Slashdot Mirror


Google Fiber Reminds People It's a 'Real Business' (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader writes: While Google Fiber gets a massive amount of media hype (justly based on its disruptive speed and price point), the reality is that despite numerous city "launches" -- not that many people can actually get the service. But while many ISPs and analysts have dismissed Google Fiber as an adorable experiment that will never impact them, many of these folks have been forced to changing their tune as Google Fiber's list of planned launch cities grows larger. In a profile piece over at USAToday, the company once again notes that while Google Fiber may have begun as a PR exercise, it's now dead serious about being a large, nationwide disruptive kick in the ass for incumbent broadband providers. "It is indeed a real business, and it's serving to increase competition as well, and that's something that we don't mind," Google Fiber boss and former Qualcomm exec Dennis Kish tells the paper. "We think it's healthy for the market and for consumers."

105 comments

  1. I'll never get Google Fiber, I know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Then again, I live in Chattanooga, so what the fuck do I care?

    1. Re: I'll never get Google Fiber, I know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Exactly, which means despite the submitter wishing otherwise it is in fact hype. Google loves to do this - invest in some wet dream just enough to make them come off as cool and innovative. Then, once it ceases to be cool and real work begins, they walk away and pretend that you were never supposed to have any expectation in the first place. See Glass, Fiber, Loon, all of the home hardware.

    2. Re: I'll never get Google Fiber, I know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shawnee KS got it. Anything can happen. And already has.

  2. No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a subsidiary of a real business, a business with billions of dollars in liquid capital that is currently sitting around doing nothing. They're only going slow because it's a strategy intended to force municipalities to carve out subsidies and dig the trenches for them.

    1. Re: No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is Google Fiber, not Alphabet Fiber.

    2. Re:No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol - looking at their upcoming list....they are hitting mostly mid-sized cities.

      Not only that, but frickin snails move faster.

      Comcast and AT&T both offer fiber internet in my area. AT&T is $90 a month (with a data cap) - +$30 if you want uncapped. Comcast is $299 a month for uncapped 2gig fiber internet.

      In the end, Google Fiber is near meaningless to a majority of the US. They aren't having to wait for infrastructure - there are PLENTY of cities with PLENTY of dark fiber that could be used. But Google isn't going to them.

      This is nothing but hype for the Google machine. It's nice for the few that have it I'm sure, but useless for everyone else.

    3. Re:No it isn't by jon3k · · Score: 1

      In the end, Google Fiber is near meaningless to a majority of the US.

      The majority of the US doesn't have access to 1Gb/s fiber internet service for $70 a month, with no data cap.

      Some Internet service providers currently cap data downloads at 250 GB per month. You can download that much data on a 1 gig connection in about 33 minutes. Good thing there is no limit on your data downloads with Google Fiber!

    4. Re:No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say, they're going slow because they wanted to force current ISPs to up their game. I thought that was the assumed truth anyways. They just want people to have better access to their core products...

  3. It'll always be a PR campaign by mandark1967 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    until I can get it...

    just sayin'

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  4. did that need clearing up? by Haymaker · · Score: 2
    Well if it was JUST a cute little experiment, it wouldn't accomplish what they want to do with it. If they want ISPs to get competitive they'll have to actually, yanno, compete.

    actually now that I think about it, why did this need to be pointed out? Did people think it was going to be temporary or something?

    1. Re:did that need clearing up? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually now that I think about it, why did this need to be pointed out?

      Because it's Google.

      Did people think it was going to be temporary or something?

      Yes. It's Google. They lose interest in everything that isn't search or email or maps. And maps is iffy. They forgot that search didn't earn billions overnight, and now have unreasonable expectations for everything else. If it doesn't earn hundreds of millions in its first year, it's deemed pathetic and gets abandoned. Google Fiber probably runs in the red. Making physical things happen is expensive. It will pay for itself in the long run, but Google is about as far away from the mindset of a utility as you can possibly get while remaining on the same planet. Waiting for a long run low margin payoff is not in their corporate DNA. The continued existence of Google Fiber is anomalous already. It will only get worse.

      So yes, that did need clearing up, and I'm still skeptical.

    2. Re:did that need clearing up? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's not running in the red; if they're getting the local governments to pay for the heavy digging. I guess that explains why they are only coming to a few cities?

  5. Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 2

    I live in a town of ~10,000. My great grandchildrens generation might see Google Fiber here.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
    1. Re:Limited availablity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of the US towns with a smaller population gets fiber without subsidies.

