http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/26/google-fiber-gets-formal-launch-adds-google-fiber-tv/

C'mon how can I get down?!

The offspring :-D

PSN & XBL: LOQuent

.

(and apple)

~~~~~~

I am thinking about dropping the local cable company since I only get 6 to 8 MBPS due to inferior wiring. U-verse claims to get 12 for less money than I am paying the cable company.

<--- It's the place to be.

FTTN - fiber to the node
FTTH - fiber to the home

U-verse is FTTN not FTTH. Your cable TV and high speed will still run over the existing wiring in your neighborhood and your home. If the wiring in your home is old, I would question switching or have your home rewired. If your node, like mine, is half a mile away then you will experience some problems. I work for AT&T so I get Uverse for a 3rd of the cost everyone else pays but I still kept Comcast high speed service. There's nothing that matches it here in ATL.

But now that I had directv installed, I was told that Uverse should have run a separate phone line for the internet. Instead, they shared the internet and TV signal in the coaxial cable which led to continuous interruptions in both TV and internet. I loved the on demand and DVR though, much better than directv.

_____________________________________________

Long Beach is the spot where I serve my caine - Snoop

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm pissed off and stuck with slow ass DSL till that happens.

FTTP term is used when referring to a multi-tenat building or business where fiber is brought inside and terminated to a network switch. Same applies to FTTH but it's a residence.

they have no transport type called FTTH

now we've branched out


now we have
about 3 different types of FTTP, one would be considered "FTTC' but we dont call it that we call it something else internally.


as i mentioned below the GPON are what you want right now that supports the high speed that will compete with google fiber.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
** i move away from the mic to breathe in

Please, please, please let this model be successful.

http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/

Google’s fiber-to-the-home network may look like a loss leader for the search engine company, but its executive teams says it’s profitable. Here are the three ways Google has managed to cut the costs of building out a network and beat ISPs at their own game.


Google launched its fiber-to-the-home gigabit network Thursday in Kansas City, KansasMo. and it wants everyone to know that this network isn’t a charity case. Several Google executives at the event were very clear that delivering gigabit internet access over fiber for $70 a month (and even free 5 Mbps fiber) is a business that will not only help advance Google’s consumer goals, but also make it money.

“There’s no sense selling a product at a loss,” said Google CFO Patrick Pichette (just look at Google’s Nexus 7 tablet). “But it’s not only about profits, it’s about changing the access costs.” His goal and Google’s goal is to bring the same efficiencies that have helped create cheaper, smaller and more powerful computers and create a cost and improvement curve for broadband access that resembles the curves for compute storage, as the chart below illustrates.

And Google may have a found a way to do that — both in terms of constructing and operating a fiber to the home network — by using its engineering team, existing consumer technologies such as QR codes and social engineering to influence how users sign up for access. Existing ISPs should take note — what Google has done here has fundamentally lowered the cost of building and deploying a network. It was cagey about if and when it would take its fiber-to-the-home show on the road, but if it does, it will pummel existing ISPs on price and service, have repercussions throughout the carrier equipment industry and entice a lot of end consumers to take on a more active role in marketing Google’s broadband.

How Google cuts costs

Delivering broadband is a capital-intensive business, with Verizon spending $23 billion to spread its fiber to the home service to 17 million homes. Analysts estimate that it cost Verizon roughly $670 to run fiber past each home in its footprint. That cost varies depending on a huge number of factors, ranging from how far apart homes are to whether or not Verizon could string fiber from telephone poles rather than bury it. Google doesn’t give its costs, and so far vendors are mum, but here’s what we do know.

It makes its own gear: From the infrastructure on the back end to the TV and Wi-Fi routers in the home, Google has built its own stuff. Most carriers rely on outside vendors to sell them networking gear and even set-top boxes. However, like Iliad, the operator in France that provides the Free mobile and wireline network, Google has built its own equipment. Several sources have told me that Google has ordered fiber gear from companies such as Ciena, asked them how the boxes work and then sent the optical engineers on their way.

Kevin Lo, the general manager of the Google Fiber business, told me that from the time the Google Fiber project was announced in February 2010, engineers have been working on the gear. There are two advantages Google gains here. The first is that it’s not shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars on specialty equipment built for ISPs, but rather taking the most basic elements of a network and assembling them into custom gear, much like it does on the data center side. The second is that it can control all of the physical infrastructure that its network relies on — updating and tweaking it as needed.

It uses social engineering: It’s accepted that one of the most costly elements of building out a fiber network is the physical labor associated with strong cable, digging trenches and hiring people to terminate the fiber into the home. Google has already strung cable on power lines throughout Kansas City and lowered those costs by working with the local utility and AT&T to get access to the utility poles without having to pay high fees.

But to reduce the cost of the actual last mile to users’ homes it’s telling people in Kansas City that if they want to be the first to get fiber, they’ll have to convince their neighbors to sign up. The goal is to get a critical mass of between 5 percent and 25 percent of the homes in a given neighborhood (Google calls it a fiberhood) committed to signing up for Google Fiber before ever sending out technicians. Residents have until Sept. 9 to get their fiberhood on the leaderboard before Google starts rolling out its fiber.


Google’s Milo Medin and a Google fiber product manager.

Milo Medin, the VP of access services at Google, explained that with this model the folks in the first fiberhood will have their access within a week. This is also why the free service is so important to Google. If people buy into that process, it can get homes attached in those initial bulk deployments and reduce the number of times Google has to send out trucks and technicians. Medin says the $300 initial connection fee will cover the costs associated with the deployments — it’s not doing that at a loss either.

It will use QR codes and the Google Play store to change your relationship with set-top boxes and routers : I’ve already covered the cost savings at the core network and the last mile access, but the final place Google is shaking things up is in the home. Customer premise equipment is the bane of the ISP industry. Those boxes are expensive so many cable providers and telcos rent them to users, which drives users nuts. Users also are slow to update the devices, which can limit the type of services ISPs can offer and in many cases force a technician to come out and install them.



Google has built its own hard drive to act as a DVR, a TV box to provide channels and a network box that acts as a modem and provides Wi-Fi connectivity in the home — cutting out traditional providers such as Arris, Scientific Atlanta (Cisco) and others that make such gear. Medin says that those boxes will have a QR code that a technician will scan. The box then sends its activation information to the cloud and the box is now provisioned and activated for that customer. Eventually consumers will be able to do this for themselves, perhaps after they order a box on Google’s Play store.

All of these things will help Google deliver a gigabit per second to the home at a profit. Granted, that profit might not be as large as the broadband profits that Comcast or AT&T currently enjoy, but it’s a profit. And hopefully regulators and average consumers will look at what Google is doing and ask themselves, “Why are the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world complaining about how much it costs to serve up broadband when Google can deliver 100 times the traditional ISP’s top speeds for the same or a lower price.”

If they don’t ask, then let’s hope Google will continue its expansion. When I asked, Medin wasn’t direct, but said, “This is a beginning.”

this sounds really intriguing.

it's like Google could become a one-stop shop for people gaining access to content, seemingly anywhere - mobile to desktop to the living room.

they would have a reach into observing the habits of people's life in an unpresedented way.

i guess i'm so in awe of a company not only being able to service you with the access to any form of online content or information that i'm not troubled by the potential privacy issues.

but damn, if Google is able to roll this out into homes across the country. wow.

__________________________________________

http://www.twitter.com/chriscjamison/

People who don't take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year. People who do take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year.

Peter Drucker

----------------------

800

For this not to fail they need to make MONEY - at least in the ball park of what ComCoast/Cox/Time Warner does.

If they can't then this will not spread.

I'd be happy with FIOS speeds - but that didn't spread to San Diego

Par for the course, I see.

Because if you did, you'd see that if it does fail, it wouldn't be because the business plan didn't make money. On top of that, they've been planning this for a very long time and have been taking steps to acquire (cheap) dark fiber for their network.

Google wants 'dark fiber' - 2005
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-5537392.html

What's Google Doing With All That Dark Fiber? - 2007
http://www.voip-news.com/articles/voip-blog/whats-google-doing-with-all-that-dark-fiber-51966/

"Starting a few years ago, Google began buying thousands of miles of so-called “dark fiber”--fiberoptic communications wiring that was installed in the ground but going unused. The fiber was historically cheap thanks to a fiberoptic building boom that had gone bust, allowing the Mountain View search giant to acquire large amounts of it for pennies on the dollar."

Google Buys a Piece of Transpacific Cable - 2008
http://gigaom.com/2008/02/25/googlenet-update-google-buys-a-piece-of-transpacific-cable/

Google's Ultra-Fast Broadband Plan Puts U.S. ISPs on Notice - 2010
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/10/googles-ultra-fast-broadband-plan-puts-u-s-isps-on-notice/

And why do they need to make money on the level of the other cable providers? It obviously would not be their primary business, but, as the article in post 7 explicitly states numerous times in the first few sentences, this is being built out as a revenue stream, not a pet project.

