google by PRMan · · Score: 1

      See, this is strange. Because I'm a former Adelphia current Time Warner customer and I have no complaints. I even called twice this week to upgrade my speed (first call they agreed to the free 100Mbps upgrade, made notes and told me to get a DOCSIS 3.0 router).

      They answered the calls in about 5 minutes and took care of everything very professionally. And now I have great speed and it hasn't been down for the whole year (maybe once or twice at 4am).

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:New Slogan for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same happened to me on comcast. They said they will allow me to pick up the router at their local center, and in 2 hours I was back online.

  14. Good by The+Cat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Competition is needed. Meanwhile, for all the people who are pissed off about Comcast, there is a solution.

    Buy a controlling share in the company.

    Before you scoff, consider all the companies that would benefit from Comcast not being an obstacle (Google, Netflix, Apple, Charter, Twitter, plus about 100,000 startups). For about $67 billion at the current share price, Comcast could be under new ownership.

    $67 billion is chickenshit money up against the assets and revenue of all the parties with a horse in this race.

    Vote out the board, fire the management, vote in a new board, hire new management, and turn Comcast into a defender of net neutrality instead of a problem.

    That's how capitalism works. You know what the best part is? Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it. The company is publicly traded.

    1. Re:Good by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it.

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

    2. Re:Good by The+Cat · · Score: 0

      http://articles.philly.com/201...

      A sufficiently motivated takeover coalition with sufficient capital can defeat any gimmick.

      My original statement stands.

    3. Re:Good by thaylin · · Score: 1

      If we all combined to buy 51% that would not kick in, unless we bought it as one entity.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want Comcast to have new ownership. I want them gone. All cable companies need to be wiped off the face of the map. TV is antiquated technology that has no place in the 21st century, and the sooner people realize that the better.

    5. Re:Good by MattGWU · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this just open the newly-managed Comcast up to the shareholder action for not maximizing the value of their investment? I'm sure they'd have little trouble proving in court that the monopoly status they've enjoyed for so many years is critical to their shareholder value, and you'd have taken pretty obvious, deliberate steps to erode that market advantage and therefore that value. For the good of everybody else, sure, but the remaining 49% of shareholders will probably be pissed.

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    6. Re:Good by satsuke · · Score: 1

      Completely impossible .. according to their ownership structure, 83% of the outstanding shares are owned by institutional investors.

      Meaning, even if you created an artificial scarcity by buying up all shares available at any given time .. you'd still be way short of enough to effect change (and in any event, a bunch of individual investors wouldn't have any representation on the board).

      You might be able to do it with an activist institutional investor like Carl Icahn .. but someone like him wouldn't be motivated to do anything like that. (e.g. against his own interests).

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it.

      Poison pill. You bought half the shares in the company? Great! The executive board just issued itself a billion more class A (votes at 10x) shares, enjoy your stack of overpriced stock with 2% voting power.

      You don't even begin to have an idea of what it takes for a hostile takeover. By the time you get to 15% of the stock your intentions are going to be known and the gentle rise of the stock from 51 to 60 will spike up to 80 or so. Meanwhile the existing power structure is going to be busy stacking the board of directors against you. You finally get to 51% of the voting stock ownership and what happens? The board puts out their slate of executives on the ballot, and it's the same guys as before. Do you put your 51% vote on "Yes"? Or do you put it on "Abstain"? You can go the Ichan route and force an election with your own slate of executives. All the filing paperwork and tracking down and sending out notices to all the other stockholders, I think he mentioned it only costs him tens of millions of dollars. As you say, "chickenshit money"

    8. Re:Good by The+Cat · · Score: 0

      We bought half the shares in the company and the Executive Board was fired before they made it to the meeting room.

      You don't even begin to have an idea of what it takes for a hostile takeover. By the time you get to 15% of the stock your intentions are going to be known

      Our intentions are known when we file our 13-d at 5% ownership. You have no idea what I know. Stop lecturing.

      You finally get to 51% of the voting stock ownership and what happens?

      You vote out the board and install your own. Or, even better, you sell off the assets and distribute the proceeds to the shareholders, turn off the lights and go home.

