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.

(Ars Technica)   Time Warner and AT&T upset about Kansas City's deal for Google Fiber, demand the same kind of deal to keep offering their inferior service. To quote one of the companies "Waaaaaaaaaaaaah"   (arstechnica.com) divider line 80
    More: Asinine, Google Fiber, Kansas City, Google, Ars Technica, competitive advantages  
•       •       •

4737 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Oct 2012 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 12:55:34 PM
Rwa2play:
If Google ever had the capital to put down their lines in NYC, the cable companies around here would start biatching to no end. Even Optimum would be taken aback.

I don't think lack of capital is a problem Google has been familiar with for some time. However, I think they're wanting to make sure things work the way they want and that they can scale their Fiber services effectively, and that it's profitable to compete with the existing ISPs. They wanted to jump in at a mid-sized market rather than going straight at one of the biggest, which makes sense.
 
2012-10-03 01:15:09 PM

SteelDraco: Well then, maybe you should have taken all that money you're making and invested it in a massive growth of infrastructure that brought attention, money, and jobs to the city instead of complaining about how you're not making enough money and gouging everywhere you can.

biatches.

/Live in Lawrence, not too far from KC. Hopefully it will expand there soon.


Google already made it clear to KC Star that it isn't going to bring any jobs to the city.
 
2012-10-03 01:22:30 PM

Tenatra:
Google already made it clear to KC Star that it isn't going to bring any jobs to the city.


You don't think lowering Internet costs will help business?
 
2012-10-03 01:31:37 PM
Google has provisions in their contract to sell after 2 years if this isn't a profitable venture. It won't be, especially not after 2 years. It will be sold, prices will go up. They have absolutely no plans for expansion outside of a few neighborhoods in KC.

Lots of people try getting into the cable business and lots end up not doing so well. Ask Verizon how easy it is to run a cable company.
 
2012-10-03 01:36:34 PM

Poorlytoldjoke: Google has provisions in their contract to sell after 2 years if this isn't a profitable venture. It won't be, especially not after 2 years. It will be sold, prices will go up. They have absolutely no plans for expansion outside of a few neighborhoods in KC.

Lots of people try getting into the cable business and lots end up not doing so well. Ask Verizon how easy it is to run a cable company.


It might not be profitable in the sense it will have recouped the capital costs, but I'd be amazed it it wasn't making a clear operating profit that proved the venture was viable long term.

Google are happy to think long term. Look at Streetview or Youtube for example.
 
2012-10-03 01:41:04 PM
You mean offer a better product at competitive prices? And in a fair market the consumer decides who thrives?

Better not let the Oil Companies hear about this crap!
 
2012-10-03 02:08:59 PM

SuperT: drewogatory: I'm on the "fark AT&T" bandwagon. The internet is fine although consistently 4 or 5 mbps slow, but they keep trying to saddle me with that hideous abortion known as U-Verse, which quite possibly is the worst TV service ever devised. $60 bucks a month for my local channels plus 50 channels of kiddie bullshiat in standard def? hahahahahahahahaha. No thanks.

I used to work for ATT on uverse. it's a terrible, terrible overpriced peice of shiat service.


I'm thinking about switching to uverse because Cox just hiked my rates by $30/month without any notice, so uverse is less expensive for the same (actually more) channels in my case. Or is there something else wrong with it, other than price?
 
2012-10-03 02:18:13 PM
Start offering prices and service like Google, then we'll talk.
Till then, NO.
 
2012-10-03 02:22:03 PM
"There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field," said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman, told the WSJ. "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."

I presume anyone in front of this guy when he uttered that quickly got out of the way to avoid being impaled by his nose.
 
2012-10-03 02:27:32 PM

dwyw: SuperT: drewogatory: I'm on the "fark AT&T" bandwagon. The internet is fine although consistently 4 or 5 mbps slow, but they keep trying to saddle me with that hideous abortion known as U-Verse, which quite possibly is the worst TV service ever devised. $60 bucks a month for my local channels plus 50 channels of kiddie bullshiat in standard def? hahahahahahahahaha. No thanks.

I used to work for ATT on uverse. it's a terrible, terrible overpriced peice of shiat service.