Quote:
---
All of these things will help Google deliver a gigabit per second to the home at a profit. Granted, that profit might not be as large as the broadband profits that Comcast or AT&T currently enjoy, but it’s a profit. And hopefully regulators and average consumers will look at what Google is doing and ask themselves, “Why are the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world complaining about how much it costs to serve up broadband when Google can deliver 100 times the traditional ISP’s top speeds for the same or a lower price.”
---

See, SMALLER PROFIT will doom this to failure. (Caps used to emphasize the smaller)

And consumers - as of right now - don't give a shit about 1000/1000 speeds. They'd be happy with 25/7. And thrilled with 100/50. Or 15/3 (what Cox and ComCast are giving NOW to the cheapest plans) but CHEAPER.

Plus Google's got a track record of shuttering projects like this.

100 times the speed of a cable modem for the same price might be good for me or you, but if FIOS didn't work on a national scale I don't see how this will.

It's Google playing around - not something that will dethrone cable companies. (And interestingly enough the cable offerings are bundled channels just like all other cable companies - no new business model or change there.)

I hope they prove me wrong and we get 1000/1000 in San Diego - but odds are this won't spread.

(And then let the net neutrality lawsuits and data mining lawsuits begin.)

Edit: So, you sir, can SUCK IT.

> See, SMALLER PROFIT will doom this to failure. (Caps used to emphasize the smaller)

How exactly will smaller profit doom this to failure? Google has been building the infrastructure for the past 7 years now, all funded entirely by their (very profitable) search business. A profit's a profit, right? No losses there, and their dependence on profits is lessened since it's not their core business.

And you say you read post 7, but fixate on the fact that it won't make as much as companies whose CORE business is cable service. Nevermind the fact that the article laid out factors such as:

- pricing plan, including an enticing free plan to push the userbase towards critical mass
- Google built the custom hardware in-house
- Leveraged alliances with experienced networking companies for gear
- Worked with AT&T and local utility to get access to utility poles without paying high fees
- Uses pre-registration to confirm interest in neighborhoods before sending out technicians
- $300 connection fee is not operated at a loss
- Google's custom box has multiple duties as a DVR, TV provider, network box and wi-fi connectivity

Basically, they've been able to use the experience and knowledge of other companies to help them build the business from the ground up, and have leveraged numerous efficiencies along the way. Not to mention that they've been buying the infrastructure (dark fiber) for basically the past 7 years now, for pennies on the dollar. And they've been doing so well that other providers are giving incentives to spy on their operations:

http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/12/time-warner-google-fiber-spying-kansas-city/

Now, if you had mentioned other potential factors for failure that made more sense, like:

- lack of interest/critical mass
- logistics in reaching peoples' homes
- not enough dark fiber
- lack of channel availability
- increasing costs
- Cable providers pushing back

All of these (and I'm sure many more) make far more sense as to why this won't work. "Making smaller profits" is pretty much the last reason why this endeavor wouldn't work because, again, they don't depend on this business like Comcast or Time Warner.

> And consumers - as of right now - don't give a shit about 1000/1000 speeds. They'd be happy with 25/7. And thrilled with 100/50. Or 15/3 (what Cox and ComCast are giving NOW to the cheapest plans) but CHEAPER.

Umm, yeah ask anyone if they'd rather have incredibly fast speeds for cheaper than what they're paying now. Google Fiber is offering TV and super high speed internet for $70. I guarantee that is cheaper or very competitive with the best plans out there. And are you sure you read post 7? Because they're offering 5mbps for FREE. Heads up, 'free' is cheaper than anything any other provider can offer.

> Plus Google's got a track record of shuttering projects like this.

Could you give me examples of this? Because yes, while Google is famous for pet projects like clean energy, Google Glass, driverless cars, etc., this is a much, much larger project than all of those. With a much more tangible business plan that already has the pricing plan in place. I have no problems being wrong, but please provide some tangible evidence to support your claim.

> 100 times the speed of a cable modem for the same price might be good for me or you, but if FIOS didn't work on a national scale I don't see how this will.

Now here's the first thing you said that I can agree with. Yes, the logistical issues in accessing such a diverse and disparate populace are far larger hurdles in Google Fiber's success than pretty much anything else. The *level* of profits will have nothing to do with Google Fiber's success (or failure).

> It's Google playing around - not something that will dethrone cable companies. (And interestingly enough the cable offerings are bundled channels just like all other cable companies - no new business model or change there.)

That's the thing, I don't think they need to dethrone cable companies, just like no single cable company can dominate now (due to the regional monopolies each enjoys). But can they be a major player that forces all the other providers to rethink their model if Fiber gains momentum? Absolutely. And this benefits the **consumer**... I know you're not a fan of it, but remember, competition is a GOOD thing.

> Edit: So, you sir, can SUCK IT

Aww, just when I thought we could have a mature, intelligent discussion. Guess that's out the window.

>> See, SMALLER PROFIT will doom this to failure. (Caps used
>to emphasize the smaller)
>
>How exactly will smaller profit doom this to failure? Google
>has been building the infrastructure for the past 7 years now,
>all funded entirely by their (very profitable) search
>business. A profit's a profit, right? No losses there, and
>their dependence on profits is lessened since it's not their
>core business.
>

No, a profit is not a profit. Here's an example: Apple sold more iPhones this quarter than last June quarter - and it's seen as a disappointment to the market.

Business rules of profit don't work in a common sense manner. If you're making a small amount of money it's not as good as a greater amount. And each quarter/year you are expected to grow profits.

Wall Street , and shareholders might revolt. (Risk)

>- pricing plan, including an enticing free plan to push the
>userbase towards critical mass

Free - with a $300 installation fee. (Or did I read that wrong?)

>- Google built the custom hardware in-house
Google's not known as a hardware company - they do use commodity PCs for search. Not a selling point (not a detraction either.)


>- Uses pre-registration to confirm interest in neighborhoods
>before sending out technicians
>- $300 connection fee is not operated at a loss

"Pre-registration", Fiberhoods, etc don't seem like a viable business model for penetration into the entire country. Call me crazy, but whipping people into a fanboy Frenzy is something I've heard is bad - and something that doesn't work out so well. (Shouldn't Conan O'Brein be the #1 talk show host now?)


>> And consumers - as of right now - don't give a shit about
>1000/1000 speeds. They'd be happy with 25/7. And thrilled with
>100/50. Or 15/3 (what Cox and ComCast are giving NOW to the
>cheapest plans) but CHEAPER.
>
>Umm, yeah ask anyone if they'd rather have incredibly fast
>speeds for cheaper than what they're paying now. Google Fiber
>is offering TV and super high speed internet for $70. I
>guarantee that is cheaper or very competitive with the best
>plans out there. And are you sure you read post 7? Because
>they're offering 5mbps for FREE. Heads up, 'free' is cheaper
>than anything any other provider can offer.

Free, with installation fees - right? (Or do they free roll a truck to hook up to your existing infrastructure? I'm unclear on that point.)

The 1000/1000 is not something consumers are *demanding* at the moment. Most won't know what it is. And most won't care.

Now if they had a la carte TV pricing, or a Google video service that offered live sports I could see consumers wanting that.

But the average consumer (my mother, your mother, friends who don't work in the technology field) aren't DEMANDING 100 times faster speeds. Twice as fast is something you could market - but I don't see how that's going to drive mass consumer demand *at the moment.*

>
>> Plus Google's got a track record of shuttering projects like
>this.
>
>Could you give me examples of this? Because yes, while Google
>is famous for pet projects like clean energy, Google Glass,
>driverless cars, etc., this is a much, much larger project
>than all of those. With a much more tangible business plan
>that already has the pricing plan in place. I have no
>problems being wrong, but please provide some tangible
>evidence to support your claim.

Here's a list of about 70: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discontinued_products_and_services

Look above that section and see the hundreds of projects Google has going at the moment too.

>> 100 times the speed of a cable modem for the same price
>might be good for me or you, but if FIOS didn't work on a
>national scale I don't see how this will.
>
>Now here's the first thing you said that I can agree with.
>Yes, the logistical issues in accessing such a diverse and
>disparate populace are far larger hurdles in Google Fiber's
>success than pretty much anything else. The *level* of
>profits will have nothing to do with Google Fiber's success
>(or failure).

I don't think you understand how stockholders see business success and/or failure.

As a research project it could succeed or fail on those merits - but service providers aren't research projects. They need to make money - an ever increasing amount of money each quarter.

And lastly Google knows NOTHING and I mean NOTHING about customer service. If you think Comcast or Time Warner are bad - they've got nothing on Google.

The Nexus One launch , and subsequent remarks by Eric Schmidt at Mobile World Congress show a deep misunderstanding/apathy from Google towards customer service.

When Google announces a Senior VP of customer/consumer services and then proves they are committed to it I'll re-evaluate. Because right now Google "customer service" for people paying under $10,000 a month to them is basically a ticketing system. That's not going to fly.

