Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fiber Is Officially Making Its Way To Portland

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-more-fiber dept.

An anonymous reader writes This week the Portland City Council has approved a franchise agreement with Google to bring its fiber service to Portland. "As a result of the unanimous vote, Google will be subject to a five percent 'franchise fee' on its video revenues. It won't have to pay a three percent 'PEG' fee that Portland otherwise charges rival Comcast, but it will offer free Internet service for Portland residents for a $300, one-time fee. It'll also provide free Internet service to some to-be-determined nonprofits, in addition to providing a total of three free Wi-Fi networks in various parts of the city."

95 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. WHICH PORTLAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oregon, in case you're interested.

    1. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, of course. Maine is still not allowed on the internet. It's unfair, but it's the only way to make sure that Stephen King never has access to a blog.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by bylund · · Score: 1

      Ineffective. King also has a summer home in Sarasota, Florida, and there's an entire FARK category devoted to Floridian Internet shenanigans.

    3. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by rossdee · · Score: 1

      When there are multiple cities of the same name in different states, it would be a good idea to mention the state, its only a couple of bytes extra in the text after all
      Of course there are other Portland s in otheer countries too.

    4. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      That works when you've got one big, well-known city and one little random town (for example, Atlanta, GA vs. Atlanta, TX). However, there's also a relatively significant Portland in Maine so in that case it helps to specify.

      --

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

    5. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by andrewa · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that the referenced article abbreviates to Oregon as "Oreg.", rather than the standard "OR", or the much older (but still used) "ORE."... As long as they don't pronounce it "Ory-gone"....

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      However, there's also a relatively significant Portland in Maine so in that case it helps to specify.

      We've heard about the one out there in Maine, but most of us here in PDX think it's more myth and legend than an actual town. ;)

      ( Fun trivia bit: the one here in Oregon was actually named for the one in Maine. The founders of our fair city had a coin toss to determine who named the town, and the winner was from Maine. If he had lost, I'd be typing this from Boston, Oregon.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Portland, Maine, is relatively well known.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    8. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Maine has relevance?

      I'm not sure Bert and Ernie would agree with that.

      --
      Will
    9. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Yeah. The official alternate pronunciation is "Oreegun".

      I really cannot understand the confusion of Portland OR with Portland ME. One has Portlandia, the Wildwood, and the setting for the Grimm stories. The other has... uh, lobster.

      --
      Will
    10. Re:WHICH PORTLAND by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      ( The founders of our fair city had a coin toss to determine who named the town, and the winner was from Maine. If he had lost, I'd be typing this from Boston, Oregon.)

      Not only that, but as the city would have been the lesser known of the two, the editors would have specified Oregon in the title, and this entire line of conversation would have never happened (nor would I have learned about the coin toss... thanks!).

  2. shame it's not a typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    's/rt//' and I'm happy...
    --- a Pole

  3. Hipsters' high speed to match their high with weed by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    Film at eleven!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. its it's by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    Google Fiber Is Officially Making It's Way To Portland? Its incredible!

    1. Re:its it's by Threni · · Score: 1

      This is London calling. We're all *amazed* at this development... it can't be long before even sunny Philadelphia is blessed with this product.

  5. Re:Is it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    pretty sure samzenpus and timothy are functionally illiterate, maybe generally mentally handicapped.

  6. Government shakedown by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's amazing that these governments still get away with this stuff. If you don't have several choices for internet providers in your location, maybe it's because no one wants to pay a "franchise fee" and a "PEG fee" and give away free service to your city government officials' friends. Or maybe it's because your local city council hasn't "approved" it.

    1. Re:Government shakedown by Kagato · · Score: 4, Informative

      Outside of Airline Tickets we have no laws requiring prices for goods and services to includes taxes and fees. Comcast's prices are always exclusive of taxes and fees. They simply tack on franchise fees to the bill as a pass through to the consumer.

      What does cost real money is right of way leases. In most places the vast majority of utility poles are owned by the local power and phone providers. They demand a price per month per pole. That ads up when it's thousands or tens of thousands of utility poles. Going below ground is no cheaper. That involves right of way easements for both public and private property, in addition to repair of roads and sod. Assuming that the land holder even wants to deal with you.

    2. Re:Government shakedown by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The city owns assets that Google needs to use: right-of-ways, utility poles, building space, electricity, etc. They should just allow access to Google and any other company that wants to use it without compensation?