      All the filing paperwork and tracking down and sending out notices to all the other stockholders, I think he mentioned it only costs him tens of millions of dollars. As you say, "chickenshit money"

      Tens of milions of dollars is chickenshit if you control Comcast.

      Carl Icahn is worth $20 billion. I think his approach worked.

    9. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 2

      over 51% is owned by board members. SO..good luck.

      Of course, once you intentions are knows, stock will drop like hell. Now, you are thinkg you will then buy it up, right? wrong. The board will then sue you for violation of share holder right
      But lets say most board member also sell their shares and you now own 51%

      That does not mean you get to do what ever you want to do. The other 40% also have rights, so when you action continue to cause the stock price to drop, they will sue you, take away your board control and a 3rd party board will be put ij place by the courts.

      Carl Icahn did it becasue he improved the stock price.

      I think your understanding of how this works comes from too many movies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Good by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this just open the newly-managed Comcast up to the shareholder action for not maximizing the value of their investment?

      Sure. At which point you offer them a choice: shut up and enjoy the ride or we sell the company assets and distribute the proceeds.

      Ownership in America is the ultimate trump card.

    11. Re:Good by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      over 51% is owned by board members

      Who value profit like everyone else.

      Of course, once you intentions are knows, stock will drop like hell.

      It doesn't work that way.

      Carl Icahn did it becasue he improved the stock price.

      Carl Icahn did it because he improved shareholder value. There's a difference.

    12. Re:Good by kiphat · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter, Anyone?

    13. Re:Good by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I motion could be raised that with enough initial support could be put to a vote from the entire shareholder group, allowing your to combine your voices.

    14. Re:Good by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Public shares are not voting shares in some corporations.

      Unless you buy the special shares which are often not available to the general public
      you can't vote the shares.

      Alot of corporations pretend they listen to the public shares, but they don't,
      its only the big money special shares that are usually offered at IPO and
      mostly to key founders and investors of the company.

        So when you think common stock has voting power, no it does not anymore
      in most corporations.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    15. Re:Good by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I am surprised by this, unless the premium share holders made it happen
      then it follows my premise of common vs. premium stock and voting rights.

      http://www.srr.com/article/pri...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    16. Re:Good by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      LOL, a public coop buyout of comcast, that would be both funny and amazing.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    17. Re:Good by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Who value profit like everyone else.

      Of course, and that's why Comcast does what it currently does. It's profitable.
      It's more profitable to restrict competing services.
      It's more profitable to become the regional monopoly.
      It's more profitable to charge a high price while not putting that money into the infrastructure needed to provide excellent service.

      Many people will choose the better company with the better service, maybe even paying more to do so. But when you're the only game in town, you can focus solely on profit without regard to consequences, not what is good for your customers. Sure, all companies focus on profit, and that's not a terrible thing in itself, but most executives also realize certain actions will lose them customers in the long run. In many (fortunately not all) markets Comcast doesn't need to have that worry. Sure, they have to provide a minimal amount of service. The TV has to work. The Internet has to be up. But throttling large-bandwidth applications, throttling services that compete with their own offerings.. they've crunched the numbers and discovered it will make them more money to do so.

      Even if you can reform the company and make it "do the right thing," it sure as hell won't be more profitable.

    18. Re:Good by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      Even if you can reform the company and make it "do the right thing," it sure as hell won't be more profitable.

      Bullshit. Not everything shows up on a spreadsheet. There are a dozen ways to make faster Internet access and more open Internet access more profitable than a backwards closed system.

  15. Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    What pisses me off is that Google goes to areas that are already well serviced by other vendors, and taking FOREVER to roll out. At this rate, they'll manage 10% coverage in the US by the turn of the next century.

    1. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Places that aren't already serviced just aren't going to be anytime soon. Those folks living in the sticks will need to wait for a good wireless service. The low population density makes it hard to see a return on any investment.

    2. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      lol.

      You sound like this is a govt. initiative or charity?

      Google are building momentum and are most likely choosing the most economical places first. The fact you are under serviced is because....

      In my country the government are currently rolling out fibre to the home all over the nation.
      And guess where they are starting? The cities where they already have high speed ADSL with full coverage. (NB: aside from a couple of wealthy "test" towns in the proof of concept)
      In the country you are lucky to have ADSL at all or be on a 12 month waiting list for connection to a VERY crappy service.
      And you want to know the worst of it? The uptake on the fibre in the city areas where its been implemented have been exceptionally low. Why? Because they don't need it!