And Smidth is nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKOWK2dR4Dg&feature=player_embedded#!


If this succeeds THEN real net neutrality and privacy concerns will come up.

>
>> Edit: So, you sir, can SUCK IT
>
>Aww, just when I thought we could have a mature, intelligent
>discussion. Guess that's out the window.

You're WELCOME.

> No, a profit is not a profit. Here's an example: Apple sold more iPhones this quarter than last June quarter - and it's seen as a disappointment to the market.

> Business rules of profit don't work in a common sense manner. If you're making a small amount of money it's not as good as a greater amount. And each quarter/year you are expected to grow profits.

How is a profit "not a profit"?

And you mention Apple not meeting analyst expectations as a disappointment to the market... I agree, but note that selling iPhones is a **core** component to its **core** business. This is key.

Apple is (primarily) in the business of selling consumer hardware... and Google is (primarily) in the search business. These specific revenue streams are integral to each companies' bottom line. Google's just-launched internet/TV service is *not* critical to their core business. I mean, just the fact that they've already invested hundreds of millions of dollars over a span of 7+ years shows that their core business is more than healthy enough to support this new venture (as they've proven with myriad other projects over the years).

While I agree that profit is important, you have to look at the context. Google does not depend on the profits from this business to survive. Again... Google does *not* depend on the profits from this business to survive.

> Free - with a $300 installation fee. (Or did I read that wrong?)

Come on... the installation fee is something that *every* cable provider charges. However, "free internet" is something that NO cable provider offers. You do see that distinction, right? Here it is in layman's terms:

Instead of paying $150 install and $40 a month for internet for one year (total: $630), someone can pay $300 for install and nothing monthly (total $300). See the savings there? Even with a free install from a cable provider they'd be saving $180 over the course of a year.

> Google's not known as a hardware company - they do use commodity PCs for search. Not a selling point (not a detraction either.)

So? They were't known as an energy company, nor a peripheral company, nor a payment company, nor a mobile company, nor a maps company, nor a driverless car company, nor a .. etc., and so on and so forth. Dabbling in new industries is nothing new for Google, and the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus Q, Nexus 7, Motorola Mobility and now Google Fiber shows that they're serious about hardware.

First look at Fiber's set top boxes:
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/up-close-with-the-google-fiber-hardware-in-kansas-city-20120730/

They weren't known as a hardware company before, but they're all over the place in hardware now.

> "Pre-registration", Fiberhoods, etc don't seem like a viable business model for penetration into the entire country. Call me crazy, but whipping people into a fanboy Frenzy is something I've heard is bad - and something that doesn't work out so well. (Shouldn't Conan O'Brein be the #1 talk show host now?)

Like I said, they don't need to penetrate the whole country. No cable company can penetrate the whole country simply because of immense regional challenges and monopolies. There are about 5 major companies, but in the whole of the U.S. there are about 60 total providers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cable_television_companies#United_States

Hitting the whole country wasn't my point though. The point of preregistration is to find specific neighborhoods (per Google, from 250-1500 homes) that expressed a decent amount of interest in Fiber. This means Google isn't sending out technicians blindly... there's already built-in interest in the neighborhood. And by early accounts, there's a lot of interest already:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407842,00.asp

This has nothing to do with "fanboy frenzy"... it's gauging interest in a product, and directing your efforts towards those areas that are the most committed to it(with a $10 pre-reg fee).

> The 1000/1000 is not something consumers are *demanding* at the moment. Most won't know what it is. And most won't care.

They don't need to know "1000/1000". If Google sends a flyer to someone's home offering them TV and "faster" internet speeds for a similar or CHEAPER cost than they're paying now, that's incentive enough, right? Or even offering a free monthly plan for just internet for the growing contingent of cable cutters out there. People don't need to know exactly how fast the service is.. just that it's faster and cheaper than what they already have.

> Here's a list of about 70: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discontinued_products_and_services

I see a bunch of software projects, and absolutely not a single one is anywhere near the scale of Fiber. Again, 7+ years in the planning, hundreds of millions of dollars invested in infrastructure, in-house hardware... none of these other projects even remotely resemble something with a full scale business plan.

People said the same thing when Android was launched, and we see what happened when Google puts its weight behind a major project.

> I don't think you understand how business success and/or failure works. As a research project it could succeed or fail on those merits - but service providers aren't research projects. They need to make money.

Well, sure... for most companies. Again, Google funded this ENTIRE endeavor (along with all their other pet projects) solely from their search business. And they have no intention on this being some sort of benefit to mankind... their executives have been pretty firm about making this a profitable business.

> And lastly Google knows NOTHING and I mean NOTHING about customer service. If you think Comcast or Time Warner are bad - they've got nothing on Google.

I do agree here, and this is a major concern. The counterargument would be that there are very few people that know how to build out a massive, infrastructure-heavy cable provider business... but there are TONS of people that know how to give proper customer service. Hire the right people, and it's an easy fix.

> If this succeeds THEN real net neutrality and privacy concerns will come up.

Privacy's a real concern for pretty much every major tech company nowadays... and Fiber isn't going to help matters any either.

Again though, if Fiber crashes and burns but at the very least challenges the current shitty ass paradigm that Comcast/Time Warner/Cox/etc. are perpetuating, then that's something that ultimately benefits US.

>Again though, if Fiber crashes and burns but at the very least
>challenges the current shitty ass paradigm that Comcast/Time
>Warner/Cox/etc. are perpetuating, then that's something that
>ultimately benefits US.

Google Fiber may move into other markets - but that it will NOT shift the paradigm from other service providers because it's not a compelling enough product for the average consumer.

It won't crash and burn - but it'll be like FIOS - nice in markets where it is available - but nothing earth shattering or market changing.

It's going to fizzle - not sizzle.

(And I still want FIOS - it's in a market 60 miles away from me - it could conceivably get here.)

>Google Fiber may move into other markets - but that it will
>NOT shift the paradigm from other service providers because
>it's not a compelling enough product for the average
>consumer.

If a consumer knows nothing about Fiber but gets an advertisement for cheaper and/or free service, I do think it'll be enticing enough to get customers to switch.

Ideally, the critical mass will get large enough to change the paradigm and compel the providers to be more competitive, but I do agree that the chances of that happening are even smaller than Fiber catching on.

And your subjective opinion is... wanting.

Google's bottom line is affected by the NUMBER of people online no matter what they've doing or how fast their connection is.

If Google can operate this service without losing money, they win, because more people will ultimately be online. More people online = cash for Google. Simple as that.

Comparing this to Apple & iPhones is completely retarded. iDevices make up like 70% of Apple's revenue. This would make up 0% of Google's revenue. Again, they're not trying to make money with this, they're just trying not to lose money.

Google's been building their own servers for years and years and years. They don't sell them, and that is why they're not "known as a hardware company", but they're certainly capable of doing so.

Again, bottom line, if Google gets to operate a business that makes zero dollars but gets a lot of people online with decent bandwidth, it's a HUGE win for the company.

____________________________

http://instagram.com/yogikenan
http://instagram.com/shotbykenan
http://stackoverflow.com/users/43089/triptych
http://github.com/djtriptych

>And your subjective opinion is... wanting.
>
>Google's bottom line is affected by the NUMBER of people
>online no matter what they've doing or how fast their
>connection is.

The number of people not running ad-block software. (They are the online equivalent of the PennySaver after all.)

>If Google can operate this service without losing money, they
>win, because more people will ultimately be online. More
>people online = cash for Google. Simple as that.

I'm not sure if the shareholders will see it that way.

And there's the Net Neutrality and anti-trust cases right there too.


>Comparing this to Apple & iPhones is completely retarded.
>iDevices make up like 70% of Apple's revenue. This would make
>up 0% of Google's revenue. Again, they're not trying to make
>money with this, they're just trying not to lose money.

And there's the shareholder discontent issues right there. (I wasn't comparing service vs. deviced models - I was showing how making money, even shit-TONS of money isn't enough for the investor class in many cases.)


>Google's been building their own servers for years and years
>and years. They don't sell them, and that is why they're not
>"known as a hardware company", but they're certainly capable
>of doing so.

So the Nexus Q is the first in a series of coming Google consumer hardware wins?

>Again, bottom line, if Google gets to operate a business that
>makes zero dollars but gets a lot of people online with decent
>bandwidth, it's a HUGE win for the company.

I don't exactly see how that follows, we'll see in the coming years.

If that's the business plan and they can sell it to investors (and defend it to regulators) then who am I to say they're wrong?

But they're wrong.

make up your entire retarded argument.

Your magical shareholders who hate more paying customers for free.

Your magical customers not sophisticated enough to want fast internet but sophisticated enough to run ad block software.

Your argument doesn't even exist without convenient unicorns.