    3. Re:Government shakedown by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who manages a PEG channel -- I agree, the fees can be excessive, and they're just passed right through to the consumer, so it's effectively just a tax on those who buy fixed line video services.

      However, they should be equal across all providers, so to not hit them all with it equally means that you're favoring one over another, and as these agreements typically span 10-15 years, odds are there's one out there that has it.

      As for the free service -- our town doesn't force them to connect up any non-profits, only government buildings. It's possible that other towns do that, but again, this would just mean that you're favoring a given group over another. I'd much prefer to see free (even if low speed) wifi covering our downtown area than picking and choosing which non-profits get special access.

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    4. Re:Government shakedown by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Would you rather have more choices for internet providers or more money in your city's treasury? I'll take more choices for internet providers. Because I'm not on the city payroll.

    5. Re:Government shakedown by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, what are you outraged about? No one is giving free service to "city government officials' friends". And having my local city council approve a city wide rollout of a new service is kinda what a city council is FOR. When something affects an entire city, yeah, I want it to go through the city council.

      As for the fees, I've started a small business. There were fees. I registered, did some paperwork, what about it? There SHOULD be a registry of businesses, with paperwork on who started them. That's a value to me, and to the city. The fees were negligable. I live in Portland. If you can't afford the tiny little paperwrork fees, your business sucks.

      You sound like someone who hates government, just because. I quite like that there's someone out there with an actual strategic plan, managing services and paying attention. There's incredible valued added in that. My business is quite helped by decent roads, electrical lines(I wouldn't be able to operate my machines with spotty service), etc etc etc. It's been my experience that people that are pissed at government just take for granted all that they GET from having a stable system in place to run our society. That it IS taken for granted is, to me, a sign of it's success.

    6. Re:Government shakedown by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Franchise fee and PEG fee (which was waived) are 8% total. That's hardly negligible. And free service for "some" non-profits? How is it legitimate to tell a business they must give freebies to "some" people (surely not friends of city officials) in order to do business?

      Fewer government-imposed barriers and artificial costs should mean more choices for internet service. More choices would be good.

    7. Re:Government shakedown by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      They didn't "tell" the business to give freebies to non-profits. Google comes in and proposes this, and then likely uses it as a negotiating point to get the PEG fees waived, since they are basically absorbing those costs directly through the services provided.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    8. Re:Government shakedown by Kohath · · Score: 1

      That's not really much different. In general, governments shouldn't be negotiating for free service for "some".

    9. Re:Government shakedown by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Given the incredible good work done by a LOT of non profits, why NOT? Google's OK with it, or they wouldn't have agreed to it. Why the hell SHOULDN'T governments negotiate for free service for non profits? Why the hell shouldn't governments negotiate for free services for anyone? What's wrong with that? Are you just one of those people that can't be happy when your neighbor gets something good and you don't?

    10. Re:Government shakedown by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      As a taxpayer, I'd prefer that the companies who want to make a profit using city resources pay the costs of maintenance and upkeep and installation of those resources. That's what a franchise fee is.

      They aren't paying a PEG fee because they aren't a cable TV provider. PEG stands for "public, education, and government" and is what pays for the information channels on the cable that deal with public access, schools, and government.

      Since both of those fees are passed directly on to the consumer, it is ludicrous to claim that they are restricting competition. Any company that wants to compete can do so, and the franchise fee is not going to stop them. This kinda proves that, doesn't it? How can a fee that they don't pay (the customer does) and doesn't come out of their profits prevent them from entering the market?

      And complaints that this is paying off the pals of the council, huh? It goes into the general fund, not someone's pocket.

    11. Re:Government shakedown by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      However, they should be equal across all providers, so to not hit them all with it equally means that you're favoring one over another, and as these agreements typically span 10-15 years, odds are there's one out there that has it.

      PEG fees apply to cable TV providers because PEG channels are on the cable TV. Google fiber isn't cable TV, it's Internet. You might have an argument for Internet infrastructure providers to pay a fee to support PEG web services, but that's not part of the existing franchise structure and so would be something new specifically to ding Google (and their customers). If you apply it to Google, then to be fair you'd have to apply it to the internet side of Comcast, too.

    12. Re:Government shakedown by stdarg · · Score: 1

      How about because of equal protection before the law? The government should be negotiating on behalf of all the people it represents.

    13. Re:Government shakedown by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      People who hate big government don't hate it because of power lines, roads, and the post office. They hate it because government grabs more power, which it uses to grab more money, and on and on in a vicious cycle. This concentration of power attracts the worst kind of sociopaths, which just make things worse because all they want to do is obtain more power for themselves. Then, the social engineering starts, and you have people carrying out grand experiments with no care for the results. Cultures die like this.

