If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Escapist Magazine)   Google Fiber: the one gigabit per second internet service that requires your whole neighborhood to put in a down payment before you can have it installed. Based on the number of people on Google+ subby will be getting it sometime around 2793   (escapistmagazine.com) divider line 100
    More: Interesting, Google Offers, Google Fiber, internet service, down payments, DSL, broadband  
•       •       •

4209 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Jul 2012 at 11:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 10:06:44 PM
Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.
 
2012-07-26 10:16:47 PM
HOLY farkING shiat

I wish I lived in a big city to get something like this. No one gives two shiats bout us Mainers
 
2012-07-26 10:24:04 PM
And just think, Comcast and AT&T could have done the same thing years ago. But now instead they'll whine about Google and refuse to step up and do even better.
 
2012-07-26 10:41:25 PM

WhyteRaven74: And just think, Comcast and AT&T could have done the same thing years ago. But now instead they'll whine about Google and refuse to step up and do even better.


And they'll get laws passed to keep Google from expanding further, too.
 
2012-07-26 11:04:00 PM

themindiswatching: WhyteRaven74: And just think, Comcast and AT&T could have done the same thing years ago. But now instead they'll whine about Google and refuse to step up and do even better.

And they'll get laws passed to keep Google from expanding further, too.


If they get Mittens in charge. Otherwise, Obama will be saying, "Gigabit Internet? Make it so."
 
2012-07-26 11:15:12 PM

haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.


Well, I ain't moving to kc but that's the sweetest deal ever and anyone who says otherwise is so full of shiat they might pop.
 
2012-07-26 11:24:03 PM
Orwellian society is fast approaching.
 
2012-07-26 11:24:13 PM
I live in a (just barely) rural area and only have one choice of internet provider... I'm also far enough away from the "box" thingy that our speed is seriously restricted and vary wildly throughout the day.

I am SO freaking jealous right now.

:(
 
2012-07-26 11:24:31 PM
Unfortunately Google anchored themselves to KCK and KCMO within the beltway - aka - not the suburbs. So I wish them luck trying to sell $70 internet to people in the ghetto that have smartphones instead of home computers. 90% of the people in the metro area that WOULD spend $120 for gig+TV or $70 for gig-only don't live in the urban cores.
 
2012-07-26 11:26:29 PM
shiat, I'd write them a check for $800 right now if that would get my neighborhood at the top of the list. Too bad I live out in the sticks. I'll have to stick with cable for now.
 
2012-07-26 11:29:50 PM

madgonad: Unfortunately Google anchored themselves to KCK and KCMO within the beltway - aka - not the suburbs. So I wish them luck trying to sell $70 internet to people in the ghetto that have smartphones instead of home computers. 90% of the people in the metro area that WOULD spend $120 for gig+TV or $70 for gig-only don't live in the urban cores.


And that's the problem with expansion. This is what comcrap does, and all the big cable companies. You cherry pick a massive metro area and reap the profits. Small towns and rural areas will still get left in the digital dust chugging away with 3mbits DSL if you are very very lucky, dial up or satalite if you aren't.

Fiber to the house is expensive. Infrastructure is expensive. I don't see Google upsetting any major ISP's with this.
 
2012-07-26 11:30:01 PM
I would love to watch a speedtest.net test with that kind of speed. The ads they run about getting a faster connection or speeding up your existing connection would be kind of pointless.
 
2012-07-26 11:31:01 PM
I'd not only pay $120/mo for this, I'd deliver, on demand, a beej to either Larry Page or Sergei Brin if they let me have this.
 
2012-07-26 11:32:08 PM

justink: I would love to watch a speedtest.net test with that kind of speed. The ads they run about getting a faster connection or speeding up your existing connection would be kind of pointless.


Except I'll bet there's a bottleneck somewhere with their speed test servers, so your results will be much less than your gbit advertised speed.
 
2012-07-26 11:34:48 PM

haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.