      WE have something bitch about. :)

    3. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by alen · · Score: 1

      google is in the business of making money, like every other company in america. in fact google has higher profit margins than almost every other greedy and evil corp as branded by slashdotters and netizens

      going into well served areas means a lot of potentially angry customers who can't wait to switch

    4. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by thaylin · · Score: 1

      I just wish I knew their criteria. I got tired of waiting so I moved 20minutes outside of Raleigh in Garner, there is a lot of houses, I have 50m cable, but will that get fiber if it comes to Raleigh.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      going into well served areas means a lot of potentially angry customers who can't wait to switch

      Do you think those who are currently stuck on dialup or 1mbps DSL are happy about the fact

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      They may be serviced by other ISPs, but the service in many cases is shit. Right now I'm dealing with Cox who over the last year or two has turned to crap. I regularly get dropped from doing whatever it is I'm doing because of them, and they continue to raise their rates. I'm paying about twice as much as I used to pay 3 years ago, and 3 years ago I wouldn't randomly have the service get disconnected four times a week (it usually happened once a month at worst.)

      Just yesterday I was playing hearthstone and was literally only two moves away from winning an arena match, and my WAN link went down so it made me forfeit. I already checked my own equipment by not only replacing it twice but also trying different firmwares in my router - the problem still persists.

      The alternative is centurylink who wants $40 a month for 12m/768k with bad jitter and high interleaving (which means high latency at ALL times with very unpredictable RTT.) Screw that shit, I'll stay with my consistently lower latency but less reliable 50m/10m for the same price.

      My area (Phoenix) is in Google Fiber's recent list. The whole metro area is actually a rather modern and clean grid design, very flat terrain, with no natural disaster risks to speak of, and some of the higher population densities with many tech companies already located out here. It is actually remarkably easy to deploy fiber out here, the question is will the politicians not be retarded and/or corrupt.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    7. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding. Google has delivered it faster than any other group ever has. I have been impressed. And with the rate that they are moving, next year, they will hit another 10% of the major cities.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      They already said what their criteria was. They want cities in which the gov. is WANTING this. Most of these places have educated ppl running their gov. who want 1GB connections, and are willing to work on it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      The VERY best part of it is that the US taxpayer doled out $300 billion in corporate welfare
      to the Telcos and they took the money and run.

      It was supposed to be used to provide broadband to every US home.

      As usual, corrupt corporations + corrupt government ( left & right ) = legalized theft

      http://www.newnetworks.com/bro...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    10. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I take it back then. I was not aware of this.

      In that case you have something to be upset about...but not with google...

    11. Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      PS: FYI

      You do not have a "left" in your country. What you erroneously refer to as the mainstream "left" (i.e. Democrats) is actually a centre right party at best.

      Of course the typical US discourse is somewhat myopic and hence why the confusion...

  16. Google Doesn't want to deploy fiber.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just want to scare the MSOs (Comcast/ATT/Verizon) into upgrading their networks and thus making it easier for google to continue their core business model which benefits to bigger pipes to customers.

    There is a reason they have so few cities, and they deploy in places that are the easiest to manage. They really do not want to do this... its a horrible business.

    1. Re: Google Doesn't want to deploy fiber.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine by me! Competition is better for everyone, especially with a few gorillas who have strangleholds on the DSL and cable markets.

  17. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've only had Google Fiber 3 weeks, but so far it's been solid. Maybe a 2-second hang here and there, but otherwise fine.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  18. The condition of local infrastructure by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    The condition of local infrastructure

    Translation: If you've already basically laid most of the fiber for us, we'll buy in and finish it up.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:The condition of local infrastructure by jxander · · Score: 1

      As a first step, this seems reasonable. Any sane company would take this approach.

      Take over a half-finished product and see it through to completion. The hope, going forward, is that Google can leverage the revenue generated from the roll outs thus far to start building all new infrastructure.

      Fingers crossed.