      Moreover the "city government officials' friends" thing really exists. Especially at the local level, nothing gets done unless the right palms are greased.

      "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
      -- Paul Johnson

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:Government shakedown by geekoid · · Score: 1

      We wont' have any choice without infrastructure.
      It's a nominal fee for service from the city.
      It's not,like it's moved to Ireland and sat on. IT's actual used for something local.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Government shakedown by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Local governments rarely own many utilities poles. They are usually owned by the incumbent telco and the electrical providers. Cable companies pay a good chunk of change to the telcos and power companies, though who knows if that's included in the basic rate or the franchise fee.

      Cities often own right of ways for main boulevards and a good chunk of the so-called franchise fee is comprised of those right of way fees. Though a good chunk of fee really just offsets the ongoing maintenance the city is on the hook for as the cable co is ripping of the roads and sidewalks. Also buried in the franchise fees are public access costs. In a handful of very large markets the franchise fee works out well for the city, but for the vast majority of the US it just offsets some expenses.

    16. Re:Government shakedown by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If GOogle FIbre was PEG, you would be right but they are not so no fee.

      And no they aren't excessive.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Government shakedown by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Are you really that simple? really?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Government shakedown by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's the "some" that's troublesome. Look, you want to require free service for all nonprofits? Fine. No problem. Some? Now you've got everything you need for corruption.

    19. Re:Government shakedown by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1

      Because corporations would never stoop to greasing palms or hiring their friends!

    20. Re:Government shakedown by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Change it to "100 non-profits chosen at random from a list of all non-profits listed in the city" and the corruption problem is mostly solved -- though you still have rate-payers implicitly subsidizing service for random non-profits for some unknown reason.

    21. Re:Government shakedown by ewieling · · Score: 1

      How about because of equal protection before the law? The government should be negotiating on behalf of all the people it represents.

      "The most common type of tax-exempt nonprofit organization falls under category 501(c)(3), whereby a nonprofit organization is exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5...

      When consulting I would often do work at discount rates for a medical clinic which had a sliding scale fee setup and for a law group which defended death penalty cases for indigent clients.

      Non-profits do a lot of good stuff, people should help them. Stop being so miserly.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    22. Re:Government shakedown by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Gasoline and tobacco?

    23. Re:Government shakedown by stdarg · · Score: 1

      That's nice of you to do, but I don't think there should be tax advantages for doing nice things.

      And while there are good non-profits, there are also bad non-profits that do nothing for society. Why should someone benefit from going around giving religious education? I think that's really stupid. Hopefully religious work will lose tax exempt status soon as more people turn against it.

      And why should this special treatment be limited to non-profits? Presumably you're not a non-profit, you're an individual/small business or whatever. When you do your discount work for these guys, you don't get to deduct that from your income for tax purposes because volunteer labor counts for shit with the IRS. But you're a nice guy right? Doing nice things? Even if you exclusively work for non-profits at that discount rate, you still pay taxes because you're not a non-profit.

      Yeah, so it's not that special that non-profits do good stuff. Lots of people do that. Forget individuals... for-profit companies like Pfizer, Exxon, or Google have done more good than most non-profits. If Microsoft's profits led to Bill Gates's wealth which led to the philanthropy done by the Gates Foundation, then Microsoft has done more good than most non-profits. Why should non-profits get special treatment?

      It's not a question of being miserly or not. We're talking about the principle of the matter.

    24. Re:Government shakedown by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Constitutional issues often come down to simple principles.

      Equal protection is simple, but hugely important.

    25. Re:Government shakedown by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Oh God... No.

      I help with the hardware grants program at Free Geek. I've seen and interacted with just about every non profit there IS in Portland, and handed over computer gear to most of them. There are some non profits that do AMAZING work. Free Geek is one of them. There are a LOT of non profits that do... Stuff.

      If we're going to hand out kick as internet connections, I want them going to the Non Profit organizations that do a lot of immediate good work. I love the Portland Fruit Tree project. They are NEAT, and they do good things. The Urban Farm Collective does a LOT of good work for people.... but Free Geek can put a kick ass connection to WORK in a way that the PFTP and the UFC cannot.

      You're both very principled. Good for you. But this is the real world.

      Also, at this level, the corruption you're so worried about is pretty minimal. I assure you, there are no non profits housed at the mayors house.