There is a 5Mbps tier for this at $25 per month?

A lot of areas can already get 30Mbps for $20-30. I currently have 100Mbps for $70/month through Charter which is plenty fast enough, as I can download a 10GB file in about 10 minutes. I believe Verizon has rolled out 300Mbps service, which is around $200/month.

I suppose 1Gbps is probably only going to be useful for special applications, or in the future when movies, games or other content might be much larger in size? (or for people who need to upload large files a lot for clients, etc.)
 
2012-07-26 11:36:01 PM
Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish
 
2012-07-26 11:36:47 PM
I live in the middle of KCK. So I'll let you know.
 
2012-07-26 11:38:57 PM

moviemarketing: haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.

There is a 5Mbps tier for this at $25 per month?

A lot of areas can already get 30Mbps for $20-30. I currently have 100Mbps for $70/month through Charter which is plenty fast enough, as I can download a 10GB file in about 10 minutes. I believe Verizon has rolled out 300Mbps service, which is around $200/month.

I suppose 1Gbps is probably only going to be useful for special applications, or in the future when movies, games or other content might be much larger in size? (or for people who need to upload large files a lot for clients, etc.)


300Mbps?

shiat. And I cant even justify myself using a 50Mbps line. So much wasted bandwidth.
 
2012-07-26 11:43:50 PM
Please, Please, Please....



I f'n can't stand Frontier!!!!
 
2012-07-26 11:46:08 PM

moviemarketing: haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.

There is a 5Mbps tier for this at $25 per month?

A lot of areas can already get 30Mbps for $20-30. I currently have 100Mbps for $70/month through Charter which is plenty fast enough, as I can download a 10GB file in about 10 minutes. I believe Verizon has rolled out 300Mbps service, which is around $200/month.

I suppose 1Gbps is probably only going to be useful for special applications, or in the future when movies, games or other content might be much larger in size? (or for people who need to upload large files a lot for clients, etc.)


No, it's $25/month for the first year or $300 up front. Then it is $0/year for 7 years. That is not a typo. Free. Gratis.
 
2012-07-26 11:46:44 PM

cman: moviemarketing: haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.

There is a 5Mbps tier for this at $25 per month?

A lot of areas can already get 30Mbps for $20-30. I currently have 100Mbps for $70/month through Charter which is plenty fast enough, as I can download a 10GB file in about 10 minutes. I believe Verizon has rolled out 300Mbps service, which is around $200/month.

I suppose 1Gbps is probably only going to be useful for special applications, or in the future when movies, games or other content might be much larger in size? (or for people who need to upload large files a lot for clients, etc.)

300Mbps?

shiat. And I cant even justify myself using a 50Mbps line. So much wasted bandwidth.


One thing it would definitely do is remove restrictions... your hardware would run at 100% of its available capacity.

That'd be a nice change for once...
 
2012-07-26 11:49:13 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish


Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.
 
Zel
2012-07-26 11:50:27 PM

moviemarketing: haemaker: Well no, the $10 down payment is for prioritization. It's who gets it first.

It's gigabit. Its symmetrical. It has no cap. It has no limits. You get TV too. It's $120/mo. It includes a 2TB, 8 tuner DVR. It includes 1TB Google Drive account. A Nexus 7 is your remote. The Nexus 7 is included. If you are a cheap bastard, you can pay $25/mo for one year and 5MB/1MB internet, then the price rises to $0/mo after that for at least 7 years.

I am considering a move to Kansas City.

There is a 5Mbps tier for this at $25 per month?

A lot of areas can already get 30Mbps for $20-30. I currently have 100Mbps for $70/month through Charter which is plenty fast enough, as I can download a 10GB file in about 10 minutes. I believe Verizon has rolled out 300Mbps service, which is around $200/month.

I suppose 1Gbps is probably only going to be useful for special applications, or in the future when movies, games or other content might be much larger in size? (or for people who need to upload large files a lot for clients, etc.)