You fundamentally misunderstand what happened with Apple's last quarter, and trying to use it as evidence that Google's efforts would fail just makes you look silly. Yes Apple still had high profits but missed estimates. But Google Fiber doesn't even make a dent in Google's bottom line at all. They can operate the business basically for free with a significant positive side-effect. Show me the shareholder that this upsets.

Google has been building SERVERS (i.e. not consumer hardware) for decades, so they can probably operate a switching/networking center.

As far as consumer hardware - you're aware they bought Motorola yes?

They obviously already got it past "regulators" since they're selling the service.

If your ridiculous claim of mobs of angry investors hell-bent on killing this effort carried any weight at all, it would already have happened. Which attentive investors don't already know about this? You think they have no recourse? No way to make any noise yet?

Even IF there are reactionary shareholders that are dumb to think this is a reason to sell GOOG, that small minority can do so, and Google will go ahead with the plan, which is obviously years in the making.

____________________________

http://instagram.com/yogikenan
http://instagram.com/shotbykenan
http://stackoverflow.com/users/43089/triptych
http://github.com/djtriptych

My prediction: fizzle.

(Or you could be right - consumers DEMAND 100 times faster internet. Shareholders don't mind low profit. Google gets more ad sells WITHOUT getting into anti-trust issues. And Google doesn't throttle competitors and/or give it's own services faster speeds so no net neutrality fight either. That's not a fantasy)

Extra credit: And they do it without stomping on consumers privacy rights - all the while providing top notch customer service. <-John Lennon and Yoko Ono have a record they want to sell you.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Kansas-City-Google-Fiber-Rallies-Take-Off-Running-120594

.

♚♚♚♚

#BYLUG >>> https://goo.gl/1ooFp6

♚♚♚♚

screamin' mothafuck a 12 /
bitches ain't shit /
cops ain't neither /
they huntin' my people /

- i. rashad

♚♚♚♚

http://gigaom.com/2012/07/31/google-fiber-in-the-real-world-heres-whats-good-and-what-needs-work/

http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/wireed.png?w=604

o nvm me i just jizzed myself

(thx for the link)

♚♚♚♚

#BYLUG >>> https://goo.gl/1ooFp6

♚♚♚♚

screamin' mothafuck a 12 /
bitches ain't shit /
cops ain't neither /
they huntin' my people /

- i. rashad

♚♚♚♚

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/2/3443322/time-warner-att-kansas-city-google-fiber

Google didn't pick Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS as the locations to build out its Google Fiber service by chance — the company was given a number of incentives by both cities — and The Wall Street Journal reports that Time Warner and AT&T want in on the deal too. In order to create the infrastructure for the cable and gigabit internet service, Google was given everything from free fiber, government employees, buildings, and discounted services; an agreement that a Time Warner spokesman feels puts them "at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field." He continued by stating, "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."

Local internet and cable providers Time Warner and AT&T have been in talks with both Kansas cities to obtain a "parity agreement." In exchange for the incentives, the cities are requesting that both companies improve their community services to be on par with Google's efforts, which have resulted in free internet connections in hundreds of locations chosen by the government. While AT&T has not announced its progress in the matter, Time Warner has already made a deal with Kansas City, MO. The WSJ cites an unnamed source that claims Time Warner has improved its service's speed and performance in the area in return for discounts that mirror Google's, as well as a partial refund of city fees that the company paid earlier this year. Time Warner has been keeping a close eye on Fiber's progress, even to the point of paying city employees to spy on the service's development earlier this year.

The heated competition will likely benefit both cities quite nicely, but they see it as more than just business. Kansas City, KS mayor Joe Reardon stated his city's "goal is to encourage innovation. Whether that is Google or an existing provider or someone else, we want to help this to happen over and over again." Rick Usher, assistant city manager of Kansas City, MO shared similar sentiments, explaining to the WSJ that "Our citizens are more aware than ever before of what's available out there."

And if you're in one of the "fiber-hoods" that wasn't successful your kids can still use the old, slower internet and then compete to get into the same schools as the kids with the 100 times faster Internets.


Here's my link bait article: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/google-uses-schools-to-push-high-speed-internet-in-kansas-city.php

How exactly is cheap (free) broadband internet bad again? As well as having the incumbent ISP's rethinking their business plans in order to remain competitive (which benefits the consumer)?

And for the people complaining about targeted ads... you know you can browse the internet anonymously, right? And even if you don't.. the whole point of targeted ads is to provide you goods and services that benefit the user, right?

>How exactly is cheap (free) broadband internet bad again? As
>well as having the incumbent ISP's rethinking their business
>plans in order to remain competitive (which benefits the
>consumer)?

In the current model Google is increasing the digital divide between poor neighborhoods and less poor ones. Until they address that then I'll view them, at best, as having mixed results. (And getting there by having local government subsize it with lower taxes for a period of time sin't exactly altrusitic. That's what Time Warner is asking for. Corporate welfare -- they want in.)

And free, except for a $300 sign up, is free how exactly?


>And for the people complaining about targeted ads... you know
>you can browse the internet anonymously, right? And even if
>you don't.. the whole point of targeted ads is to provide you
>goods and services that benefit the user, right?

Do you KNOW that you can surf anonymously using Google's services? Because I don't know that right now. And Google has favored tracking users over user's privacy rights. (The largest fine ever levied by the FTC.) This is also wait and see situation.

>In the current model Google is increasing the digital divide
>between poor neighborhoods and less poor ones. Until they
>address that then I'll view them, at best, as having mixed
>results. (And getting there by having local government subsize
>it with lower taxes for a period of time sin't exactly
>altrusitic. That's what Time Warner is asking for. Corporate
>welfare -- they want in.)

While there's no denying there's a sharp divide between those neighborhoods that signed up for Fiber and those that didn't, Fiber was never intended to be a charity case. This is still a business. Your very first post in this thread (#10) was complaining about how this will fail because they "need to make MONEY" yet now you want to put on the social activist hat when you change your argument? You can't have it both ways.


>
>And free, except for a $300 sign up, is free how exactly?

Do I need to answer this question yet again? I answered your exact question back in post #18... here it is again, cut and pasted:

"Come on... the installation fee is something that *every* cable provider charges. However, "free internet" is something that NO cable provider offers. You do see that distinction, right? Here it is in layman's terms:

Instead of paying $150 install and $40 a month for internet for one year (total: $630), someone can pay $300 for install and nothing monthly (total $300). See the savings there? Even with a free install from a cable provider they'd be saving $180 over the course of a year."

What if a family stays there longer for a year? Hey, look at that, free internet (after $300 install) for the length of their stay at that residence. No other ISP offers that.. even Comcast's low-income option has a monthly fee of $10.



>Do you KNOW that you can surf anonymously using Google's
>services? Because I don't know that right now.

Just log out of Google's services? Don't log into your account when using searching stuff online.

However, if you want to use Google's services (like if you want to use Facebook's, Apple's, Amazon's, etc), then you're going to get tracked. It's a fact of life. And it's not limited to online companies either... here's an example of Target knowing that a teen was pregnant even before her father did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1329521286-bAJ8Lu/xck%20DQwMUzVaodQ&

If you want to complain that Google tracks you, then you need to complain about every single company that does too.


And Google has
>favored tracking users over user's privacy rights. (The
>largest fine ever levied by the FTC.) This is also wait and
>see situation.

Yup, they definitely fucked up the Safari situation; can't and won't defend them on that. But Apple isn't exactly blemish-free either. Nor is Amazon... or Facebook. Pretty much all the tech giants have had issues with privacy... it happens.

http://twitter.com/RSoon
http://soonsounds.com <--- Peace for the Fiery Heart
https://soundcloud.com/marianmereba/blue-for-mr-green-real-soon

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/time-warner-cable-modem-rental/?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness

1:45 p.m. | Updated Adding more details about buying a modem.

Time Warner Cable, the big broadband and cable provider, is planning to start charging customers a monthly fee of $3.95 for renting a cable modem from the company. It said in notifications mailed to customers this week that the new fee would go into effect over the next two months.

Internet customers who want to avoid the monthly fee can purchase a modem of their own and have Time Warner Cable activate it. The company has published a list of approved modems on its Web site. The compatible modems cost between $50 and $137 on Amazon.com.

Its always best to buy your own if you are with your ISP for a few years.

>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/time-warner-cable-modem-rental/?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness
>
>1:45 p.m. | Updated Adding more details about buying a modem.
>
>Time Warner Cable, the big broadband and cable provider, is
>planning to start charging customers a monthly fee of $3.95
>for renting a cable modem from the company. It said in
>notifications mailed to customers this week that the new fee
>would go into effect over the next two months.
>
>Internet customers who want to avoid the monthly fee can
>purchase a modem of their own and have Time Warner Cable
>activate it. The company has published a list of approved
>modems on its Web site. The compatible modems cost between $50
>and $137 on Amazon.com.