  7. Re:Is it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. What do we have editors for, otherwise?

    As a non-native speaker of English it instantly stands out to me, distracting me and slowing me down. Since so many more people read these headlines than write them, it does pay to spend that little bit of extra attention to make sure you're not making a fool of yourself to every discerning reader.

  8. Re:Is it is? by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 2, Informative

    "making it is way" would sound better, agreed.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
  9. Standing by for Seattle butthurt whines by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    Why can't we have nice things too?

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:Standing by for Seattle butthurt whines by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      I hardly think ONE socialist on the city council counts as the whole city voting for socialism... And frankly, she's done a lot of good things for the city. Also, that higher min wage isn't really that insane... It's actually right around what it would be if minimum wage had kept up with inflation through the years. That's kind of the point.

      What will you do when Seattle rolls along just fine, it's economy does fine, no jobs are lost, and the extra money in the economy helps it grow? Are you prepared to think about your beliefs when Seattle doesn't turn into Mad Max?

  10. Re:The "its", "it's" 'problem' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a professional writer with over 20 years experience and a Masters in English, and even I still fuck that up from time to time (along with there/their/they're and you're/your). It's not that I don't know the difference; it's that my hands type faster than my brain. And no one has perfect proofreading. In fact, one of my best novellas has a basic subject/verb agreement mistake in it that made it through several layers of editors and ended up in print.

  11. $300 = free? by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 2

    OK. They are really stretching the word "free" here. Free = $300 + greedily scooping up your data with this service now or in the future? No, that's far from free.

    --
    Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    1. Re:$300 = free? by Scutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK. They are really stretching the word "free" here. Free = $300 + greedily scooping up your data with this service now or in the future? No, that's far from free.

      Compared to the anal probing from Comcast et. al.? Yeah, it's free.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re: $300 = free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. Comcast is evil and I hate them with all that I am, but at least they are too inept to data mine like Google. I'll stick with Comcast here in Portland, don't need Google having 100% of my traffic to 'classify'. Imagine the value to DoubleClick (Google)'s customers for traffic they have full control over. Don't even need to guess at who I am based on cookies and browser signatures. No thanks.

    3. Re:$300 = free? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      The service is free.. The setup is not free. So they are offering the service for free......Also please point out where they scoop up your data....

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:$300 = free? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone's a bit jealous. :) Here in KC, you typically have to pay an install fee for Internet and then pay a monthly fee for the service. With Google Fiber, you buy the equipment and get the service free.

    5. Re: $300 = free? by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      You'd stick with Comcast over Goggle fiber? Haahaahahahahah! Meanwhile, Google is scooping up your data ANYWAY. Comcast probably is too, you really think they' ignore that potential revenue stream?

    6. Re:$300 = free? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a falsehood to separate the costs when you have no option then their equipment to get the service. They in inextricably linked. So no, not free.
      It's a great price for the service, I can't wait for it to get done, and I think it's long over due for this level of competition.
      But you statement is a falsehood based on years of market conditioning.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:$300 = free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get a $10 per month VM and run a SOCKS proxy over SSH. Let them "greedily scoop up" a bunch of encrypted bits :-D

      HAHAHA, captcha is "robbed"

    8. Re:$300 = free? by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 1

      ... please point out where they scoop up your data....

      It's right here in the name ---> "Google".

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    9. Re:$300 = free? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Or simply the ambiguity of the language. If I can get water from my own well I'd probably say I have "free water" even if I once paid someone $300 to dig the well because the marginal cost of another bucket is zero. If there was one or several bids or I did it with $300 worth of my own labor, doesn't really matter. I don't really see a problem with Google saying a $300 one-time fee for "free Internet" service forever after. Certainly if you've already sunk the cost and is selling the house, then it's perfectly legitimate to promote it as free Internet service for the buyer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:$300 = free? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      They are really stretching the word "free" here. Free = $300 + greedily scooping up your data with this service now or in the future?

      As opposed to the Comcast service I'm stuck with, which had a $150 setup fee (that I eventually got them to waive, after a month) and a $150 a month recurring charge, and data caps, and anti-net-neutrality lobbying, and I can't run a home server (so something like a Synology disk station directory sync daemon is technically against their TOS), and you can bet they're devouring my data like it was coke off a hooker's ass.