      It is certainly economically viable but for some reason competition doesn't work in the US.
      Perhaps because there is a widespread belief that capitalism will solve the matter without government oversight.

    2. Re:Limited availablity. by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      It's not nearly as simple as that. I have some friends that live in the mountains of east Tennessee. Guess what? They have gigabit fiber. Much faster than what I get in a city millions.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 0

      Outside of the U.S., there are countries are smaller than her smallest state. I'd wager a guess that the U.S. has more open space than the entirety of the EU. Hell, after a quick Google, Texas is damn near half the size of the EU. Come back when you have to lay a single cable across your country ten times just to get to the next population zone.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    4. Re:Limited availablity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Without meaning to piss on your point too much:

      Texas = 695,662 km^2
      EU = 4.325 million km^2 (Both from Google)

      Or, the same size as 16% of the EU.
      Or, just under twice the size as Sweden with nearly four times the population density of Sweden.

    5. Re:Limited availablity. by jon3k · · Score: 1

      EU has 3x the population density (100 vs 300 per square mile) and the US is over 20 times the size of Sweden. You cannot compare these things.

    6. Re:Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      I did say quick Google. In this image (the second thing shown me on a Google search) Texas appears to me to be about half, maybe a bit smaller, than the EU. Maybe it's not all of Europe and maybe it's blown out of proportions but a quick Google is a quick Google. My main point is still valid.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    7. Re:Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      He was talking about my comparison of the size of Texas to the EU in comparison to Sweden, not comparing Sweden to the US. His numbers are better than my visual comparison, which was way off. Gotta check my eyes, I guess... ;/

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    8. Re:Limited availablity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about all the open space is that you don't have to lay fibre there because it is, you know, open space. The amount of open space you have in no way excuses the crappy infrastructure you have in urban and sub-urban areas.

    9. Re:Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      The major thing about all the open space is that it lays between all the small towns.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    10. Re:Limited availablity. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That does not explain why the areas in the US which are denser than areas outside the US have worse internet service. The distribution matters; it is not like the US lacks for dense metropolitan areas.

    11. Re:Limited availablity. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the topic of this thread. I was stating that rural America (although I'm not sure if a town of ~10,000 is considered rural or not, although I feel it is as I have to drive 30 to 40 miles or shop online for anywhere other than Walmart) will most likely never see Google Fiber. The answer to your question is simple, however - pure greed.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
  6. Spying? by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is having Google be your ISP just asking for absolutely everything to be spied on?

    If I get it, I'm thinking of renting a cheap VPS and running all my traffic through that over an encrypted tunnel. How bad would latency be? Other thoughts?

    1. Re:Spying? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Depends on how close the vps is the encrypt/decrypt is pretty quick a few ms each way.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Spying? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      As opposed to Verizon....

    3. Re:Spying? by XanC · · Score: 1

      I'd expect Google to actually be good at it.

    4. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Other thoughts?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

      Your Internet traffic _regularly_ flows through equipment owned and operated by companies that are orders of magnitude less scrupulous than Google. If your traffic _ever_ flows overseas (even for a single hop), it's a certainty that it's captured and analysed by the NSA. It's likely that Russia and other such big players do the same for traffic flowing within the US.

      It's trendy to have a hate-on for Google. What the loudest folks seem to forget is that the telcos (who own the hardware though which almost all of your Internet traffic flows) are _absolutely_ the scum of the earth. I would pay _extra_ to have my traffic never touch a telco-operated or controlled network. Google is (currently) at the top of my list of big Internet companies that _deeply_ care about user privacy and safeguarding user information.

    5. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is (currently) at the top of my list of big Internet companies that _deeply_ care about user privacy and safeguarding user information.

      Dear Mr. Google Shill. You are really, really bad at being a Google Shill. Look into a new line of work. Perhaps a poodle dog-butt groomer or Google Door to Drone SalesThing(r)(tm). Know that the Internet is not your friend.

      ~Signed, I See You.

    6. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is (currently) at the top of my list of big Internet companies that _deeply_ care about user privacy and safeguarding user information.

      That's priceless!

      The company run by Eric "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place", "true anonymity is too dangerous" Schmidt deeply cares about your privacy, I tell you.

    7. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's trendy to have a hate-on for Google.

      Sure is ! What makes it easy, is that Google is deserving of that hate.