There's no Comcast presence in Southern California... Cox, Time Warner, Verizon Fios and (obviously) the satellite companies are the only ones I've seen out here.

TWC actually giving something to consumers for "free" (after raising modem rates in Oct though)...

Competition in a stale marketplace... what a novel concept.

http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2012/12/we-are-boosting-download-speeds-by-50-percent-for-standard-internet-customers/

This month, we’re boosting the maximum download speed for our Standard Internet service by 50 percent – taking it from 10 to 15mbps across our footprint nationwide.

If you’re a Standard Internet customer, you’ll get the speeds automatically when they are rolled out to your division. However, if you want to upgrade immediately, all you have to do is press the “Reset” button on your modem. If the modem doesn’t have a “Reset” button, simply unplug the power to the modem for 10 seconds, plug it back in and reboot your computer.

If you need even more speed to telecommute, work with huge files or have a household with several power users, we do offer tiers of service with download speeds up to 50 mbps. To learn more, visit us at twc.com.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but to be honest my download speeds have always been good. My upload is complete crap. I haven't downloaded anything yet though. But for gaming and streaming it seemed the same.

November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!

Time Warner user reports a lowered bill with no real reason for the discount

Any KC okplayers out there that can corroborate this?

http://consumerist.com/2013/01/30/time-warner-boosts-my-speed-cuts-my-bill-i-just-happen-to-live-near-google-fiber/

Rob is a Time Warner Cable customer, and he’s received two really interesting things from them lately. First, a 50% speed boost: they claim to have upgraded the speed of his home Internet connection. That’s neat. Oh, and they’ve also cut his bill, from $45 to $30. Wow! What has prompted this amazing treatment? Years of loyalty and on-time payments? No, not exactly…Rob lives in Kansas City, pilot site for Google Fiber, the gigabit broadband project that’s threatening to make current broadband providers almost care about competing.

I’m a Time Warner cable internet subscriber in the KC area, and I got two(!) good pieces of news from them recently.

No. 1. A few weeks ago, they emailed me to tell me that my “Basic Rate” internet service was being upgraded by 50% from 10Mbps to 15Mbps, effective at the next restart of my cable modem. I haven’t tested this — that only occurred to me in retrospect — but it sounds great.

No. 2. My latest cable bill was ~30% lower than the previous month. $29.99 vs. $44.94, for a savings — by their calculation — “of $23.96 this month.” My calculation is slightly different, I get a savings of $14.95, but lower is better. The line item has the note: “Enjoy your savings of $23.96 by subscribing to this package. (Offer expires 11/29/2014)” It doesn’t say anything about me having to do anything to get this rate, and the “package” they mention is the one I assumed I was using already. But the bill says $29.99, so that’s what I’m putting on the check.

I have to wonder what prompted this generosity, and I can think of two things.

Thing 1. Google Fiber. True, it’s coming to select neighborhoods in the KC area, specifically KCK and KCMO. I can see the nearest “Fiberhood” from my dining room, but unfortunately it might as well be on the moon, as it’s in a different ZIP code, area code, city, county and state. So I don’t see why they’d be worried about me jumping ship for that.

Thing 2. I got a direct mail come-on from Clearwire Communications for wireless 4G internet service. According to the mailer, basic packages start at $34.99 a month for “4G Home Basic” service. No word on data speed in the ad, and the fine print implies that you need to purchase a “device” and that the promotional rate is for a limited time.
I wonder if any other readers have seen similar price breaks and service upgrades with Time Warner, and what the company’s motivation is.

let one competitor come to dayton that can match their services, like fios or google fiber, i'd be cancelling my account in a heartbeat.

and it's not like the service itself is that bad, i have actually enjoyed the twc tv app quite a bit over the past year.

it's the years and years of horrible customer support, embarrassingly outdated hardware, and general distancing of themselves from their customers.

it's shit like why did it take years to gain nfl network. why did it take years to get xbox live support for espn3. it just suggests that their management structure is either completely out of touch, or too large to effect change in timely manner.

They didn't get it for a good 2 to 3 years after everybody else. Unacceptable.

> why
>did it take years to get xbox live support for espn3.

____________________________________
Podcast Now on iTunes and Google:
http://tinyurl.com/JTTOU-iTunesSubscribe
Twitter: @nipsey @JTTOUPodcast

Last 3 things I watched:

The Changeling Season 1 (Apple+): C
OMITB Season 3 (Hulu): B-
Ahsoka Season 1 (Disney

and got the letter from TWC about them increasing my speed from 10 to 15. But there was no price drop. They're not about to do that. Since there is no Google Fiber here, it might be in response to FIOS. They're starting to make some inroads in NYC.

____________________________________
Podcast Now on iTunes and Google:
http://tinyurl.com/JTTOU-iTunesSubscribe
Twitter: @nipsey @JTTOUPodcast

Last 3 things I watched:

The Changeling Season 1 (Apple+): C
OMITB Season 3 (Hulu): B-
Ahsoka Season 1 (Disney

Taken from here:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/510176/when-will-the-rest-of-us-get-google-fiber/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20130205

When Will the Rest of Us Get Google Fiber?
Google may choose to expand its service, but there’s little incentive for established players to come up to speed.

By David Talbot on February 4, 2013
Why It Matters

Much of the United States has far slower Internet-access connections than are available in Asian and European countries.


Wired up: Google is installing and running ultrafast Internet fiber to homes in Kansas City.

Call it the miracle on Francis Street. Last year Ryan and Jenny Carpenter got a deal seemingly too good to be true in their Kansas City, Missouri, neighborhood: an installer from Google Fiber wired their bungalow to give them at least 50 times their previous Internet access speed and a substantially better TV service, all for only $125 a month, tax included—just a few dollars more than they’d been paying Time Warner Cable.

Ryan Carpenter still speaks in amazed tones of the December night when he simultaneously streamed four high-definition TV shows (two Christmas specials, an episode of The Office, and a Kansas University basketball game), recording three of them on the included two-terabyte DVR. That’s two more shows than he could previously watch at once, with plenty of capacity to spare. “It just blows my mind—we can be running video via Wi-Fi on two smartphones and on two laptops, and also be watching and recording TV shows all at the same time,” he says. “It’s a vastly superior service.” And that’s even without touching high-bandwidth Web apps that work seamlessly at superfast speeds, such as 3-D maps of cities that have imperceptible load times.

The question of how Google offered this value is a mystery to the couple—and to much of the rest of the nation. It’s not that the technology involved is groundbreaking; the fiber and connections are off-the-shelf technology. Yet Google’s supercharged service is priced at just $70 per month, or $120 with bundled television, plus tax (see “Google’s Internet Service Might Actually Bring the U.S. up to Speed”). For the TV service, Google struck content deals, including for some sports channels—though HBO is not yet part of the mix. And all of this comes with a Nexus 7 tablet remote and two terabytes of DVR storage plus another a terabyte of cloud storage. And a Google spokeswoman says the company “expects to operate profitably” and that Google Fiber is neither a loss leader nor a PR stunt.

If that’s true, then why isn’t it being made available everywhere? The answer is that there are no compelling business incentives for the established players, says Blair Levin, a former U.S. Federal Communications Commission chief of staff, who helped write the National Broadband Plan and is now executive director of Gig.U, a consortium of universities trying to deploy very fast networks in local neighborhoods.

In parts of the country, slower-speed copper, fast-download cable, and a few fiber networks are already built out. The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. As Levin points out, “If you are making that kind of margin, it’s hard to improve it.” And most Americans have no choice but to deal with their local cable company.

While Verizon operates the fiber network serving the largest number of home subscribers in the nation, the company is backing off from installing additional U.S. fiber connectivity. The company’s fiber service, called FiOS, offers basic service starting at 15 megabits per second (which can be upgraded in some areas to as much as 300 megabits per second). As of last year, FiOS had about 5 million subscribers (most of whom also take the optional bundled television service)—or roughly one-third of the possible market where the company has strung fiber. But CFO Fran Shammo said in a conference call last fall that there are no plans to expand FiOS beyond those areas. “At this point we have to capitalize on what we have invested,” he said. The basic goal is to sign up more people in the existing service areas, which adds the most revenue without increasing capital costs.

The story is similar with other carriers: Comcast’s Xfinity Platinum offers 300 megabit-per-second download cable service in some locations (for about $300 a month), and Time Warner Cable is installing some fiber in New York City office buildings, but the companies are focused on capitalizing on existing cable infrastructure, not emulating Google Fiber by building out fiber connections to homes and businesses. In Kansas City, Time Warner Cable in late January (likely in response to Google Fiber’s presence) boosted speeds and lowered prices, offering download speeds of 100 megabits per second for $75 a month. For $199 users can get cable bundled with TV and phone service, with two DVRs.

In the United States, areas taking the one-gigabit plunge have benefited from some special circumstances. In Kansas City, Google has a good reason to experiment: its long-term corporate fortunes are closely tied to heavy Web usage. At the end of the day, more Web traffic—and more eyeballs on that traffic—means more ad revenue for Google.