I'm thinking about switching to uverse because Cox just hiked my rates by $30/month without any notice, so uverse is less expensive for the same (actually more) channels in my case. Or is there something else wrong with it, other than price?


Until about a month ago I had Uverse, and was very happy with it. I moved and had to get Cox, and I'm hating it. Cox's internet is faster, but that's not to say Uverse was slow. Cox's guide sucks, Uverse's guide is pretty ok (HD channels start at 1000). I paid about $120.00 a month for 200 or 150 channels, plus HBO & Cinemax and I think I had 12Mbps down, 6 or 8 up. I also had DVR.
I'm paying slightly more for faster internet (25Mbps) and not quite as many channels (like 50 less, but I hardly watch 1/3 of what's available). I'd gladly go back to Uverse if it were an option for me. Uverse also has more HD channels than Cox, especially movie channels.
 
2012-10-03 02:38:30 PM

dwyw: SuperT: drewogatory: I'm on the "fark AT&T" bandwagon. The internet is fine although consistently 4 or 5 mbps slow, but they keep trying to saddle me with that hideous abortion known as U-Verse, which quite possibly is the worst TV service ever devised. $60 bucks a month for my local channels plus 50 channels of kiddie bullshiat in standard def? hahahahahahahahaha. No thanks.

I used to work for ATT on uverse. it's a terrible, terrible overpriced peice of shiat service.

I'm thinking about switching to uverse because Cox just hiked my rates by $30/month without any notice, so uverse is less expensive for the same (actually more) channels in my case. Or is there something else wrong with it, other than price?


they are technically terrible. they claim to be a fiber service, but they'll run twisted pair copper for the to the house in 90% of installs, and even then will do 3000+ ft loops if they think you'll buy it. it leads to issues. they want to nickle and dime and charge for everything. after working for them, I'd never be a customer. even for just internet.
 
2012-10-03 02:53:47 PM

SteelDraco: Tenatra:
Google already made it clear to KC Star that it isn't going to bring any jobs to the city.

You don't think lowering Internet costs will help business?


"If you build it, they wilme to us. We realized that we have to go out to the community." "We've learned a lot from this process," said Carlos Casas, who was leading Google's Fiber division in its push to sign up customers. "A lot of it was expecting people to co">Link. They have had to rethink their strategy.

Before that article, the KC Star posted an article about worries with the service and it has since been removed. The article was copied to other news outlets though here

Would I pay $120 / month for high speed net + TV? Most likely if they get more of the major networks on board
Would I pay $70 / month for high speed net? No, my current internet is $40 and it is good enough for me
Would I pay $300 to get free internet? No I don't want 5Mbs down / 1 Mbs up. I currently have 30Mbs down and 5Mbs up

At any rate, they expect 50% installation by mid 2013 and full installation to take until the end of 2013...
 
2012-10-03 02:56:32 PM
""If you build it, they wilme to us. We realized that we have to go out to the community." "We've learned a lot from this process," said Carlos Casas, who was leading Google's Fiber division in its push to sign up customers. "A lot of it was expecting people to co">Link. They have had to rethink their strategy."

ah fark! what the hell happened there?! They expected to much of the public. "We've learned a lot from this process," said Carlos Casas, who was leading Google's Fiber division in its push to sign up customers. "A lot of it was expecting people to come to us." http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/10/3806274/google-fiber-gives-second -chance.html They have had to rethink their strategy."
 
2012-10-03 02:57:19 PM
I know this won't be popular - but I really want to know what people are actually going to do with that amount of bandwidth. The only advantage I can see involves piracy.
 
2012-10-03 03:02:47 PM
Actually - having read the article, I agree with Time Warner and AT&T - as much as I hate to say it.

If it costs X dollars to hang a cable, the city should be charging all customers the same; IMHO.
 
2012-10-03 03:23:34 PM
What are you supposed to do when your only choices are U-Verse or Atlantic Broadband? (No Comcast)
 
2012-10-03 03:28:12 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know this won't be popular - but I really want to know what people are actually going to do with that amount of bandwidth. The only advantage I can see involves piracy.


