Google Mulling Wi-Fi For Cities With Google Fiber

alphadogg (971356) writes "Google is considering deploying Wi-Fi networks in towns and cities covered by its Google Fiber high-speed Internet service. The disclosure is made in a document Google is circulating to 34 cities that are the next candidates to receive Google Fiber in 2015. Specific details of the Wi-Fi plan are not included in the document, which was seen by IDG News Service, but Google says it will be 'discussing our Wi-Fi plans and related requirements with your city as we move forward with your city during this planning process.'" And while Google's had some experience running large-scale WiFi, and adding WiFi seems a much lower burden than providing fiber to the home, floating an idea (as AT&T did, to accusations of "smokescreen") is not the same as turning the switch to "On."

Comments

All part of the plan.

[MrDoh!]

So all those 'free' connections (well, 300 bucks for life wasn't it?) with their wireless routers provided. They flip that 'on' switch, bathe the entire area with open wifi signals, let Google Voice be used as VOIP, and tell the telcos/wireless carriers to do rude things to themselves in the dirt.

Re:All part of the plan.

[jddeluxe]

I can guarantee you that the Google Fiber Network Box provided to Google Fiber subscribers doesn't have anywhere near the range to be able to do that. Mine's installed against the rear wall of my house, and signal stops being useful past about 30-35 meters (100-115 ft.) away...

Re:All part of the plan.

[Dcnjoe60]

So all those 'free' connections (well, 300 bucks for life wasn't it?) with their wireless routers provided. They flip that 'on' switch, bathe the entire area with open wifi signals, let Google Voice be used as VOIP, and tell the telcos/wireless carriers to do rude things to themselves in the dirt.

You left out the part where once they have eliminated the competition, they jack up the price on everything. Sure, they have the 300 bucks for life, but they only provide new services on their premium connection. Basically, this is the Walmart model combined with the cable model - first enter a market and flood it with cheap product until the competition is forced out, then raise prices (Walmart). Then only provide new services with new plans like the cable company. Basically, you have basic coverage and pay whopping premiums for extras, or you cancel your old plan and get the new stuff bundled in, but no price guarantees.

At least when wireless and telcos mistreat customers, the customer can switch to a different provider.

Re:All part of the plan.

[Xicor]

google doesnt profit off hardware, or the things they sell... they profit off information. they will likely just make their money by selling your secrets which you intrust to your isp

Why not a government service?

[interkin3tic]

Why not have the government administer a program to provide wifi in all urban areas? Yes, it will suck, but I'm convinced it would suck less than what we have now. From what I can tell, we have zero advantages that private entities are supposed to be bringing. There's no competition going on to offer us better services. Choice in services is a joke. The service we are offered sucks. There's no free market efficiency aside from how they bill you. With subsidies, we're already paying through taxes to support it, and we don't get what we are promised in return for those subsidies. Aside from google, it doesn't seem like anyone is actually putting any effort into improving existing services. We don't enjoy protection from government censorship or even privacy, telecoms gleefully comply with any government whim as long as they get paid to do it.

We get all the downsides of private enterprise too: we pay directly, our information is sold on the free market, we indirectly fund lobbyists who change laws against us, and internet access is not recognized as a right or a necessity (which in my opinion, it is both).

It seems to me that there are two things preventing the government from offering us something better: 1. The telecoms are too powerful for it to be nationalized and 2. We have a bunch of people who think anything the government does is communism and evil.

Re:Why not a government service?

[Morpf]

That is what happens if one privatizes critical infrastructure. Because it is critical, the enterprises can screw you over big times and milk you like a cow–and probably will do so.

Re:Why not a government service?

[interkin3tic]

You mean like let my competitors use the roads?

Re:Dark fiber

[wjcofkc]

Google sure as hell is building infrastructure here. They are running cable all over the place. Am I missing something in your comment? The only existing infrastructure I see them utilizing are the power line poles where they are hanging it.

Network Neutrality

[Tokolosh]

Remember that wifi/wireless is explicitly except from the proposed network neutrality regulations.

Re:Dark fiber

[swillden]

Google doesn't build infrastructure. They take advantage of existing municipal fiber.

Google takes advantage of existing fiber where available, and builds it where it's not. In KC, it's pretty much all new build. In Provo it's mostly reuse of existing, with increasing amounts of new build as they extend coverage. In Austin I think it's also pretty much all new build.