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:The condition of local infrastructure by jonwil · · Score: 1

      There was a project to build out fiber somewhere in Southern California (I cant find a cite for exactly where) but it was abandoned (to the point where there are a bunch of dead fiber ends sticking out of a wall somewhere where they just cut the fiber off when they abandoned it).

      If the fiber is still there it seems perfect for Google to come in and take over. Anyone remember where that was or know whether it would make sense for Google to come there?

  19. Re:Good luck with all the coming ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.

    Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry

    OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.

    A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.

    A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.

    A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

    Awww, shit! A troll! I should have known better. Oh, well....

  20. Can't wait by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    I can't wait for them to keep rolling out everywhere! I want competition with the telecommunication oligopolies who keep playing games with the bill to squeek out more money. If they're not silently raising rates, they start billing you more often than once a month. I can't wait for Google Fiber. I'm excited.

    1. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google Fiber ain't the only player in this market. So if you live in a rural area you don't stand a chance, right? Wrong. C Spire Fiber is building out fiber to the home across the state of Mississippi. Finally we have a company that has the guts to focus on areas that Google would never build out to, taking into account that its mostly rural America that is always left in the dust when it comes to someone planning or deploying a high quality telecommunications infrastructure. Other service providers should take note of what C Spire is doing here for Mississippi communities. I can't wait either.

      http://slashdot.org/submission/3352033/small-mississippi-goes-1-gigabit-big

  21. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've had precisely zero problems with Comcast.

    With Comcast.

    Anecdotal evidence about ISPs is of the same value as anecdotal evidence about hard drive manufacturers.

  22. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my experience, the problems with Comcast have hardly ever been about poor connection quality; they've always been about deliberate sabotage (e.g. poisoning DNS, throttling Netflix, encrypting local cable channels, etc.) or hostile customer service (imposing sneaky BS fees, making customers go through Hell to get a CableCard instead of a set-top box, etc.)

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  23. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by alen · · Score: 1

    this is 2014
    put everything on wifi with a few dozen of your neighbors and then blame the ISP for every hiccup

    i used to have xbox live disconnect when playing single player. put everything on cat5 and most of my problems magically vanished.

    Wifi is like the old Layer 1 networks. everyone is broadcasting all their traffic into the air around you and your router and devices are trying to filter it out. that's why it keeps disconnecting

  24. Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1
    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    1. Re:Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenville, SC doesn't need it. When I lived in a foster home there over ten years ago, Charter(I think it was called Telecable at the time) had service that is tenfold faster than what I can get even now near downtown Seattle. Seattle is much denser and has much worse infrastructure. It would make more sense to provide service here than in a city with already excellent infrastructure that has a serious urban sprawl problem.

    2. Re: Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admittedly, you are right. I was commenting more on the basis of what Greenville did to try to get Google Fiber in the first place.

  25. Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities by Koreantoast · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's good to see some real competition, but it's disappointing that most of the locations chosen are simply further upgrading areas that already have a large tech presence. In some ways, it almost feels like it's further growing the gap between technologically advanced cities and the rest of the country.

    1. Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      None of the cities in the Atlanta area could be considered technologically advanced. Most of them are actually just suburbs, and not well-off suburbs at that. Sandy Springs would be the only well-off exception.

      As an example, the cities of College Park, Hapeville and East Point don't have a single Walmart between them, One is about to open soon and the residents are thrilled to finally have a shopping option. Compare that to a more typical suburb which might have several stores and protesters blocking more.

      What those three cities DO have is plenty of dark fiber and railroad ROW to lay in more, and local governments who would probably welcome Google with open arms.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    2. Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities by satsuke · · Score: 1

      While Kansas City has some tech companies (Sprint, Cerner, Garmin) and a fair number of engineering firms .. it's not exactly a burgeoning tech center.

    3. Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Many tech areas do not have good access. For example, the fastest connection I can get here near downtown Seattle is less than 1 Mbps. It's DSL from CenturyLink and so slow because of old cabling and the distance from the CO. I know the Internet isn't important to Microsoft and their associated companies in the area, but either extremely slow or unavailable access is hurting the economy here. Comcast has fast, but unreliable, service in some of the city, but they just don't cover the entire city.

    4. Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      None of the cities in the Atlanta area could be considered technologically advanced. Most of them are actually just suburbs, and not well-off suburbs at that. Sandy Springs would be the only well-off exception.