      Google is (currently) at the top of my list of big Internet companies that _deeply_ care about user privacy and safeguarding user information.

      Yeah, they care so much, that they want to insert themselves between you and your data in every place possible. You know, just to make sure you're data is secure and all the privacy stuff is workin.

      But seriously, if you're not paid by Google, dude you're missing out. Don't do this shit for free, bro !

    8. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Dear Mr. Google Shill.

      The only coherent fears I've seen about having Google as an ISP are:

      * Google could gather, store, and analyse your IP addressing metadata in order to show you ads that are creepily related to things you've been doing on The Web.

      * Google may sell this information to other advertisers.

      Compare that to just a few of the things that the telcos' metadata customers can do to you:

      * Remove your ability to travel on commercial airlines, boats, and trains. Hope you have millions to reverse this decision!

      * Discover that you are probably carrying things of value, then stop you while you're travelling in your car and steal those things, claiming that they're "Obviously the proceeds of drug trafficking or terrorism.". Good luck getting them back!

      * Instruct armed thugs to break into your home in the middle of the night, where they will proceed to indiscriminately toss explosives and kill your family pets. Hope you know a necromancer!

      * Instruct suited and bespectacled thugs to call you in and give you a choice: "Either you pay hundreds of thousands to try to dispute our claims that you've been 'associating with' and 'aiding' terrorists, or you pay us tens of thousands and let us lock you up for 1/10th of the time that we _could_ lock you up for if you tried to dispute our claims.". Enjoy that shit sandwich!

      Given that you can't keep your addressing metadata private _and_ use The Internet, I know which of the two sets of people _I'd_ rather expose my metadata to. How about you?

    9. Re:Spying? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      My sense -- perhaps completely off base -- is that even if "ISP Google" doesn't use a modicum of data, it's still a Good Idea for Google to offer high-speed internet on the cheap. The more you use the internet, the more potential there is to make money on ad revenue. And if you have lousy internet, you're more liable to resort to other, less-monetizable forms of entertainment.

      I like to think -- and this is again perhaps a bit naive -- that there's some overlap between what Google wants and what I want with regards to internet access (although for different reasons).

    10. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely that Russia and other such big players do the same for traffic flowing within the US.

      Well, it is very unlikely that a foreign government is going to be very interested or be willing to abuse US citizens data.

      While I don't necessarily agree with the "enemy of my enemy" mindset I still feel my data is safer with a foreign entity rather than one my own government can control.
      Typically you are too insignificant for them to take notice and they don't gain anything by messing with you.
      In the case that your own government goes all fascist then your second/third world country will find it entertaining to not cooperate with them and will gladly point out to their own population how nice they are when they protect you.

    11. Re:Spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Eric Schmitd no longer runs the company
      2. He was stating the fucking obvious, that Google can't protect you from the government. If Google has information and the government makes a legal request for it, then Google has to comply.

      That isn't to say I trust Google, I'm not sure I trust any big company, and Google seem to be becoming more and more like all the other big companies as time goes on.

    12. Re:Spying? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      When I had AT&T U-Verse, running a VPN from the St. Louis area to the west coast was *faster* with lower latency and more reliable than the native path. It was even faster for contacting endpoints in the local area.

      As far as I was able to tell, AT&T runs various transparent proxies and maybe routes all traffic through a central location for easy government access. The encrypted VPN traffic would be too obtuse for this.

  7. Google giving the Business.. by lionchild · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of my small clients was able to get Small Business Google Fiber installed this last year. After the struggles of getting the physical installation going, things have been very nice. They like it very much, the way they expected it. However...

    Recently Google has contacted us to say our "introductory rates" will be ending the middle of 2017. They're moving to a 3-tier model for their fiber speeds. For $250 you can keep your 1 gigabit speed, for $150 (I think), you an go down to 250 megabits, and for $75 (or $100 maybe), you can go down to 100 megabits. If we don't update our choice by the end of July, 2017, they'll kick us down to 250 Mbps automatically.

    So, with the price change, that means we'll have to pay, basically, double to maintain our 1 Gbps, otherwise we lose 75% of our speed to pay the same price.

    Welcome to the "business."

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Google giving the Business.. by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Business Internet from "places we typically think of as consumer" (Comcast, TW, etc) typically cost more. As a consumer, I don't see that move as something that tells me necessarily it's going to get expensive. Those are still fantastic rates, for a business, btw.