Cough.
A lot of areas can already get 5Mbps for $50-60.

Google please come to Wisconsin too.
 
2012-07-26 11:52:05 PM
You think for $120 a month they would throw in a chrome book.

YES this is an OFFICIALY complaint.

No I don't live in Kansas City, so my complaints don't matter.

/rational
 
2012-07-26 11:54:13 PM
No thanks. Google owns enough of me as it is.
 
2012-07-27 12:04:35 AM

harm dealer: No thanks. Google owns enough of me as it is.


Unlike Verizon/AT&T, who are just so careful with your data?
 
2012-07-27 12:08:27 AM

Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.


Aren't Da Feds investigating those sorts of deals as anticompetitive?
 
2012-07-27 12:08:37 AM

Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.


This. Last I checked, if you want ESPN on your cable system, it's $4 per month per subscriber, whether they want it or not. Comedy Central and associated channels, $5 per month. Same must-carry rule. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC? About $1 each. Fox Sports, $3. TNT, USA, about $1 each. I don't know Discovery's bundling but I'd guess about $2-$4, they are mostly must-carry, but it's not take-everything-or-nothing like ESPN/Fox Sports.

So by the time you get "basic cable", $25 a month is going directly from you, through the cable co, to the programming provider.

When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households, it's not an industry with safely predictable profits. (add to that the fact that the first thing every household cuts when there's an economic downturn is cable TV). I got the hell out of the business and have no intention of going back, ever. If google goes heavy into the business, it's because they don't remember exactly how close they came to becoming "Google, a Viacom company" a couple years ago. The upside is known, but the down side is almost unlimited.
 
2012-07-27 12:11:18 AM

KingVJ: You think for $120 a month they would throw in a chrome book.

YES this is an OFFICIALY complaint.

No I don't live in Kansas City, so my complaints don't matter.

/rational


Actually, they get a Nexus 7 for a remote
Read the third paragraph.
 
2012-07-27 12:15:23 AM

MisterTweak: Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.

This. Last I checked, if you want ESPN on your cable system, it's $4 per month per subscriber, whether they want it or not. Comedy Central and associated channels, $5 per month. Same must-carry rule. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC? About $1 each. Fox Sports, $3. TNT, USA, about $1 each. I don't know Discovery's bundling but I'd guess about $2-$4, they are mostly must-carry, but it's not take-everything-or-nothing like ESPN/Fox Sports.

So by the time you get "basic cable", $25 a month is going directly from you, through the cable co, to the programming provider.

When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households, it's not an industry with safely predictable profits. (add to that the fact that the first thing every household cuts when there's an economic downturn is cable TV). I got the hell out of the business and have no intention of going back, ever. If google goes heavy into the business, it's because they don't remember exactly how close they came to becoming "Google, a Viacom company" a couple years ago. The upside is known, but the down side is almost unlimited.


The rates to carry a channel are different for each cable carrier, but I'm sure they are all similar. But the pressure is greatest on smaller cable companies.

I disagree with people dropping cable in an economic downturn. I used to work in mortgage collections and overwhelmingly people were more unwilling to drop cable than pay their mortgage. I now work for a mid sized cable company (big surprise?) and we're making money hand over fist with new subscribers. Even in "this damned economy". The digital conversion also helped that. And cellular back haul.

Point being though, google is going to have to pay the content providers too and unless they are willing to eat the costs, they're going to have to pass that on to their customers.
 
2012-07-27 12:16:33 AM

Marine1: Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.

Aren't Da Feds investigating those sorts of deals as anticompetitive?


They are but they have been doing so for the last 6 years and still nothing has come of it. So I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-07-27 12:17:15 AM

MisterTweak: Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.

This. Last I checked, if you want ESPN on your cable system, it's $4 per month per subscriber, whether they want it or not. Comedy Central and associated channels, $5 per month. Same must-carry rule. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC? About $1 each. Fox Sports, $3. TNT, USA, about $1 each. I don't know Discovery's bundling but I'd guess about $2-$4, they are mostly must-carry, but it's not take-everything-or-nothing like ESPN/Fox Sports.