      Decatur and the northeastern half of the City of Atlanta are well-off, along with Roswell and Alpharetta. Metro Atlanta is a pretty big tech hub (mostly the midtown and buckhead neighborhoods in Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Roswell and Alpharetta, plus some in Duluth).

      What those three cities DO have is plenty of dark fiber and railroad ROW to lay in more, and local governments who would probably welcome Google with open arms.

      Alas, the City of Atlanta's government is too incompetent regardless of how much lip service they'll pay to it. Google wants expedited permitting, and that isn't going to happen (it takes 6-12 months to get a permit under normal circumstances!).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  26. Re: Good luck with all the coming ads by ncc74656 · · Score: 0, Troll

    A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

    Like Venezuela? How's socialism working out for them, idiot?

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  27. Ever heard of poison pills? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Buy a controlling share in the company.

    There are tools that corporations use [1] [2] to prevent such efforts. Often it's to protect them from a hostile takeover, but the same tools could be used to prevent a populist uprising as well.

    The corporatocracy will not allow us (say even if you did get a kickstarter or other such crowd funded initiative) to dominate Comcast. If this initiative were started, Comcast would have no shortage of tools to put it down.

    Majority fan/employee owned ventures are the exception, not the norm, for this reason (amongst others - coordinating large groups of diverse interests is not easy).

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Ever heard of poison pills? by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      The corporatocracy will not allow us (say even if you did get a kickstarter or other such crowd funded initiative) to dominate Comcast.

      By doing what? Comcast is publicly traded.

      Comcast would have no shortage of tools to put it down.

      You sound paranoid. Carl Icahn has made a living off of buying companies using hostile bids and (in his words) "fucking bad management." All of these tools (some allegedly wielded by far more nimble companies than Comcast) were available to them, and didn't stop him.

      Majority fan/employee owned ventures are the exception, not the norm,

      So? The Internet needs a solution to the net neutrality problem. Buying Comcast would solve the problem for 10% of users outright. Other companies would follow suit for obvious reasons.

      coordinating large groups of diverse interests is not easy

      Yet according to you, the "corportocracy" is a single-minded entity that will oppose the Internet at every turn.

      Raise $100 billion and go after them hard. Even if the initiative fails it will be the last time an American cable company fucks with the Internet.

    2. Re:Ever heard of poison pills? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Sorry you're bitter about it. I've lived it, been through 2 hostile acquisitions (one on one side, one on the other) as an employee of one of the companies. In the end what sealed both of them is the same investor class (i.e., professionally managed pension funds and private big-money hedge funds) owned both the companies that were being acquired and doing the acquiring, and they were essentially bought off on the deal.

      Look at Comcast: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?...

      Go pitch this to them, and see what they say. Your empty-mouthed diatribe: "Comcast is publicly traded." - belies the fact that the public securities market is by no means a free market. There are big players and if you do something they don't like, they can and will stop you and the SEC can or won't do anything about it.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Ever heard of poison pills? by The+Cat · · Score: 2

      Sorry you're bitter about it.

      Stop the childish attempts to put me on the defensive. Grow up and discuss the subject matter like an adult.

      Go pitch this to them

      How Comcast feels is irrelevant. You go to their shareholders and you buy the stock, and keep buying until you get a 50.1% majority, then vote the board out.

      You make this sound like science fiction. A large enough block of cash and stock controls the discussion. Comcast can fall just like U.S. Steel and Texaco and TWA and Marvel and Hostess all the other companies that have been bought out. It's just business.

    4. Re:Ever heard of poison pills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm am no expert, but I know that not all shares are voting shares. On top of that, you have to convince 50.1% of the shareholders to vote in a way that doesn't maximize profit.

    5. Re:Ever heard of poison pills? by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

      In reality, you need WAY less than 1/2 of the trading shares - if you get enough shares to nominate your own candidate to the board of directors, this will often do the trick.

  28. No NYC by nine-times · · Score: 3, Funny

    Crap, we're not on the list. Somehow, even the biggest city in the US can't get a decent fiber roll-out. That's how you know the "population density" arguments are BS.

    1. Re:No NYC by MattGWU · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy? The Northeast will never, ever, ever see this.