    2. Re: Google giving the Business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My business would run over Google's network when he'll freezes over. When it comes to business data, I'd rather have the NSA, CIA, FBI, and KGB looking at my data before Google who seem to be unable to find a market they don't want to enter.

    3. Re:Google giving the Business.. by Cowclops · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where I work, we pay more than $250 a month for 30 by 30 fiber from TWC. Its pretty reliable, but reliably slow at such a low cap speed. The 10x10 fiber we have at some locations comes in under $200 a month, but the symmetric speeds means the download is tough when you need to grab a big file like driver updates and whatnot.

      I'd love to pay $250 a month for business gigabit. Or $150 a month for 250.

      I'm not saying its completely ok to drop the speeds/increase the price, but as the other sibling post pointed out, they're pretty good prices for business internet even if its not as good as the "retroactively introductory" price.

    4. Re:Google giving the Business.. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That does suck, though...introductory rates and such are never guaranteed. Still, it beats my Comcast by a pretty wide margin - $70 gets me 30/10, and that's consumer-capped. I'd jump at the chance for 100/100 (or even 50) at $75.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re: Google giving the Business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you would complain about 250/for 1/1 gigabit business internet is laughable, why don't you price that out with level 3 or Comcast enterprise.

      To trench 2 miles of fiber to a business was going to cost 60k plus 400 a month for 40/40.

      I'll trade you business locations.

    6. Re: Google giving the Business.. by b0bby · · Score: 2

      Do you really send a lot of data over the internet without encryption? Your email should all be over TLS at least, and any important web traffic would be https. Sure, they could tell which sites you visited, but so can any ISP.

    7. Re:Google giving the Business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm paying $79/month for 50/50 with Verizon Fios. Problem is in practice I'm getting nowhere near that. I've been meaning to call to get this resolved or drop to a lower speed that I am getting to save money, but have been dreading tech support...they love telling you to restart the router, run an alleged speed check from their end, and never do much beyond that.

    8. Re:Google giving the Business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just checked yesterday. On Comcrap, as a business, we are paying an promo rate of $215/mo for 100Mb/20Mb. I would HAPPILY be on 250 Mb symmetrical for $150.

    9. Re:Google giving the Business.. by swillden · · Score: 1

      So, with the price change, that means we'll have to pay, basically, double to maintain our 1 Gbps, otherwise we lose 75% of our speed to pay the same price.

      Or, you could drop down to the consumer tier and pay less per month than you currently do... but give up the business-class service level agreement that you have.

      If you're getting 1Gbps with a business SLA for $125 per month right now, that's an *amazing* deal. Comcast would soak you for twice that for 100 Mbps. I currently pay $120 per month for 15/3 (Mbps) with a business SLA, though that's because I'm out in the sticks where there are very few options available.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Google giving the Business.. by swillden · · Score: 2

      That does suck, though...introductory rates and such are never guaranteed. Still, it beats my Comcast by a pretty wide margin - $70 gets me 30/10, and that's consumer-capped. I'd jump at the chance for 100/100 (or even 50) at $75.

      And you're only getting a consumer service level agreement which is, basically, that if it doesn't work they'll fix it when they get around to it. I'm sure the Google Fiber business class service includes a more typical business SLA, with defined maximum response times and compensation for excessive outages. That sort of SLA typically triples the price vs a consumer service with the same bandwidth.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Google giving the Business.. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Oh, and business SLAs typically also include guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Consumer service is "up to X/Y", and typically it's not *too* far below (and sometimes it's even above), but there are no guarantees.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re: Google giving the Business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but only Google has the desire and ability to exploit all that data and metadata flying by. VZ and ATT couldn't do it if they wanted to. Only Google carries that risk. Therefore, they will never get to be the conduit for my data.

    13. Re:Google giving the Business.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I could pay $100 for 100 Mbps I would be fucking ecstatic. I pay $90 for 6-10 Mbps and I have a 90GB/mo cap.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: Google giving the Business.. by kqs · · Score: 2

      I think you are saying "I fear competent companies, so will only ever use incompetent companies".

      I believe that your philosophy dooms you to unhappiness and frustration.