So by the time you get "basic cable", $25 a month is going directly from you, through the cable co, to the programming provider.

When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households, it's not an industry with safely predictable profits. (add to that the fact that the first thing every household cuts when there's an economic downturn is cable TV). I got the hell out of the business and have no intention of going back, ever. If google goes heavy into the business, it's because they don't remember exactly how close they came to becoming "Google, a Viacom company" a couple years ago. The upside is known, but the down side is almost unlimited.


Barring a DoJ prosecution of such practices as antitrust/anticompetitive/antiperspirant, is there any real way to break that sort of system? I mean, Google's got money, but I don't know if it's "fark you" money when it comes to that level of competition.
 
2012-07-27 12:18:25 AM
FTA: Google wants to get into the business of providing a better, faster internet

Seriously? So very wrong right out of the gate? Google has said repeatedly they don't want to become an ISP, they want to do some experimentation with what people would do if bandwidth limitations were (virtually) non-existent. It's not like they've been keeping that to themselves, so how "Greg Tito" could have missed it is beyond me.
 
2012-07-27 12:20:37 AM

Marine1: MisterTweak: Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.

This. Last I checked, if you want ESPN on your cable system, it's $4 per month per subscriber, whether they want it or not. Comedy Central and associated channels, $5 per month. Same must-carry rule. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC? About $1 each. Fox Sports, $3. TNT, USA, about $1 each. I don't know Discovery's bundling but I'd guess about $2-$4, they are mostly must-carry, but it's not take-everything-or-nothing like ESPN/Fox Sports.

So by the time you get "basic cable", $25 a month is going directly from you, through the cable co, to the programming provider.

When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households, it's not an industry with safely predictable profits. (add to that the fact that the first thing every household cuts when there's an economic downturn is cable TV). I got the hell out of the business and have no intention of going back, ever. If google goes heavy into the business, it's because they don't remember exactly how close they came to becoming "Google, a Viacom company" a couple years ago. The upside is known, but the down side is almost unlimited.

Barring a DoJ prosecution of such practices as antitrust/anticompetitive/antiperspirant, is there any real way to break that sort of system? I mean, Google's got money, but I don't know if it's "fark you" money when it comes to that level of competition.


Cable and Satalite companies have been fighting back more in recent years. I'm hoping that will go somewhere.

ISP's also are trying to get HSD content providers to foot some of the bill like Netflix. I'm not so sure that is going to go anywhere, but it would certainly be good for us if they did. That might stave off tiered data plans.
 
2012-07-27 12:21:02 AM

Bhruic: FTA: Google wants to get into the business of providing a better, faster internet

Seriously? So very wrong right out of the gate? Google has said repeatedly they don't want to become an ISP, they want to do some experimentation with what people would do if bandwidth limitations were (virtually) non-existent. It's not like they've been keeping that to themselves, so how "Greg Tito" could have missed it is beyond me.


If anything, they'll learn that their business model depends on people not having to care about caps and throttling. If Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have any brains at all, they'll realize that too.
 
2012-07-27 12:22:24 AM

bluorangefyre: themindiswatching: WhyteRaven74: And just think, Comcast and AT&T could have done the same thing years ago. But now instead they'll whine about Google and refuse to step up and do even better.

And they'll get laws passed to keep Google from expanding further, too.

If they get Mittens in charge. Otherwise, Obama will be saying, "Gigabit Internet? Make it so."


This is one of the most amusing examples of politics as team sports I've seen on Fark.

I love the idea that a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars with no interest in the telecommunications industry is going to what, do some megacorp a solid for no discernable reason?

They call it fark you money for a reason.
 
2012-07-27 12:26:35 AM
Call me stupid, but I don't really think this is quite as fast as Google says. That is a 1GBps maximum speed under ideal conditions. Considering that most communication has to travel the aging infrastructure, if it often breaks 30MBps speeds, I'd be impressed.
 