      If I could pay Google $150 extra to not deal with Comcast and their attendant misery, I'd click the "buy it now" button so fast that I'd break my trackpad. Maybe they meant "free, as in liberated from Comcast bullshit"?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:$300 = free? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Nothing is ever "free". Even if Google absorbed all of the costs, it means something somewhere would have to get more expensive, and follow all the connections and the true cost just gets passed on. After saying that, the customer is getting the service for free and is even getting the installation at a below-cost price.

      In one way, being that the customer is getting charged below costs, you could say Google is paying them. It does require perverting normal logic a bit.

    12. Re:$300 = free? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      With the well analogy, you could also dig your own well, or trade effort; So your neighbor helps you an in exchange you help them.
      You have many options.

      Sine with this case you have no other options, saying free is marketing BS.
      On the plus side, the are very upfront about it and don't try to hide it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re: $300 = free? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      VPN is your friend.

    14. Re:$300 = free? by Cyfun · · Score: 1

      Except Comcast already greedily scoops up your data, but then they insert ads and throttle traffic. With Comcast's approx $60 a month for service, Google's would pay for itself within half a year. Call me crazy, but for some reason I'd prefer my data being treated fairly + not paying out the ass.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  12. Re:Is it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a non-native speaker of English it instantly stands out to me, distracting me and slowing me down.

    As a native speaker of English, it does the same for me too.

  13. Re:What about the independents? by Calinous · · Score: 1

    If you have a contract with guaranteed time with a local, you keep that contract of pay early termination fees.

  14. Surprise by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Google Fiber Is Officially Making Its Way To Portland

    They'll be pleased and surprised in Dorset by this.

  15. Will comcast play hardball with CSN Northwest? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Or will google just over pay for that channel that has big lack of availability do to comcasts high price for it.

  16. Re:Is it is? by Yebyen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thought this might be an announcement about Portland, ME? Or any one of the 25 places called Portland in the US alone? I guess they must have already fixed the headline, they've started fixing these things as they get reported (apparently they actually do care about looking like buffoons).

    --
    Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
  17. everyone's response by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "Fuck Portland, come to my city"
    - Sincerely,
    Everyone

  18. Re:What about the independents? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    If you are locked into a contract you can get the free service and then dial it up to gigabit once you are free. Or suck it up and pay the ETF.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  19. Re:what about... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    Phoenix is pretty small, I think they'd wire Medford first. (Are we still naming cities without qualifying what state they're in? :) )

    With Google Fiber though, would a huge, sprawly city like Phoenix be a wise choice compared to more compact places like KC and PDX?

  20. Stephouse employees will be 50 times as productive by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > was there any thought to the local jobs created and maintained,

    Those employees at Stephouse, the independent ISP, currently maintain a network that delivers up to 20 Mbps. If those employees instead help build and maintain Google's local gigabit equipment, that means they provide 50 times as much bandwidth in the same 8 hour workday. A person who provides your house with a 1,000 Mb connection provides more value than the same person providing a 20 Mbps connection, so they can get paid more.

    Some employees probably will upgrade their skills and work on the new gigabit plant, making more money. Other employees now have "free" gigabit, so they are in a better position to start their own web-based business. Either way, they can so something more productive than maintaining a slow legacy network.

  21. also $75/month each = more hiring by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also, each customer getting the independent service at 20 Mbps will save $75 / month if they switch to Google. That's an extra $75 / month per household ($10 million total) that residents can now spend at other local businesses. $10 million more in sales means that those other businesses will be hiring about 100 more people.

    1. Re:also $75/month each = more hiring by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Thats 75 a month customer should be putting in the bank.

      Any ways, 10 million spread out over all the services provide will mean exactly no more jobs.
      Sure, if all the people went to star bucks, you would have an increase, but that's not how it happens.
      And you number assume no one in Portland,Or. would want the 1Gb speed; which is laughable becasue Portland loves there high speeds.

      You also don't seem to take into account the fact that the basic 'free' plan doesn't include TV. the 75 dollars from local providers is internet and TV.

      SO, no. There will be no new jobs.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:also $75/month each = more hiring by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Also, each customer getting the independent service at 20 Mbps will save $75 / month if they switch to Google.

      In unrelated news, Comast increases its Cable TV service prices by an average of $75/month in the Porland area.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  22. 300 dollrs is not free by geekoid · · Score: 1

    it's a great deal, you can pay via payments or up front, but can we stop with that 'pay us money, and get 'free' service?

    I'm really looking at you Amazon and your pay 99 a year and get free shipping.

    Again, Great deal, cheap price, good speeds for that price, ...not free.