    15. Re:Google giving the Business.. by jon3k · · Score: 1

      $work operates a bunch of branch locations in the southeast. We work with most large cable providers (Charter/Brighthouse, Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, etc) and the best prices we can get is in a few locations for $300/mo we can get 300Mb/s cable. Most locations are either 100 or 150Mb/s for $300. I would GLADLY pay $250 for 1Gb/s (fiber optic) Business Internet Service. We have fiber in a couple places (oddly enough, CSpire in the middle of Mississippi offers very inexpensive 100Mb/s bidirectional fiber along with HQ and larger branch has fiber from other providers, Cox, SouthernLight, etc) and the reliability of fiber versus copper service is night and day. Fiber is FAR more reliable than any of the copper service (DSL or Cable).

      So many times more bandwidth and dramatically better reliability while saving money? Where do I sign up?

    16. Re: Google giving the Business.. by jon3k · · Score: 1

      You put way too much faith in the telcos.

  8. Basically, meh. by tsstahl · · Score: 2

    Until it is in my town, it doesn't exist.

  9. Isn't the internet in Latvia good too? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    I don't really believe they are a real business. I mean, in the sense that, if you live in those places, you can get amazing fiber, and then everyone else suddenly shifts to compete, sure. It's real.

    But I don't live there. I *do* live in suburbs just outside of a city, a major metropolitan area. But no google fiber. Because their total deploy is so damned low, my area could reasonably be next (so in the next couple years) or very far out (long enough not to matter).

    So to me, no, they aren't real. No one I talk to in real life has google fiber. It may as well be a European nation with good internet- it's got about the same level of meaning to me.

    1. Re:Isn't the internet in Latvia good too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, no potato.

  10. grammar, jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "have been forced to changing their tune"

    Ugh, hire a fucking editor, please. Just one would make all the difference.

  11. Nope by red_dragon · · Score: 1

    I don't see Philadelphia in the list of future or even potential cities for expansion. Shit, not even a single city within a six-hour drive. Nothing in the Northeast. The closest seems to be Raleigh-Durham. At this rate, it just looks like yet another half-assed Google project ready to go on the chopping block.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
    1. Re:Nope by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Doesn't Philly already have a sort-of competition between FIOS and Comcast? Along with the difficulty of doing anything in the city of nepotism love, they may not see that as a priority.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Nope by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      There is no competition when there are only two players in broadband. The head of Verizon explicitly stated they would not be competing on price when they moved into areas serviced by Comcast.

      Verizon prices are effectively the same as Comcast's for the same service.*

      *+/- 5 mbps for the same price.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Nope by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's true, but what I meant was that they probably look at Philly as this den of Comcast and Verizon - Comcast is headquartered there and Verizon has a major presence from when it was Bell Atlantic. They are major players and the broadband coverage is pretty good - I think their mission to provide universal fast internet and the efforts needed to bust into Philly probably conspire to nudge them elsewhere.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  12. And yet it's all just talk by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

    And yet it's all just talk until you actually start getting serious about serving places. Six current cities and four upcoming cities is not a serious business. 12 potential cities? That's great. I've read they primarily select cities based on where dark fiber is already heavily available, which is fine from a cost point, but it doesn't necessarily get them customers.

    Besides, I'm likely to pass unless I can get something between the "free" and $70/month plan cause 5 Mbit isn't enough and 1 Gbit is way more than I need. The only perk would be competitors offering lower rates to fill the gap. I hate Comcast but I imagine they're more likely to meet me in the middle and that fine by me. And given Google isn't touching New England with a pole of any size, I don't expect to see any better service any time soon.

    1. Re:And yet it's all just talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to tell you this but its not exactly easy to build out a door to door ISP. Most large ISP's simply bought out / merged with tons of smaller ones that can be traced back to single city ISPs. It is not like Comcast woke up one day and decided to build cables to every house in america in 5 years.

      Six cities is a monumental undertaking. Google has been drilling around in my neighborhood for over a month and they are still not done. In 20 years google will have a really strong position but physically laying cable down every street in every neighborhood takes a lot. City approvals, development rights, funding, contractor availability, adequate marketing time, staff to manage all of the above. Single city ISPs are a thing and are still profitable, "real", businesses. Six+ cities is a real business.

  13. Help us Google Fiber... by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    You're our only hope!

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  14. Wishing on a star by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    I switch seasonally from a town in the SF bay area that has multiple options in ISP's and a very fast home service of 100mbps to Yuma AZ where I can barely get 15mbps from the only show in town for more money. While it pales in comparison to Gbps service just the addition of another competitor drove down the cost and increased bandwidth in the existing Comcast offerings. BTW I've mentioned before I love Astound/Wave communications, and TWC/Charter to be known as Spectrum communications SUCKS donkey genitalia.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  15. But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by CAOgdin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Out here in rural America (I'm near Lake Tahoe), we hear nothing but Big Business Buzz. I've got the best there is in the County Seat: 12 Mb/s, barely enough for my small business...but nothing near what it would take to attract significant business growth, because we're not "visible" enough, and the Republican congress has made sure there's been no money (even though most rural areas are as Red as Hell) for broadband through the Rural Utilities Service, or other federal medium.