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    2. Re:No NYC by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well apparently we won't see decent internet from anyone else, either. DSL is unavailable. Verizon has no plans to install FIOS. I thought it was bad being stuck with TWC, but with the Comcast purchase, it's going from bad to worse.

    3. Re:No NYC by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Google is just looking for Low hanging fruit, to make it seem like they are making a change, while side stepping solving the problem.

      We got Big Cities NY, LA, Boston... That Google will not go too, because they will have a big fight against the current carriers.
      We got Rural and small cities area... That need band with too, however Google won't go there because they are too small to sound good. So they go with these mid sized cites.

      Not doing evil, doesn't mean you are doing good.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:No NYC by danlip · · Score: 2

      Or they are using the low hanging fruit to learn the ropes, and will eventually tackle the harder regions (if they turn a profit).

    5. Re:No NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not Zoidberg? Indianapolis could use the bandwidth, and I know ot would be relatively easy to run (A steam line running the length of the downtown area will be shut down next year, stick it in there) but the reason it will never come here is because of our politics. Some stupid local politician would sell us out because Comcast, Brighthouse, Verizon or ATT (or all of them) offered to make generous campaign donations....

    6. Re:No NYC by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Using low hanging fruit to let consumers and citizen know there are actual alternatives is being good.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:No NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of shitty internet connection must you have to crave DSL? If all your internet connectivity options are worse than DSL, might I suggest you start your own wireless ISP?

      Y U NO ISP?

    8. Re:No NYC by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Crap, we're not on the list. Somehow, even the biggest city in the US can't get a decent fiber roll-out. That's how you know the "population density" arguments are BS.

      NYC has bureaucracy. Apparently sufficient bureaucracy to overcome the advantages of population density.

    9. Re:No NYC by antdude · · Score: 1

      Same for L.A. area! :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:No NYC by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the bureaucracy and lobbying, the problem for NYC is that its so heavily built up (and with such a tangle of infrastructure already) that trying to run fiber would be a nightmare. Not to mention trying to convince the owners of all the 100s of apartment buildings and such to let Google (or anyone else) roll out new infrastructure into those buildings with all the disruption and things that entails.

    11. Re:No NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is because your so fin big you've buried and forgotten subway stations. trying to do an underground rollout in NYC would be an insane logistics problem. What happens when some fortune 500 loses power or loses phone or has to evacuated do to gas, because some 100 year old pipe no one knows about gets hit. When will streets be trenched to add in new conduit.

    12. Re:No NYC by nine-times · · Score: 1

      ...none of which changes the fact that I have shitty internet, and the "free market" is showing no signs of fixing it.

  29. Need for a Stretch Goal for Google by sckienle · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Google really wanted to prove out fiber, they would look to a less densely populated area. Consider what putting fiber successfully and profitably in a more rural area would do: pretty much kill the "It's too expensive" arguments for pretty much anywhere. Google needs to be put their weight and minds in trying to solve the last mile problem for all of America, not just the easy parts.

    --
    I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
    1. Re:Need for a Stretch Goal for Google by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Would be nice, but they are in it to make money. And they need a certain number of subscribers to do it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Need for a Stretch Goal for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that in truly rural areas, it really is too expensive. When the combined cost of trench, hardware, and cable run into the tens of thousands of dollars to hook up a single house, there's no real expectation that line will ever recoup it's cost. So what is rural to you; how many houses per mile? There is certainly a hard limit at which providing service is on the "public good" side of things and not the "financially wise" side of things. Honestly the best bet is to leverage whatever easy profit you can make from low-hanging fruit in high-density areas where the runs are short and customers per run are high (for example high-occupancy buildings) in eating the cost of the forever-unprofitable rural areas. I think we would both agree that Google isn't there yet.

    3. Re:Need for a Stretch Goal for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need metro subscribers first to cross subsidise rural connections so Google still makes a profit overall. Give 'em time to get the low hanging fruit so that the more difficult areas have a strong base to build on.

  30. Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Well, in that case I'm glad that I have Time Warner at 113 with no dropouts or problems. Thanks for the competition, Google Fiber!