Here in the UK we have BBC iPlayer which lets us watch most BBC programs live or within a week of broadcast. In HD quality a few hours of that quickly uses up a huge chunk of bandwidth. The commercial channels also have their own similar services.
 
2012-10-03 03:44:22 PM
Here is the whole story.

15 years ago TWC rolled out broadband. Most of the infrastructure costs were covered by tax giveaways, incentives, loan guarantees, and zero-cost borrowing. I was a beta tester for it and have had their internet service from before the beginning. I now pay $45/mo for 10Mbs down / 1Mbs up - but it rarely runs at full speed. It is manageable, but not fast. AT&T provided low speed DSL for a while (under a Mbs), but did some higher speeds when they rolled uVerse out to select areas. Anywhere TWC had a high connection rate, AT&T didn't upgrade their plant to uVerse. The best they can give me is 768Kbs down / 128Kbs up - for $29.99. There is no competition in the metro area besides parts of Johnson County, KS which have an extra cable provider which provides slightly better speeds than TWC, but charges more. It has been this way for the past 8 years - the only thing that changes is the occasional rate change.

Enter Google Fiber. They offer:
Three tiers of service - TV+GB Internet, GB Internet, and including basic broadband at no cost, just pay for installation and they will even bill you for that over 12 months.
They install only in neighborhoods that have enough pre-orders ($10). When a neighborhood is wired, all of the libraries and schools (public and private) are hooked up for free service forever. A HUGE benefit.
The city gave them a discount on poll charges because of the free service feature to the public and the free service they will provide centers of learning. This will actually save the schools and cities a TON, because TWC has been milking them with high monthly fees.

The TV+GB package is amazing, however it currently lacks Fox News (no loss to me) and AMC. They keep adding new ones, so they might have everything when it gets to me. They do have all seven hundred ESPN channels and the NFL Network - so I am golden.

If you choose the TV+GB the free install and $120/mo fee provides you with:
As many cable boxes (which are also wifi hotspots and they are tiny) as you have TVs
A 2TB network server to hold recorded content
A Nexus 7 to be used as a remote or as another TV
The ability to record 10 channels at once (seriously, who needs this?)
1TB of Google Drive (this normally costs $60 - and it is really accessible with a GB connection) - this will allow people with Google Fiber to easily share personal HD video content - a new killer app? maybe
and of course 1Gbs up and down.

And for KC residents - they will have KCK done by the end of winter and the urban/midtown KCMO area done by around this time next year. The next round - to roll out winter of 2013 starts with everything north of the river (NKC, Gladstone, Liberty, Parkville...) and some other small neighborhoods. Sorry JoCo, you already have competition and too much buried cable. They are hanging the fiber and they don't want to dig.
 
2012-10-03 03:44:40 PM

Grunz: What are you supposed to do when your only choices are U-Verse or Atlantic Broadband? (No Comcast)


Pony up the money or get it from your parents and become your own ISP.

/(Sorry: Channelling the Rmoneybot in bootstrap mode.)
 
2012-10-03 03:52:21 PM

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: LasersHurt: drewogatory: Something like 10 GB

10 gigs a week? Seriously? I'll bet in our house we download something like 30 gigs a DAY.

Really? I mean if only HALF of that was downloaded files, and the other half was streaming, you'd still consume 9.3Tb of space annually. That seems absurd, unless you're all unrepentant pir8s.

I know someone who pulled over 1Tb in less than a week, and averaged ~30Gb/day otherwise.

/Said person REALLY likes free Linux distros


I was in school with some clown that bragged about pulling in 200gb per week. Which is a lot by even today's standards.

This happened in 2001. He eventually got sued multiple times for running a .edu based piracy service.
 
2012-10-03 04:02:16 PM
Knology/Wow... 75 for 50Mbps down - 250gb/mo limit before overages.

Not great... but better than TWC/ATT.

Or 60 for variable bandwidth unlimited quota.
 
2012-10-03 04:39:08 PM
"There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field," said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman, told the WSJ. "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."

For which we will provide service at UP TO 15MBPS*

/ * just kidding, you'll be lucky to get 2
 
2012-10-03 04:42:20 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Actually - having read the article, I agree with Time Warner and AT&T - as much as I hate to say it.