    Google could create a massive economic boom in rural America...but "shareholder return" is more important to them than trying to help solve economic problems outside big cities. But, even Jack Welch, the original progenitor of "shareholder value" has now called it "the dumbest idea in the world."
    (See http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...)

    Even the Tennessee Valley Authority spawned the USDA's Rural Electrification Service to bring electricity to rural areas...back when politicians still gave a damn about their constituents' needs.

    So, Google, why won't you return my phone calls about serving rural markets? Are citizens in rural areas less VALUABLE to our Country, in your eyes? Where does YOUR food come from?

    1. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given how massively subsidized rural areas are already (and how overrepresented heavily rural small states are at the Federal level), it's pretty gutsy of you to demand even more. Once you start paying for my urban parking, I'll consider helping to fund your broadband.

    2. Re: But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of a business boom sound lake Tahoe due to faster Internet is completely absurd. It'd help you watch Netflix better and that's about it.

    3. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out here in rural America (I'm near Lake Tahoe), we hear nothing but Big Business Buzz. I've got the best there is in the County Seat: 12 Mb/s, barely enough for my small business...

      That's very fast for the US for the middle of nowhere. I'm just north of the University of Washington in the city limits of Seattle, and 1.5 Mbps is the fastest connection available on my block:

      http://imgur.com/WgSvnA5

      Even that doesn't work so we're stuck with dial-up or ISDN. We need to get cities off of dial-up before upgrading rural areas to even faster connections.

    4. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with the value of the citizens in rural areas but the substantially higher cost of providing service to them. Or, to put it another way, does it make more sense to spend $100M bringing service to 10,000,000 people or 1,000,000 people?

    5. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Fuck the rural poor, give the money to city people who are already rich! Great idea you have there. Oh, dear, parking! Let me guess, you bitch about parking but then have no problems with a $17 lunch.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't use just use Comcast? They serve that address (apparently you already have it, I looked it up). They offer 75 Mbps to that address. What a freak.

    7. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, you're a business. move.

      if you CHOOSE to stay where you KNOW there are limitations, you are part of your own problem, you realize that, right? And if you're a Lake Tahoe-specific business, perhaps you should have checked into these things before starting up the business.

    8. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by jon3k · · Score: 1

      This guy gets it. Providers have a metric which is called "Cost per Home Passed". That is, what does it cost in dollars to lay fiber for each home the fiber is laid near, because each one is a potential customer. If I can pay $1M and pass 10,000 homes versus paying $1M to pass 10 homes, it doesn't take a math wizard to figure out where I'm investing my capital.

      It's not to say that they won't eventually roll out fiber to more rural areas, just that when you have a certain amount of capital to invest, and resources to deploy service, you start with the most profitable markets. Also, the cost to deploy fiber drops constantly, so by the time most of the densely populated areas have fiber, it will be more economical to deploy fiber to rural areas. But we're talking in terms of decades not months before we see truly widespread fiber in even rural areas.

    9. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I could get Comcast cable, don't you think I would? They've been at capacity in our neighborhood for nearly a decade. The can't add new customers without upgrading their equipment and/or wiring, which the Director's Rules prevent. If I could get cable Internet access, I would surely would have as soon as it was available.

    10. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, you're a business. move.

      if you CHOOSE to stay where you KNOW there are limitations, you are part of your own problem, you realize that, right? And if you're a Lake Tahoe-specific business, perhaps you should have checked into these things before starting up the business.

      Spoken by someone who has never, ever owned a business. Not even a lemonade stand. (Nor a spellchecker.) But they do own that cool Caption Hindsight costume. ~

    11. Re:But, Apparently, Rural Communities Don't Exist by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      I didn't say fuck the rural poor, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I see no reason to further privilege helping the rural poor over the urban poor, however.

  16. Thanks Google! by darkain · · Score: 2

    In my neighborhood, the options were city owned cable internet at 30mbps, Comcast at "50mbps" (we all know how accurate THAT really is), or Centurylink at only 3mbps!