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  31. Okay, I Get It Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You hate Microsoft, so you're going to punish everyone that lives near them by keeping Seattle off the list. Well, fuck you! A lot of us hate Microsoft too. A lot of us have been personally burned by Microsoft's paranoid kill/crush nonsense back in the day when your very first crawler was stretching its legs on our web sites, so you guys are assholes for lumping us in with them. C'mon, man, don't be jerks about this. Give us some light.

  32. Re:Good luck with all the coming ads by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2

    A Co-op ISP looks to be the best bet, but I think it would be killed by the Telecom Cartel.

    Cartel is when corporations scheme to price fix, and to equally screw the citizens.

    Monopoly is when one company owns it all and crushes any competition.

    Cartel can be far more subtle, and it is the current paradigm here.

    What is wild is that the US taxpayer paid $300 billion for a broadband upgrade,
    and the Telco's took the money and run.

    Whole story here:

    http://www.newnetworks.com/bro...

    Don't expect a fair and free trade experience from pirates, thieves, and looters.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  33. And what about Alpharetta? by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    The tech jobs in GA posted on Slashdot are heavily based in Alpharetta, and yet it's not in the list of cities they are considering. (And getting them to extend it down the 316 corridor is also wishful thinking, but Athens sure could use some options.)

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  34. Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have had Google Fiber for 6 months now and I have never had an issue with it being down completely. Sometimes when I do a speed test the up or down speed might drop down as low as 200Mbps but it has never completely gone out on me. For the most part it has been pretty consistent at providing 800+ Mbps symmetrical transfer. Their wifi from the TV boxes is not what I would call stellar but if you hook up your own 802.11n, it works great.

  35. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

    Yeah seen same issues with Wifi, its not perfect.

    My friend had problems with latency in real games, and
    tried his cat5 and it all went away.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  36. Damn right about Seattle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've done contract work in quite a few businesses all over the South including in upstate SC, and the places with Charter were all fast as hell. Greenville, SC does not need Google Fiber. Most of the businesses with Comcast had more than 20 Mbps. They make my 1.5 Mbps connection at home in Seattle for almost $70/month feel pitiful. Of course I'm one of the lucky ones because my neighborhood is right on the edge of the length limits for DSL so a few of my neighbors have unreliable connections of less than 1 Mbps. Comcast has been at capacity in the area for nearly a decade so they can't add new customers. Seattle sure as hell needs someone to start offering faster service.

  37. Screw Alpharetta by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    All this exurban sprawl to Alpharetta needs to stop. The only thing that has been accomplished is that people living elsewhere in the metro area are screwed because all the infrastructure is designed to facilitate a commute towards downtown, while now the center of mass for jobs is near (or outside) the Perimeter. It is absurd that people can live right next to downtown, yet are forced to suffer through an hour commute anyway. Anything that shifts development back inside the Perimeter is a good thing!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  38. Re: Good luck with all the coming ads by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No.
    Do you always here socialized and then compare it to WCS?

    Idiot.
    Not that I am surprised. You sig shows very clearly that you can't actually read. Or are so god damn stupid you can't actual understand facts.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Re:Good luck with all the coming ads by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    You would be saddened if you became fully aware of the percentage of voting adults in the US that could say those things and not be a troll.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I was thinking, tp. :)

  41. Metro? by linear+a · · Score: 1

    "Metro?" Ugh.

  42. Time-Warner-Cast needs to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my six years of dealing with Time Warner/Roadrunner, I've had an outage-based service interruption once every two weeks, mostly due to misconfigured UBR's.
    I've had billing issues where someone moves my modem's MAC to a different/incorrect cabledata type, causing me to get thrown into a walled garden despite being current on my bill every roughly six months.
    They use deep-packet inspection to help throttle your video packets to shit, at least according to every Glasnost test I've run.
    The UBee modem they force you to pay for/use? You can't turn off the WiFi radio, at least not with the custom firmware they're running.
    Even to Speedtest.net, I'm lucky to get half of what I paid for. (30/5 for $72/month.)

    The only reason they can get away with this? Literally 0 competition. AT&T doesn't even service my town. Considering it's on the list, and the town council has expressed interest in doing muni fiber (despite the bought-and-paid-for-by-Slime-Warner law to the contrary). If Google comes in to do it, I foresee this town council essentially green-lighting Google with any and every permit they can.