All the same, Google is likely making a profit on fiber subscription sales alone, says Susan Crawford, a telecom policy expert who is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York and former special assistant for science, technology, and innovation policy in the Obama administration. “They are making money on sign-ups, and not counting on indirect effects,” she says.

Google wouldn’t grant an interview about Google Fiber—or even give the number of installations (though neighborhood sizes suggest it can’t be more than a few thousand). But during an earnings call earlier this month, Google CFO Patrick Pichette said the company plans to finish building out the whole city, on both the Kansas and Missouri sides of the state line, and added that the effort “is not a hobby: we really think that we should be making good business with this opportunity, and we are going to continue to look at the possibility of expanding.”

Other special circumstances favoring one-gigabit construction can be found around universities, which themselves have skin in the fast-Internet-access game. Universities supporting the Gig.U initiative want to make sure they stay attractive to students and researchers who might want to access data and computing resources, and competitive with other institutions around the world that have such speeds. Their efforts include a deal with a private company, Gigabit Squared, to deliver one-gigabit service in Seattle and Chicago in collaboration with local governments and universities. A similar effort is taking shape among several universities and communities in North Carolina.

A final kind of special case is cities that are taking matters into their own hands. One example is Chattanooga, Tennessee. There, the local power utility in 2010 managed to score $111 million in federal stimulus money to speed up the build-out of a one-gigabit network for a smart electric grid (see “City with Superfast Internet Invites Innovators to Play”). It is now offering one-gigabit Internet access, albeit for about $300 a month, depending what TV service you get with it.

But overall, the United States languishes in the middle of the pack of the world’s developed nations in Internet access speeds, with average download speeds of just 11.6 megabits per second. In many Asian and European countries, customers can commonly get affordable service providing hundreds of megabits or more.

So what would it take to get Google Fiber–like service everywhere else in the United States? Not everyone has the ambition and the deep pockets to wage long-term, labor-intensive, block-by-block warfare with existing, well-heeled telecom companies. “Other startups trying to disrupt the Comcasts, Verizons, and Time Warners of the world will need similar access to capital” as can be found in Google’s deep pockets, Crawford says.

Crawford says broader access to low-interest financing would help, as would federal legislation to supersede state laws that make it hard for local governments to build networks. For example, in 2011, after the city of Wilson, North Carolina, built its own fast network—competing with existing carriers—the North Carolina legislature, amid industry lobbying, passed a law that made it harder for local governments to build networks and prevented Wilson from expanding its network beyond a county line, she said.

But even if costs and legal barriers are lowered, fiber economics won’t work for private companies everywhere—not even for Google. After all, as Levin points out, 80 percent of the cost of running fiber is in the labor, not the fiber and equipment, and not all houses are as closely spaced as the tidy bungalows on Francis Street, where the Carpenters live. “There are a lot of cities where the math wouldn’t work—areas not densely built enough or where construction costs are too high. In California, the environmental permitting provisions make it cost-prohibitive,” Levin added.

The FCC says it wants to help. Last month, at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called for broadband providers and state and city officials to build out at least one “gigabit community” in all 50 states by 2015. And the FCC plans to hold workshops in which broadband providers and state and municipal leaders can find and remove barriers, lower costs, and boost incentives for getting it done. Requests to the FCC for interviews went unanswered last week.

At any such meetings, it’s likely that Google’s strategy and example will be a central topic. To help keep labor costs as low as possible, Google secured guarantees from the Kansas City government that it would get rapid responses on mundane but important matters like city inspections, access to rights-of-way, and even free rein to run fiber in sewers. Kansas City says it will provide the same breaks to other companies willing to provide similar service. Google also adopted a novel preregistration scheme, which had it start stringing fiber in a given neighborhood only after a certain percentage of residents—5 to 25 percent—committed to the service.

It’s a good start, but the United States has a long road ahead to achieve widespread one-gigabit service. Not every town has a university. Not every mayor can get his or her hands on low-interest financing. The FCC’s efforts may fall short, and it’s possible that Congress and the FCC won’t make it easier for upstarts to compete with major carriers.

That might well leave Google or other aggressive companies to do the job. Crawford and Levin say they expect Google to expand to other cities. If that happens, then Google, with its long-term sights on Web advertising dollars, might wind up giving an entirely new meaning to the term “sponsored link.”

i mean i know they are developers too but c'mon Google lets get them some classes to learn how to speak better in these presentations these dudes are strrruuggggggggling
----------------------

800

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Homer-yells-nerd.gif

Since 1976

Video, but great watch. I was looking for a transcript because there are intriguing statistics, commentary on historical trends, and the implications from the Comcast/NBC merger, but I wasn't able to find one.

Anyone hoping that Google Fiber will fail should really watch this.

**cough HANDLE cough**

http://vimeo.com/59236702

Susan Crawford, former special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation, and author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age, joins Bill to discuss how our government has allowed a few powerful media conglomerates to put profit ahead of the public interest — rigging the rules, raising prices, and stifling competition. As a result, Crawford says, all of us are at the mercy of the biggest business monopoly since Standard Oil in the first Gilded Age a hundred years ago.

“The rich are getting gouged, the poor are very often left out, and this means that we’re creating, yet again, two Americas, and deepening inequality through this communications inequality,” Crawford tells Bill.

What'd you do, ask handle for his opinion? This is comical (and so are the comments).

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet

Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference moments ago, Time Warner Cable's Chief Financial Officer Irene Esteves seemed dismissive of the impact Google Fiber is having on consumers. "We're in the business of delivering what consumers want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will want," she said when asked about the breakneck internet speeds delivered by Google's young Kansas City network. "We just don't see the need of delivering that to consumers." Esteves seems to think business customers are more likely to need that level of throughput, and notes that Time Warner Cable is already competitive . "We're already delivering 1 gigabit, 10 gigabit-per-second to our business customers, so we certainly have the capability of doing it." The executive claims that residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options, she said.

That's not to say the cable operator is totally blind to Google Fiber's potential. "If Google finds the magic pill and finds applications that require that and develops a need for it, well terrific" she said. "We would build our product base in order to deliver that." But for now the company's stance is clear: there's not enough demand. Clearly the industry giant isn't as optimistic as Google's Eric Schmidt, who not long ago classified Fiber as "a real business" rather than a mere experiment. Google Fiber could reinvent the way we use the internet, but until Time Warner Cable sees clear evidence of that happening, the provider is perfectly content with its current offerings.

delusional CEO's are a problem but at the same time some consumers don't know why the need speeds that fast.

>What'd you do, ask handle for his opinion? This is comical
>(and so are the comments).
>
>http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet
>
>Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference moments
>ago, Time Warner Cable's Chief Financial Officer Irene Esteves
>seemed dismissive of the impact Google Fiber is having on
>consumers. "We're in the business of delivering what consumers
>want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will
>want," she said when asked about the breakneck internet speeds
>delivered by Google's young Kansas City network. "We just
>don't see the need of delivering that to consumers." Esteves
>seems to think business customers are more likely to need that
>level of throughput, and notes that Time Warner Cable is
>already competitive . "We're already delivering 1 gigabit, 10
>gigabit-per-second to our business customers, so we certainly
>have the capability of doing it." The executive claims that
>residential customers have thus far shown little interest in
>TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our
>customer base" ultimately choose those options, she said.
>
>That's not to say the cable operator is totally blind to
>Google Fiber's potential. "If Google finds the magic pill and
>finds applications that require that and develops a need for
>it, well terrific" she said. "We would build our product base
>in order to deliver that." But for now the company's stance is
>clear: there's not enough demand. Clearly the industry giant
>isn't as optimistic as Google's Eric Schmidt, who not long ago
>classified Fiber as "a real business" rather than a mere
>experiment. Google Fiber could reinvent the way we use the
>internet, but until Time Warner Cable sees clear evidence of
>that happening, the provider is perfectly content with its
>current offerings.

It's not like email and Facebook push the envelope. But that still doesn't preclude the fact that the speed of technology isn't stopping... and putting in major ISP infrastructure isn't an overnight job.

Just look at the burgeoning streaming media industry that continues to grow or the PS4 with tons of cloud based video streaming options or 4k TV technology as evidence that the need for extremely high speeds are in our very near future. Future services become severely gimped if the groundwork to build the networks to support those services aren't being built today.

(Disclaimer: I'm not really speaking to you directly, just in general)

Here's a very recent report that put US broadband rankings at #16 globally... for the country that basically controls the internet, this is just sad. This is why I'm really hoping Google succeeds with the Fiber project... because the gov't is pretty worthless with stuff like this, and only real competition can potentially change the shitty ISP paradigm we currently see in the U.S.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/98e2a5fc-7c54-11e2-99f0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2M97Dzbqc

Corporate tie binds US to a slow internet
By Edward Luce

Comcast’s meteoric rise has coincided with a drastic decline in service

If Dwight Eisenhower had General Motors and George W. Bush had Halliburton, Barack Obama arguably has Comcast. US presidents are often linked to one or two corporations that donate a lot of money to them and then benefit from their actions. Comcast, which is America’s largest cable television and internet provider and is a near monopoly in most of its largest cities, is no exception.