If it costs X dollars to hang a cable, the city should be charging all customers the same; IMHO.


No. You are not looking at the whole picture. You forgot the consumer side. With Google the consumer gets a hell of a lot more.
 
2012-10-03 05:30:44 PM

Satanus Maximus: oldass31: Comcast can DIAF for all I care. $90 a month for 12 mbps down is bullshiat.

I pay about the same for 5 mbps down from TKS Cable (Kabel Deutschland) in west Germany. GARBAGE.

Four years ago I was paying $70 for 15 mbps down with fiber from Verizon in Delaware. Worth every penny.

I was with Comcast Delware before that, can't remember the specs but I'd say it was the same as what I have now with frequent downtimes and long waits for repairs. I was happy to pay the penalty to break contract to go for Verizon's FIOS.


West Germany? You know what today is, right?

Anyhoo, I'd kill for your 5 mbps. I only get 2 mbps...if I'm lucky.. for almost the same price here in Weiden (just outside of Grafenwoehr). Screw Telekom and their monopolistic infrastructre!
 
2012-10-03 06:19:18 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Actually - having read the article, I agree with Time Warner and AT&T - as much as I hate to say it.

If it costs X dollars to hang a cable, the city should be charging all customers the same; IMHO.


how about no. Google is introducing actual competition into the market area that the other companies neglected. Guess what Google is getting a bonus from the local government for doing what the other companies SHOULD HAVE already done in the first place.
 
2012-10-03 07:26:06 PM

whistleridge: They're only doing this because Google has more money than them.


No, they really dont. Google has fark you money, the telecoms have fark your mother money. Googles 2011 Q4 revenue was $10bil, AT&Ts alone was three times that, not to mention time warner, comcast, etc.
 
2012-10-03 07:43:06 PM
I'm in south KC and TWC is my only option so yeah TWC/AT&T you had your chance and I concur EABOD a really, really big bag. I pay $50 mo/ for 6 meg d/1meg up.
 
2012-10-04 12:12:44 AM
I got a $280 check in the mail today, as a result of the class action over at&t slow-ass dsl.
 
2012-10-04 01:18:15 PM

Flint Ironstag: Fark_Guy_Rob: I know this won't be popular - but I really want to know what people are actually going to do with that amount of bandwidth. The only advantage I can see involves piracy.

Here in the UK we have BBC iPlayer which lets us watch most BBC programs live or within a week of broadcast. In HD quality a few hours of that quickly uses up a huge chunk of bandwidth. The commercial channels also have their own similar services.


Yeah, streaming HD content to multiple household viewers can stick up VERY fast.

Another thing that can eat a lot more bandwidth than most people realize is modern PC gaming. The actual gameplay doesn't use that much bandwidth but game patches can range from 50 to 500 meg each on top of the several gigabytes for the initial install. A lot of online games now seem to have at least minor weekly patches. With multiple gaming machines in a house you can easily be talking about an average of 5 gig a day of bandwidth usage per day over the course of a month.

Another one that I have been racking up lately is software dev builds for my Raspberry Pis. When you are testing and using Alpha and Beta software It is crazy how much you can download without even thinking about it. Up until recently most Windows users didn't install that much legit software that came as a download unless it was games from a service like Steam. Meanwhile for years Linux users have been doing most of their software installs and updates automatically with package managers. Even with only one machine with a relatively moderate amount of software installed you can almost bet on multiple programs or libraries being updated every day.

And here is one I just thought of that I bet nobody would have really thought about a few years ago. There are an ever increasing number of people with cell phones tied into their wifi networks. Phones that are loading maps, downloading music, doing automatic backups, installing software and updates automatically, etc... If people really sat down and added it all up they might be amazed how many gigabytes of data a phone can burn through on a wifi connection.
 
hej
2012-10-04 01:40:43 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I know this won't be popular - but I really want to know what people are actually going to do with that amount of bandwidth. The only advantage I can see involves piracy.


I am a software developer and I plan to run some public facing servers out of my basement if/when the day ever comes that I have something I want to market.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 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