2012-07-27 12:31:37 AM

Rockstone: Call me stupid, but I don't really think this is quite as fast as Google says. That is a 1GBps maximum speed under ideal conditions. Considering that most communication has to travel the aging infrastructure, if it often breaks 30MBps speeds, I'd be impressed.


You would be right. And wrong. The infrastructure isn't ageing its evolving. Anyway, the 1gbit speed would be, in theory good from your house to whatever google is using for a headend. And that's assuming the fiber installed at your house and everything along the way has good light levels, and no connectors are dirty. And then I'm sure google leases fiber from one of the major backhaulers, so they have to have good light levels too. Being KC, I'd guess its either Level3 or Windstream fiber they're using.
 
2012-07-27 12:34:14 AM
I see "Google Fiber", I think:

i116.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-27 12:34:59 AM

Kimpak: Fiber to the house is expensive


Actually not that expensive.

And then I'm sure google leases fiber from one of the major backhaulers,

A few years back there was word going around that Google was buying up tons of fiber that was laid down but not being used. If true they could have their own backbone or make one no problem. Keep in mind Google has enough cash on hand, to say nothing of their profits, to build their own backbone without thinking twice about the cost.
 
2012-07-27 12:35:45 AM

Marine1: MisterTweak: Kimpak: drjekel_mrhyde: Will fail if they can't get the content providers to go on with it for that cheap
/Think what's going on with Dish

Thank you! Content providers (think Viacom, Sinclair, etc) rule, not so much the content distributors (think, comcast, TW). Of course the distributors have a hand in it too, they are not a not-for-profit company after all.

For instance, for a medium sized cable company to air NFL network it costs more than the entire payroll of the company. To run maybe 5 exclusive games, or there abouts.

This. Last I checked, if you want ESPN on your cable system, it's $4 per month per subscriber, whether they want it or not. Comedy Central and associated channels, $5 per month. Same must-carry rule. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC? About $1 each. Fox Sports, $3. TNT, USA, about $1 each. I don't know Discovery's bundling but I'd guess about $2-$4, they are mostly must-carry, but it's not take-everything-or-nothing like ESPN/Fox Sports.

So by the time you get "basic cable", $25 a month is going directly from you, through the cable co, to the programming provider.

When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households, it's not an industry with safely predictable profits. (add to that the fact that the first thing every household cuts when there's an economic downturn is cable TV). I got the hell out of the business and have no intention of going back, ever. If google goes heavy into the business, it's because they don't remember exactly how close they came to becoming "Google, a Viacom company" a couple years ago. The upside is known, but the down side is almost unlimited.

Barring a DoJ prosecution of such practices as antitrust/anticompetitive/antiperspirant, is there any real way to break that sort of system? I mean, Google's got money, but I don't know if it's "fark you" money when it comes to that level of competition.


Not sure how you'd go after them. A lot of the content owners would say they're already competing with each other, which is true in a sense.

Google's a big company, but they have steady, known costs and need to generate a constant revenue stream. Any competitor can step in on equal footing any day. Disney, Fox, and Sony can all take a year off - and when they come back, just cash the royalty checks from their existing library. Shut off google from new revenue for six months, there isn't even salvage value. Shut off Viacom for six months, they'll have a bad annual report, and some work to recapture market share.

In a battle between the guy who owns the cash, and the guy who owns an armored truck business, I'll bet on the former, every time.
 
2012-07-27 12:37:51 AM

Kimpak: Rockstone: Call me stupid, but I don't really think this is quite as fast as Google says. That is a 1GBps maximum speed under ideal conditions. Considering that most communication has to travel the aging infrastructure, if it often breaks 30MBps speeds, I'd be impressed.