The company’s meteoric rise in the past decade parallels the relative decline of internet service in the US. In the late 1990s the US had the fastest speeds and widest penetration of almost anywhere – unsurprisingly given that it invented the platform. Today the US comes 16th, according to the OECD, with an average of 27 megabits per second, compared with up to quadruple that in countries such as Japan and the Netherlands.

The contrast on price is just as unflattering. The average US cost for 1 Mbps is $1.10 compared with $0.42 in the UK, $0.34 in France and $0.21 in South Korea. It is not only places such as Hong Kong that put the US into the shade. Countries such as Estonia, Portugal and Hungary offer a significantly better internet service. South Koreans joke that when they visit the US they are taking an internet vacation. Yet bringing the US up to speed appears to be low on Mr Obama’s list of priorities (it did not even get a mention in his State of the Union address last month).

The story of Comcast’s ascent helps explain why. So too does its relationships with politicians across the spectrum. In the coming weeks Mr Obama will nominate the next head of the Federal Communications Commission to replace Julius Genachowski, his former Harvard Law School colleague. Comcast, which employs many former FCC staff, including Meredith Atwell Baker, one of the four commissioners who voted to approve its contentious 2009 merger with NBCUniversal, has a keen interest in whom that will be.

The FCC has been a good friend to Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the two largest cable providers that dominate US broadband. In contrast to the spread of electricity and telephones, where the US was far ahead of the rest of the world, Washington has abjured the same regulatory promotion for the internet. Through brilliantly effective lobbying, US cable companies have escaped the universal access and affordability clauses that were imposed on telecoms and electricity companies in earlier eras.

Countries such as Japan and France have embraced competition to push the rapid adoption of high-speed internet. The US is happy to tolerate duopoly (Comcast is one of two fixed-wire internet providers in 22 of America’s largest 25 cities). As a result, only 7 per cent of American homes are served by fibreoptic wire compared with more than half in South Korea and Japan. It is the difference between a steam train and a bullet train. Yet there is little outcry in Washington.
There are few busier revolving doors than the one between Comcast and Capitol Hill. Of Comcast’s 121 lobbyists, 85 are former government employees, according to Open Secrets, which monitors money and politics. “Comcast employs the royalty of K Street ,” says Sheila Krumholz, head of Open Secrets. In 2011, the year the FCC approved Comcast’s merger with NBCU, the company spent more than $14m on lobbying – the ninth-highest of any US company (it ranks 49th on the Fortune 100 list)..

Comcast’s most influential employee is David Cohen, its senior vice-president, and one of Mr Obama’s largest fundraisers. Mr Cohen raised several million dollars for him in 2012 (the campaign only disclosed who took in more than $500,000 rather than the exact amount). Comcast is also bipartisan. It gave a lot of money to Mitt Romney’s campaign. One of its biggest supporters is Michael Powell, the former Republican head of the FCC, who last month became president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the industry’s main Washington group.

But its relationship with Mr Obama is deeper. This month the FCC waved through Comcast’s $16.7bn purchase of the 49 per cent of NBCUniversal it did not own. One of its assets is MSNBC, the liberal counterpart of Fox News, which often seems like a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. In the past two weeks MSNBC has hired David Axelrod, Mr Obama’s former chief strategist, and Robert Gibbs, his former spokesman, as contributors. As Jay Leno, the night-time chat show host, recently joked: “The economy is so bad MSNBC had to lay off 300 Obama spokesmen.” No one is alleging impropriety. But such intimacy tells a story.

Which brings us back to Mr Obama’s FCC nominee. The choice includes Jason Furman, a senior economic adviser to Mr Obama, and Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, two current FCC commissioners. Among others, there is Susan Crawford, a former Obama adviser, whose recent book Captive Audience blames America’s poor internet performance on market concentration. For that reason, she is seen as the least likely hopeful. Then there are a number of industry favourites.

Whomever Mr Obama nominates will tell us a lot about the future of the internet in the US. Will Washington continue to tolerate America’s internet mediocrity (which afflicts both businesses and consumers)? Or will Mr Obama belatedly decide that it merits the kind of zealous priority his 20th-century predecessors brought to the critical technologies of their day?

I demand the slowest internets possible!!!!!

(big ups to Nopayne)

What a concept.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4205662/att-plans-gigabit-internet-to-compete-with-google-fiber

Google Fiber is still barely a blip on the internet landscape, but it's shaken up the largely stagnant world of wired broadband. Not long after Google announced that its gigabit internet service would be coming to Austin, Texas, AT&T has followed up with its own announcement: it intends to build a competing high-speed fiber optic network that could also reach gigabit speeds. AT&T says the expansion is part of a larger operation called Project VIP, a long-term upgrade program from 2012 that largely involves building out LTE and expanding the reach of its current broadband offerings.

This isn't the first time AT&T has tried to follow in Google's footsteps. When the first Fiber markets launched in Kansas City, AT&T and Time Warner started talks with city officials, trying to reach a "parity agreement" that would give them the same incentives Google got for building ultra-fast internet. The Austin expansion is no different. "AT&T's expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google," it says in a statement, "on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses, and any investment incentives." There's certainly a consumer competition aspect at play here, but this announcement is likely also spurred by the simple desire not to lose out on any perks now that Google has paved the way.

Competition for high-speed internet is an unmitigated good, but AT&T has a long ways to go before it's a viable Fiber alternative. The company's U-verse service currently advertises download speeds of 24Mbps compared to Google's 1000Mbps, and its competitor Time Warner has warned that consumers simply don't want gigabit networks. AT&T hasn't announced any kind of timeline, and current customers in Austin probably shouldn't get their hopes up yet.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Or, at least, the feasibility of such.

aerial fiber drops are sweeeet

its live now in austin. im actually involved with it.

"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out." - Ralph Nader

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514176/google-fibers-ripple-effect/

Especially when it exist only almost nowhere and then only with significant tax breaks.

"There is no public data that gives a complete picture of the speed improvements or price reductions that Internet service providers in the Kansas City area made in response to the beginning of the Google service, which delivers broadband over fiber-optic lines. But Susan Crawford, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York and former special assistant for technology policy in the Obama administration, says her research suggests that Google is indeed the driving force in the Kansas market."

So no data that backs it up, but some authority says "it is INDEED" the driving force?

Now that's journalism!!!!

That you're still trying to rationalize your already-weak argument with even shittier ones.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/04/26/look-out-google-fiber-35-a-month-gigabit-internet-comes-to-vermont/?mod=e2tw
Heads up Google GOOG -0.95% Fiber: A rural Vermont telephone company might just have your $70 gigabit Internet offer beat.

Vermont Telephone Co. (VTel), whose footprint covers 17,500 homes in the Green Mountain State, has begun to offer gigabit Internet speeds for $35 a month, using a brand new fiber network. So far about 600 Vermont homes have subscribed.

VTel’s Chief Executive Michel Guite says he’s made it a personal mission to upgrade the company’s legacy phone network, which dates back to 1890, with fiber for the broadband age. The company was able to afford the upgrades largely by winning federal stimulus awards set aside for broadband. Using $94 million in stimulus money, VTel has invested in stringing 1,200 miles of fiber across a number of rural Vermont counties over the past year. Mr. Guite says the gigabit service should be available across VTel’s footprint in coming months.

VTel joins an increasing number of rural telephone companies who, having lost DSL share to cable Internet over the years, are reinvesting in fiber-to-the-home networks.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that more than 700 rural telephone companies have made this switch, according to the Fiber to the Home Council, a trade group, and Calix Inc. CALX +5.13%, a company that sells broadband equipment to cable and fiber operators. That comes as Google’s Fiber project, which began in Kansas City and is now extending to cities in Utah and Texas, has raised the profile of gigabit broadband and has captured the fancy of many city governments around the country.

“Google has really given us more encouragement,” Mr. Guite said. Mr. Guite said he was denied federal money for his upgrades the first time he applied, but won it the second time around–after Google had announced plans to build out Fiber.

Incumbent cable operators have largely downplayed the relevance of Google’s project, saying that it’s little more than a publicity stunt. They have also questioned whether residential customers even have a need for such speeds.

Mr. Guite says it remains to be seen whether what VTel is doing is a “sustainable model.” He admits that it’s going to be hard work ahead of VTel to educate customers about the uses of gigabit speeds. Much like Google Fiber in Kansas City, VTel has been holding public meetings in libraries and even one-on-one meetings with elderly folks to help them understand what gigabit Internet means, Mr. Guite said.

on GPON customers which is a certain type of FTTP. they were converting some customers from older BPON to GPON to support the speed. By next year austin will have 1gb.