    Thanks to the push of Google Fiber elsewhere in the country, the local ISP and Comcast have increased their speeds to about 150mbps, and Centurylink has pushed Gigabit Fiber, which I've been greatly enjoying since the beginning of the year. The only downside is that my monthly bill is roughly double that of Google Fiber in other cities. But considering it is only about $30 more than I was paying for the 30mbps down (and 6mbps up), the symmetrical gigabit connection has been more than worth the extra fee!

  17. New boss - same as the old boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having had GF since their initial KC installation my bill has been raised almost $70/mo. When I couldn't route to various entities through their pure IPv6 system there was absolutely no help from customer service or engineering.

    Google Fiber isn't a business, it's an arm of Google to extend into the home. It's a shit service and you'd be better off using a local competitor. And there are plenty.

  18. Finally got gFiber, it's nice. by blackprint · · Score: 1

    Of course it took well over a year longer than expected, and my apartment complex was recently bought and are going to be kicking out all current tenants in order to renovate, but it's nice. For now.

  19. Verizon FiOS would like to remind people... by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    that it's a Real Business too.

    Except that when FiOS rolled out here, Verizon didn't try to undercut Comcast's prices.

    I'll keep waiting for the Googs to get here, but I'm not holding my breath.

    1. Re:Verizon FiOS would like to remind people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The dude who ran the FiOS roll out has DSL at his house. Verizon has no interest in FiOS anymore. They are busy selling it off to anyone they can.

  20. I have Google Fiber, and it's amazing by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a techie who actually has Google Fiber, it's been amazing. The first couple weeks were really rocky--random internet outages which were unexplainable.

    They sent a tech out, who'd never seen anything like it, and he's like "well, I guess I'll replace the network box, because I have no idea what it is." Worked great ever since.

    The only major disadvantage is they don't want you running your own router, and have actually hassled me for doing so. They offer just a fiber jack to businesses, but don't offer it for residential customers. Residential customers HAVE to use their "network box" (router). There are actually howtos on the internet of plugging into the fiber jack, if you have a managed switch and set the VLAN tags right.

    My speeds:
    I get 400 Mbit up/down over wireless (my own router)
    I get 900 Mbit up/down wired

    Speeds are constant, regardless of time of day, and no weird latency issues at all. I get a reliable 1ms ping to a friend who also has Google Fiber 15mi away, and I get very low pings to the rest of the world. It's hands down the best internet I've ever had. Customer service is friendly, too.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
    1. Re:I have Google Fiber, and it's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so without your own router you are basically trusting and giving Google full access to your internal network. How crazy is that? No thanks.

    2. Re:I have Google Fiber, and it's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck would they know I have my own router, and not just one computer?

      This smells fishy.

    3. Re:I have Google Fiber, and it's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How the fuck would they know I have my own router, and not just one computer?

      This smells fishy.

      MAC addresses on routers are different from the ones on PCs (all MAC addresses have two components, one of which identifies the manufacturer). Also you can see a different TTL. Finally, you can also see additional packet latency for systems behind the router compared to the router its self.

      OpenBSD has some stuff in it's firewall stack for cleaning this stuff up, so if you run an OpenBSD router you could make it more difficult but not impossible. You would need a little more knowledge with Linux iptables. Needless to say, given your question I seriously doubt you have done all this stuff, so Google can tell if they want to. How do you think your mobile network knows if you are tethering?

    4. Re:I have Google Fiber, and it's amazing by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      There's of course nothing stopping you from putting your own firewall/router/whatever inside Google's. So no "full access" required.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  21. No it isn't by CrashNBrn · · Score: 3, Informative

    All of the Alphabet child companies have to be self supporting. I don't recall if the deadline has past yet or not. Which is why - if you've been paying attention - some things have already been divested, such as Boston Dynamics robotics.

  22. Austin? by Punchcardz · · Score: 1

    Sure it is. How is that Austin rollout going Google? I only ask because I live there and at the rate I'm seeing, I'm gonna get it around the year 2525. If man is still alive.

    1. Re:Austin? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Far northwest Austin here (just south of Cedar Park), the only thing I've gotten from them is a T-shirt (1XL with no option for a 2XL). The original map made me feel like I was in the boonies. Hell, a freaking Tesla service or showroom place (not sure which yet) even opened nearby in the past few weeks! And I'm moving back to San Antonio, which has at least been chosen as a GF city, so who knows, it might not even set my wait back by much.