You would be right. And wrong. The infrastructure isn't ageing its evolving. Anyway, the 1gbit speed would be, in theory good from your house to whatever google is using for a headend. And that's assuming the fiber installed at your house and everything along the way has good light levels, and no connectors are dirty. And then I'm sure google leases fiber from one of the major backhaulers, so they have to have good light levels too. Being KC, I'd guess its either Level3 or Windstream fiber they're using.


Is that good?

/honestly doesn't know
 
2012-07-27 12:39:04 AM

MisterTweak: When you add in the costs of owning the infrastructure, maintaining it, and billing a million or so households,


For a company like Google that's not actually a big deal. When you're making billions in profit already, and you're cheesed off at the people offering the service currently, it's worth going after.
 
2012-07-27 12:39:43 AM

WhyteRaven74: Kimpak: Fiber to the house is expensive

Actually not that expensive.

And then I'm sure google leases fiber from one of the major backhaulers,

A few years back there was word going around that Google was buying up tons of fiber that was laid down but not being used. If true they could have their own backbone or make one no problem. Keep in mind Google has enough cash on hand, to say nothing of their profits, to build their own backbone without thinking twice about the cost.


I'm sure they have their own backbone to their plant. But the pipe out to the world is likely going through someone else. Its much cheaper than laying your own long haul fiber (and maintaining it when its cut).
 
2012-07-27 12:40:12 AM
Good to know that Comcast is submitting links.
 
2012-07-27 12:42:52 AM

Marine1: Kimpak: Rockstone: Call me stupid, but I don't really think this is quite as fast as Google says. That is a 1GBps maximum speed under ideal conditions. Considering that most communication has to travel the aging infrastructure, if it often breaks 30MBps speeds, I'd be impressed.

You would be right. And wrong. The infrastructure isn't ageing its evolving. Anyway, the 1gbit speed would be, in theory good from your house to whatever google is using for a headend. And that's assuming the fiber installed at your house and everything along the way has good light levels, and no connectors are dirty. And then I'm sure google leases fiber from one of the major backhaulers, so they have to have good light levels too. Being KC, I'd guess its either Level3 or Windstream fiber they're using.

Is that good?

/honestly doesn't know


Neither really, its just how the world of the internet works I'm just a network nerd and am located tantalizingly close to KC, wondering if they have any fiber engineering positions open.....

As a side note, does anyone know what optical equipment google is using for transport? Just curious.
 
2012-07-27 12:45:05 AM

Kimpak: Its much cheaper than laying your own long haul fiber (and maintaining it when its cut).


May be cheaper, but doesn't mean Google would go the cheaper route.
 
2012-07-27 12:48:59 AM
There are 202 "fiberhoods" total.
8 have already reached their goals and will be getting service.
23 have nobody registered.

There are 45 days to go.

/Not really trying to make a point, I was just curious, and thought others might be as well.
 
2012-07-27 01:01:35 AM
Okay I'm going to come straight out as a bit ignorant on the subject, but I need to understand how this internet speed shiat work. Last time I checked my speed on the broadband.gov website, which I assume is accurate, my internet connection speed was 6 MB/sec. I think. Let's just use that as an example. The thing is, I've never seen anything download that quickly. The fastest I've ever seen was 1.5 MB/sec. Steam, torrents, Microsoft websites, anything. No matter how fast my internet is, it doesn't mean jack shiat if people aren't uploading shiat to me that fast. Correct? So what on earth would be the point of connecting your neighborhood to the Google's Gigafark internet connection? Unless Google directly connects your Octomom vag of an internet tube to every server for every website on the internet it's pointless. Sure, you'll be sending baby pictures to your neighbors at a billion chucklefarks a second, but the second you need to get some data from somewhere else your packets will have to get on the poor people internet behind everyone else's porn.

Am I just misunderstanding something? Please I really want to know.
 
2012-07-27 01:05:47 AM
I would easily throw down 10 bucks if this was in my area, then 120 a month. In a heartbeat. Heck, I'd throw down more of the upfront fee just to get it done in my area.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report