Google Fiber Is Officially Making Its Way To Portland

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."

Comments

WHICH PORTLAND

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregon, in case you're interested.

Re:WHICH PORTLAND

[NotDrWho]

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.

Re:WHICH PORTLAND

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:WHICH PORTLAND

[Penguinisto]

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.)

Re:WHICH PORTLAND

[Will.Woodhull]

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.

Hipsters' high speed to match their high with weed

[NotDrWho]

Film at eleven!

Re:Is it is?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Government shakedown

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Government shakedown

[Kagato]

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.

Re:Government shakedown

[oneiros27]

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.

Re:Government shakedown

[whistlingtony]

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.

Re:Government shakedown

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Is it is?

[Bayoudegradeable]

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

Re:The "its", "it's" 'problem'

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

$300 = free?

[LookIntoTheFuture]

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.

Re:$300 = free?

[Scutter]

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.

Re:$300 = free?

[thaylin]

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....

Re:$300 = free?

[geekoid]

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.

Re:$300 = free?

[Kjella]

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.

Re:$300 = free?

[Just Some Guy]

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"?

also $75/month each = more hiring

[raymorris]

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.

Speaking as a Portland resident

[whistlingtony]

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.

Re:Is it is?

[JackieBrown]

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.