they are slowly branching out to other markets

the competition with google is awesome

i usually am pessimistic when my company rolls out stuff like this

http://goo.gl/tMg6F9;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7PjU-KYQDWo/UwToJwZHrAI/AAAAAAAAODw/fu-aao_DTOU/s1600/1200map_updated_green2.png

Over the last few years, gigabit Internet has moved from idea to reality, with dozens of communities (PDF) working hard to build networks with speeds 100 times faster than what most of us live with today. People are hungrier than ever for faster Internet, and as a result, cities across America are making speed a priority. Hundreds of mayors from across the U.S. have stated (PDF) that abundant high-speed Internet access is essential for sparking innovation, driving economic growth and improving education. Portland, Nashville (PDF) and dozens of others have made high-speed broadband a pillar of their economic development plans. And Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, declared in June that every school should have access to gigabit speeds by 2020.

We've long believed that the Internet’s next chapter will be built on gigabit speeds, so it’s fantastic to see this momentum. And now that we’ve learned a lot from our Google Fiber projects in Kansas City, Austin and Provo, we want to help build more ultra-fast networks. So we’ve invited cities in nine metro areas around the U.S.—34 cities altogether—to work with us to explore what it would take to bring them Google Fiber.

We aim to provide updates by the end of the year about which cities will be getting Google Fiber. Between now and then, we’ll work closely with each city’s leaders on a joint planning process that will not only map out a Google Fiber network in detail, but also assess what unique local challenges we might face. These are such big jobs that advance planning goes a long way toward helping us stick to schedules and minimize disruption for residents.

We’re going to work on a detailed study of local factors that could affect construction, like topography (e.g., hills, flood zones), housing density and the condition of local infrastructure. Meanwhile, cities will complete a checklist of items that will help them get ready for a project of this scale and speed. For example, they’ll provide us with maps of existing conduit, water, gas and electricity lines so that we can plan where to place fiber. They’ll also help us find ways to access existing infrastructure—like utility poles—so we don’t unnecessarily dig up streets or have to put up a new pole next to an existing one.

While we do want to bring Fiber to every one of these cities, it might not work out for everyone. But cities who go through this process with us will be more prepared for us or any provider who wants to build a fiber network. In fact, we want to give everyone a boost in their thinking about how to bring fiber to their communities; we plan to share what we learn in these 34 cities, and in the meantime you can check out some tips in a recent guest post on the Google Fiber blog by industry expert Joanne Hovis. Stay tuned for updates, and we hope this news inspires more communities across America to take steps to get to a gig.

Posted by Milo Medin, VP, Google Access Services

___________________________________
http://instagram.com/mrellsberry

But seriously though.. when are they gonna bring this to my neighborhood!??! There's a Google campus like 10 mins away!

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/google-fiber-coming-9-metro-atlanta-cities/njxyC/

Atalanta. A real city, finally!
Not a real big city, but bigger.

They have 3 of the top 10 cities as potentials now, Phoenix (85% rednecks) and San Antonio (80% rednecks), San Jose (85% douchewads.)

Maybe by 2025 they'll try L.A.

Are you so abhorrent to anything Google touches that you're seriously trying to hate on Fiber? In an industry that boasts some of the shittiest consumer companies in the country finally facing a real competitor? (I'm skeptical about the municipal thing, but it's better than nothing)

It's been almost 4 years and they've barely penetrated a few minor markets.

Or they should fucking stop with this "Start a campaign with your neighbors and maybe you could win the chance to pay a large upfront sum for Intnernet!! Yay!!"

Google should just spend 10-30 billion and get it done or throw this idea in the shit-bin with 100 other good projects they also quit.

Dilettantes.


>Are you so abhorrent to anything Google touches that you're
>seriously trying to hate on Fiber? In an industry that boasts
>some of the shittiest consumer companies in the country
>finally facing a real competitor? (I'm skeptical about the
>municipal thing, but it's better than nothing)
>
>

and admit you have a Google bias, regardless of context.

For one, you ignored the fact that Fiber's main competitors have some of the worst anti-consumer practices out there, regardless of industry. I'm not just talking about their "prevent a customer from cancelling" hours-long CSR phone calls either. I'm talking about anti-compete clauses, taking billions in federal cash for half-ass networks, lack of innovation due to regional monopolies, etc.

(Tangent: What makes Comcast/TMC/Verizon even worse is that they lobby hard on both sides of the aisle, so it's unlikely Congress will ever do anything pro-consumer regarding the telecom industry. Credit to the FCC for the redefinition of broadband today, but I'm hoping it's not public appeasement for the inevitable (and more important) net neutrality decision later. Tom Wheeler still feels like he's playing both sides).

What I find curious is you're so willing to bash Google yet be willfully ignorant of what happens if they actually succeed. You call them out for taking four years to "penetrate a few minor markets"; are you aware of just how convoluted it is to build out an underground fiber network in an established city? Google "municipal broadband" in the news and see just why the telecom giants are fighting so hard against it.

And the "large upfront sum for internet"? Come on. You were using that argument in 2012. I gave you a counter in post #18 in this thread and it's still entirely relevant now. You're making shit up trying to play that line of thinking again.

It's fine if you hate Google. But let that make you blind to what they're (potentially) doing in the telecom industry. I said I'm skeptical of municipal broadband because I see Google as the only legitimate contender that can disrupt in favor of the consumer.

But if you prefer the world when VeriTimeCast is the only option for throttled 24.5mb internet, then be my guest.

They can shit or get off the pot.

All it would take for them to compete is work and money.

They have money - they aren't putting in the work to accomplish the goals you set for them.

They aren't serious about this. (This could very well go the way of Google Glasses.)

They're serious about ad networks. They're serious about maps. they're serious about search.

If someone offered fast internet in San Diego for cheap and with less bullshit I'd go to them if everything else was the same. Hell, Verizon didn't roll out fiber here - they aren't serious.

San Diego's not on that map. Philadelphia's not on that map. Chicago. New York. San Francisco. Seattle. New Orleans. Houston.

Get that shit on the map, then execute and make it happen.

Or in 4 years from now they'll be offering fast Internet to very few people and the other companies won't give a shit.

But that still doesn't change the fact that you're bashing Google for made up reasons.

On one hand you're bashing Google for not just throwing "work and money" at it. Yet in your earlier posts you were bashing them for not making money from it.

What's your stance? To make money from broadband or throw money away?

Like I said, navigating the municipal broadband redtape is a nightmare... for instance, that's the reason why Google couldn't open Fiber in Boulder:

https://gigaom.com/2014/06/13/boulder-lost-out-on-google-fiber-because-of-colorados-anti-municipal-broadband-laws/

Despite what you think, Fiber isn't an app that you just throw "work and money" at and it just appears from thin air.

Maybe you should do some research first before making baseless assumptions.

>What's your stance? To make money from broadband or throw
>money away?

You spend money to roll the product out. Then you make profits from it, recoup your investment, and then money in the bank!

If they can't make a profit from it then it's not something they're going to actually do - and we're back to them talking big shit and not delivering.

>Like I said, navigating the municipal broadband redtape is a
>nightmare... for instance, that's the reason why Google
>couldn't open Fiber in Boulder:
>
>https://gigaom.com/2014/06/13/boulder-lost-out-on-google-fiber-because-of-colorados-anti-municipal-broadband-laws/
>
>Despite what you think, Fiber isn't an app that you just throw
>"work and money" at and it just appears from thin air.
>
>Maybe you should do some research first before making baseless
>assumptions.

Actually you can throw money at it. They spend money lobbying government all the time. They're focusing on other issues more. (They spent twice as much as Facebook on lobbying.) Doesn't mean it's easy - but its something they can do. Unless the Koch brothers spend more money to have it not happen.

If the existing broadband delivery industry has locked down the entire country and made it so Google can't just waltz in and do what they want then Google has 3 options 1)Try harder 2)Give up 3)Do it where it's easy and that's it.

Google is clearly doing #3 now.

Pussies.

Not really trying to get into it that deep when you think rolling out fiber infrastructure is as simple as just "spending money" to roll the product out, you're badly mistaken. Stop using generic Econ 101 terms and assume they apply to every industry.

Navigating the various state and county municipal bureaucracies is a fucking nightmare:

http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-wants-you-to-have-cheap-fast-internet-but-many-cities-arent-allowed-t


> Unless the Koch brothers spend more money to have it not happen.

Lol. Fuck the Kochs, but they're not even relevant in this discussion.

> If the existing broadband delivery industry has locked down the entire country and made it so Google can't just waltz in and do what they want then Google has 3 options 1)Try harder 2)Give up 3)Do it where it's easy and that's it.

Man... those are some really detailed, well researched, highly informed points of analysis. You have really demonstrated a mastery of the subject, and everything you say is entirely relevant.

I could link you these articles but you're not going to read these are you? Because that would require actually being informed on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fuels-internet-access-plus-debate-1408731700

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397294/lessons-google-fiber-reihan-salam