Do you have adblock enabled?
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 28
    More: Interesting, Google Offers, Google Fiber, internet service, down payments, DSL, broadband  
•       •       •

4212 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Jul 2012 at 11:11 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-26 10:24:04 PM  
6 votes:
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  
5 votes:

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.
2012-07-27 12:48:59 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-26 11:34:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:24:31 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:06:44 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-07-27 03:31:11 AM  
1 votes:
I can't see how anyone can slag off Google Fiber. It looks incredible and I'm jealous of the people in KC.

Anyone know if it'll include the ability to stream live content to tablets/phones?
2012-07-27 02:11:25 AM  
1 votes:
I live in the south Puget Sound area, and I'd kill for this kind of speed & access.
2012-07-27 01:47:29 AM  
1 votes:

Foxxinnia: 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.


You understand it very well. You can have the Indianapolis Motor Speedway at the end of your driveway, leading to the FDR drive - which moves at 5mph during rush hour. (and it's not all porn you're waiting for - unless it's at 11:15pm, in which case, yeah, it's all porn.) Other hours, it's mostly pictures of cats, virus-laden Windows XP machines sending spam, and torrents of last night's episode of Dancing with the Potatoes, or whatever the fark it is....

If your ISP *does* get the rated speed to certain sites, there is a fix, but it involves figuring out the correct path and running a proxy server on a cheap hosting company somewhere upstream.

When I was in the business, one of the things a lot of the engineering types did was keep an eye on posts in places like dslreports. Especially the ones with detail (I'm in zip code 12345, I get packet loss between these hours, or here's a graph of packet loss to 1.2.3.4 vs 5.6.7.8)

One poster to a forum was venting about crappy downloads to a certain site, and clued me in to a previously undiscovered issue where the normal congestion-detection mechanism in the network wasn't seeing a problem, because the optical transport mis-reported it's topology to the higher-level protocols under a certain set of conditions. The equipment maker hadn't been aware of the issue, and I won't name them, but I'll say that the problem affected a fair percentage of the population at some point.
2012-07-27 01:47:04 AM  
1 votes:

Foxxinnia: ...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...


I've seen the word "chucklefark" before but that particular use of it made me giggle like a ninny and now all my coworkers are looking at me funny. Thanks.
2012-07-27 01:44:51 AM  
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Foxxinnia: So what on earth would be the point of connecting your neighborhood to the Google's Gigafark internet connection?

It's not so much about what you could do with it now, as it is what might come down the road. When the first cable and DSL internet connections went up in the late 90s, one could've asked what was the point? Of course because lots of people go those, it became possible to have Netflix, YouTube etc.


There's also the fact that it's UNLIMITED, as in, no bandwidth cap. Whether this will last is debatable, but Google isn't crazy or evil enough (yet) to even think about overage charges or UBB, and that alone is a massive step above what you can expect from the current major telcos.

On top of that, you have their very clear preference for network neutrality, though I wouldn't be surprised to see them making things a bit easier for YouTube and various Google services.
2012-07-27 12:45:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:39:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:08:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:08:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:04:35 AM  
1 votes:

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


Unlike Verizon/AT&T, who are just so careful with your data?
2012-07-26 11:49:13 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-26 11:32:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:29:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:24:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:24:03 PM  
1 votes:
Orwellian society is fast approaching.
2012-07-26 11:15:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:04:00 PM  
1 votes:

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."
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report