    It just occurred to me I should find out is it's one time fee per customer, or per address.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. Speaking as a Portland resident by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

    Speaking as a Portland resident.... EEEEEEEEeeeeee! I hope this goes through. This has been done in other cities. Should I be rounding up my neighbors now so we can all say "right here!" together when they offer it? Anyone have the scoop on these "fiber rallies" that the article speaks of? Anyone have any idea how many neighbors I'd need to be effective?

    P.S. Fuck Comcast.

    1. Re:Speaking as a Portland resident by Strider- · · Score: 1

      I just hope that in the near future they bring it across the river to Vancouver, WA.

      I just wish it would come to the real Vancouver...

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  24. Re:Stephouse employees will be 50 times as product by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the free service is great for small personal use, but you would be really hard pressed to run a business on it.

    That said, jobs aren't a 1 to 1 switch. IF there are 10 ISP employing 10 people, Google will probably only requires 20 employees fr he whole area.
    It' will be a job loss. The 'IT create more jobs then it eliminates' starting going negative at the end of the 90s.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Re:what about... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Portland, ME needs to become weirder to get publicity. Yeah, that's it!

  26. Re:what about... by colfer · · Score: 1

    They made a whole movie about this one, on the Alabama border. But the franchise was for... sin! The Phenix City Story

  27. Franchise agreements by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    "the Portland City Council has approved a franchise agreement with Google"

    We Slashdotters are all opposed to franchise agreements, right? Why not just "let them build it" without a "franchise agreement"? No agreement necessary, just build the infrastructure.

  28. Re:Is it is? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they aren't functional.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  29. Re:Is it is? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    Did they change it already?

    As of 11:56AM New York time (16-June) it is saying "Google Fiber Is Officially Making Its Way To Portland" and lacks the apostrophe.

    Therefore, at least as of now, it is using the correct form of its. Without the apostrophe it means the possessive, with the apostrophe it means "it is"

    So did they take the apostrophe out?
    Or are you making an incredible blunder?

  30. Re:what about... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    How about Austin first, since, you know, they announced us years ago and haven't rolled it out yet?

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  31. Re:what about... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

    Yeah but they've got lobsters. That's got to count for something.

    --
    Will
  32. Re:Is it is? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    I'm sure you're not. I haven't looked at the article, but my guess would be Oregon. Kind of like how if it said New York, I would not assume they were talking about the city in Texas.

  33. Re:Is it is? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    There are many places named Portland, but only one Portland - you know, the one that has a TV show named after it.

    --
    That is all.
  34. Re:Is it is? by Yebyen · · Score: 1

    OK, so Portland Oregon is almost 10x larger than Portland Maine. The more you know...

    --
    Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
  35. Re:Is it is? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thought this might be an announcement about Portland, ME?

    Probably. Even in New England, people think of Oregon before Maine.

  36. Re:Is it is? by markhb · · Score: 1

    I'd say that the "Portland" is the one in Maine that has a city in Oregon named after it. In fact ISTR that the Oregon folks lost a United Way bet to us a couple of decades ago in which they promised to change their name if they lost. Still waiting for that.

    (Waiting for the folks on the English island that has all the cement to jump in...)

    --
    Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
  37. Re:Is it is? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The stake where 100 pound of lobster and 100 pounds of salmon.
    The name thing was completely made up by reporters.

    The name thing was completely made up by reporters.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Not Official by aphxtwn · · Score: 1

    Google has not selected Portland, OR. This article discusses a law that was passed to entice Google to come to Oregon.

    "Google is not expected to make any final decisions about whether Portland will get Fiber until year's end, but having a cable franchise deal in place helps pave the way."

  39. Re:Is it is? by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    Actually Portland was England's Largest Harbor and Portland Maine was undoubtedly named after it like so many other places in the US are named after other places outside of the US...

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

    -I'm just sayin'

  40. no, here's their pricing page by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You're making up "facts" to support your preconceived conclusuons. As I told you in GP, the local independent provider in Portland is Steakhouse. Here's their pricing page:
    http://www.stephouse.net/resid...

    You'll notice they don't offer television service. You just made that up, to pretend that the facts match up with the conclusions that Stephen Colbert told you to believe.

    Your conclusions are as sound as the completely fictional facts you've based them on.

  41. hopefully. Hulu, Amazon, Netflix by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That would be good for everyone but Comcast. With high speed fiber for free, there's little reason not to dump cable switch to Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix. If Comcast wanted to guarantee that they lost the entire Portland market, they could raise prices, rather than reducing prices as has happened elsewhere in similar situations.