  43. I just learned about San Antonio's existing dark f by McKing · · Score: 1

    ...and now it makes a lot of sense for Google to come here. http://therivardreport.com/san... Please, please, please come to our town and take advantage of this existing dark fiber! In the press release they even have a blurb from our Mayor about making sure all elementary schools have gigabit connections within the next 6 years.

    --
    If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  44. Horribly profitable by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    It's where comcast makes all of their money. No content to create/buy/manage, just gravy.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  45. Commence hyperventilating in 9 new metro areas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And scrambling of lawmakers to offer the most concessions to Google to bring them to town.

  46. Have Google buy TW? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Comcast TW merger is a disaster in the making.
    OTOH, Google does not control that much video content (utube not withstanding), nor does TW cable. So, it would be a much better fit with Google than with Comcast.
    In addition, Google will no doubt have net neutrality over their lines.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  47. Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia by jddeluxe · · Score: 1

    This is total bullshit. I've had gigabit Google Fiber since 17 Sep 2013, today was the first time I had to reset the Network box...

  48. Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sometimes when I do a speed test the up or down speed might drop down as low as 200Mbps

    How do you ever survive?

  49. Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What brand/model firewall do you have?

  50. Re:Good luck with all the coming ads by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. You ignore that the taxes per person to do such a thing are WAY WAY lower than what we pay now for internet access.

    Way fucking lower. Holy shit, like, fucking, incredibly lower.

    Did i mention this would be cheaper?

    way.

  51. wrong strategy by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    What don't these people get about planning and budgets? Atlanta? It probably costs 50x more to bring equipment in, bury fiber, close roads, house the workers, etc in a huge city than it does in a small to medium sized city. And what are inner city residents known for? Not having money! Tearing the business district costs EVEN MORE money so despite them having the deep pockets, it's STILL not cost effective. They need to find a 100,000 resident city, tear that up instead, and get middle class citizens and medium-sized businesses on fiber. That's where the real money is.

  52. Cartel Busting by tengu1sd · · Score: 1

    Google may or may not consider this a business model, but what it does do is put the DSL & cable internet providers on notice that there may be another option. Since the decline of competition and the retirement of "sharing" that last mile, the only two options have been cable or phone company for internet access. 14 years ago, PacBell was laying fiber to San Diego neighborhoods, that project got canned when AT&T swallowed PacBell. Maybe Google could pick up those strands for $2.00. I'll chip in.

  53. Re:Good luck with all the coming ads by Catiline · · Score: 1

    That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.

    I guess that's why the wealthy elite exclusively send their kids to government schools, rely on police protection from rabid fans, and live on "government cheese", while the "poor, huddled masses" are scrimping so they can save enough to afford private tutors/ivy league colleges, bodyguard services, and 5-star chefs to cater in every meal?

    Here's a hint: the elites have never needed "good" government--they can afford to pay twice (once for the public version, albeit not much with tax evasion, and once for the quality services). They want "good enough" -- as in, just good enough that the proles won't revolt or pursue alternatives.

  54. Clemson SC, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, Internet here is awful. We have two choices: AT&T VDSL (or legacy ADSL in most places), or a local third-tier cable company that can't keep its network up for more than about 24 hours.

  55. Re:Commence hyperventilating in 9 new metro areas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... scrambling of lawmakers to criminalize it to protect the incumbent monopolists...

  56. Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I can tell you that in this man's anecdotal experiences with Comcast I have had numerous problems with poor connection quality and network outages. I've gone through too many cable boxes to count because apparently they have no good way of knowing if the problem is my box or their network (it's their network.)

  57. They shouldn't have published the list by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    Now that Google has made their fiber expansion plans public, I expect to see laws drafted (that may or may not pass) in every one of those cities blocking Google fiber in order to protect the existing monopoly/cartel.

    If you want to get fiber into a city, you have to sneak it through without the local telco or cableco knowing, otherwise they will spend every last penny (of their customers money) on lawyers and "campaign donations", in order to prevent new competition

    I have yet to hear of a single fiber rollout (other than fios) that hasn't been challenged in court at least once

  58. Why the hell by sjheiss · · Score: 1

    do they do cities like Kansas City, Provo, Raleigh, and others instead of ones like Seattle?