      If you don't live between, say, Ben White and 2222, you will probably be waiting for a while. If your neighborhood doesn't have above-ground comm wires on poles, you might be waiting even longer. For what it's worth, many years ago TW ran some kind of hammer mole thingy down the back yards in my neighborhood (digging a hole in only one of every 4 yards) to run a soda-can sized pipe though the ground. (They used an actual soda can bottom to cover the end of the pipe when pushing it through the hole!) Who knows if Google would even be able to use that hole.

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

      Got it a few months back. No problems encountered so far.
      Location: just NE of I-35 / I-71 junction.

  23. I live in Houston, fourth most populace US City by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    major space flight, technology, and oil and gas hub and we're not even on the roadmap for future deployment according to the pictures in that article.

    I have a hard time thinking of Google Fiber as a serious business if they're ignoring us.

    Now if they were ignoring us but they were intentionally targeting places like Jal NM, Pecos TX, Nome AK, Vale OR I would consider them serious. SInce they're just cherry picking mid-sized to large cities that already have reasonably good infrastructure - likely loads of dark-fiber - but ignoring large cities and bergs I can't take them seriously.

    Also I know plenty of people in Austin that can't get Google fiber because "they're only near the capital, downtown, and college". Hard to take them seriously.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:I live in Houston, fourth most populace US City by Shados · · Score: 1

      Google Fibers picks their targets more by political situation of the city than anything else. So many cities have lock ins, agreements, weird contracts, codes that will get in the way, etc, that its really hard to establish a service like Google Fibers.

  24. or to get the existing ISP's around the country... by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    to offer better service and prices. Google mainly want a big, affordable pipe to everyone. If they can get the existing service providers to do that, great, if not, they'll do it themselves. I've noticed that areas where Google announces that they are thinking about entering seems to suddenly get better prices and faster speeds from the people already in the area.

  25. The more Google fiber rolls out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more Google fiber rolls out, the less the otherwise monpolistic broadband can gouge us for! Bring on Google!

  26. Cable Internet Cost/Accounts Per Mile by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity...

    Does anyone have references for general ballpark figures to build out a mile (or ten) of high speed internet access (say, 5/1 per account), and how many accounts per mile are generally required before a cable company will install the infrastructure?

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:Cable Internet Cost/Accounts Per Mile by TheSync · · Score: 1

      According to this the price for rural FTTH is:

      Cost per household = $3,072 + $13,365 * (adjusted road miles/households) - 0.8867 * households + $25.04 * frost index + $17,700 * wetlands percentage + $1,376 * soils texture + $165.40 * road intersection frequency

    2. Re: Cable Internet Cost/Accounts Per Mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome - thank you very much. I spent a few hours yesterday trying to find some good data but my Google-fu must have been weak.

  27. this sux waiting for it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, living in a place like highlands ranch, which is loaded with well-to-do techies, and having other communities around here, it sux waiting for Google to get here.
    Come on Google, work with netflix, amazon, etc and spread out faster. All it takes is a bit of money from all of you to really his this hard.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. ...and Google Fiber is a subsidiary of Alphabet by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2
    Google Fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On August 10, 2015, Google announced its intention to restructure the company, moving less central services and products into a new umbrella corporation, Alphabet Inc. As part of this restructuring plan, Google Fiber would become a subsidiary of Alphabet, and may become part of the "Access and Energy" business unit.[8]

  29. why ignore mid-atlantic? by chris_osulliva · · Score: 1

    why is google fiber ignoring the mid-atlantic? looks like no plans for anything north of Raleigh. Charlotte was a good choice though.

  30. Re:or to get the existing ISP's around the country by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Google should start "tricking" existing service providers into thinking they might enter every market, then..... Force their competitors to make that investment in EVERY potential market, to gain maximum leverage...

  31. They don't want to be a real company. by jimbob6 · · Score: 1

    If Google fiber wanted to be a real isp they would have a privacy agreement that kept them from selling user data as marketing research to third party's.
    Remember as with any of Google's projects when you use them you're not the customer, you're the product.

  32. Still waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been waiting for an installation (not the freebie, a real paid one, $300 install and competitive to cable rates / month) for 2 years 1 month in Kansas City.

    I've banged on them several times of course. No install yet.

    Also, they have not come up with commercial installation rates that make any sense either. At least last time I bothered (given their rapid response rate it's been a while), they had a "no commercial" rule.

    So spare me the "real business" nonsense.