8 ms·

Google’s fiber effect: Fuel for a broadband explosion

159 points by prlin 12y ago

objnotdefined 12y ago
This is definitely a thing. Here's a link from my friend in Kansas, and how Comcast is preparing for it already: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379 http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379 Incredible what happens when you get a little competition!
- hrrsn 12y ago
  I'm due to get fibre installed later this month. Can't wait to go from 10mbit/0.8mbit ADSL to 100/50.
- pwarner 12y ago
  A reasonable article on how cable companies can respond. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-comcast-and-other-cable-isps-arent-selling-you-gigabit-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-co... tl;dr: by using more spectrum in the coax cable can get pretty fast... So pressure from Google should get them to crank up the speed sooner than later.
  - ihsw 12y ago
    As mentioned in the article, this requires a DOCSIS 3.0+ modem, and there are costs to rolling out equipment. Cranking up the speed isn't simply a matter of turning the dial on their end. However you are correct that coaxial cable has plenty of room for improvement with a cost that pales in comparison to rolling out FTTH.
pwarner 12y ago
Verizon never gets enough credit for their fiber roll out. Sure they don't offer 1Gbps, but they laid fiber so they can hit those speeds when the time is right. And until then 50 or 100Mbps over fiber is a lot better than 20Mbps over DSL. Not just in the speed department but in terms of latency and consistency. DSL does amazing things but is just at greater risk of interference. My DSL seems to trane at different speeds each day. Fiber is just a much better medium, things don't get too weird until you want greater than 100 Gbps per wavelength. Disclosure: I wrote some of the software for the early hardware behind FiOS back 10 years ago or so. Wow FiOS has been out there for a long time. Also I am old.
- lotsofpulp 12y ago
  ...what fiber roll out? As far as I know, they did some token fiber installations, but the vast, vast majority will never get it. In fact, from what I've read, they took the subsidies for fiber, and used it to build out their metered wireless network. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizon-knows-youre-sucker-takes-taxpayer-subsidies-broadband-doesnt-deliver-lobbies-to-drop-requirements.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizo... http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_township_and_cumberland_county_officials_say_verizon_is_reneging_on_fios_promise_to_new_jer.html http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_town...
  - pwarner 12y ago
    Depends how you define token? They have about 5 million subscribers on FTTH. Supposedly passing 18M houses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_.282010-present.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_.... Note: I was focused on them being technical leaders. Which they were. I make no endorsement of their business practices. Also they were not the first to FTTH in the US or not the world, just the first big mover in the US.
    - lotsofpulp 12y ago
      Sorry, I was talking about the huge about-face they did once smartphones became popular and they realized there were much larger profit margins to be had in the wireless industry, so basically started shutting down expansion of fiber internet.
      - yuhong 12y ago
        I think Ivan Seidenberg was fired because of short term returns on FiOS being low.
- Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
  Verizon never gets enough credit for their fiber roll out. Check the amount of subsidies that they have received over the years for promising fiber to the home. That is why, IMO.
niels_olson 12y ago
> AT&T and local cable operator Grande Communications have beaten Google to market Oh, gee, look at all this bandwidth I just found... > AT&T maintains it has been planning this fiber upgrade for a long time, and that Google's announcement didn't affect the timing of its network. No, no, we planned this all along... > What Google recognized that others didn't is that Americans want to have the best communications infrastructure Yes, as it turns out study after study showing Americans were fiercely proud of being in 15th place, may have suffered some sort of statistical vagaries. We're looking into it.
- notatoad 12y ago
  yeah, and it's just a total coincidence that AT&T's upgrades that they've been "planning all along" are only in the cities that google announces Fibre in.
  - jmspring 12y ago
    PacBell installed a bunch of fiber in the Bay Area that suddenly went unused/projects cancelled when SBC bought them. Competition they call it.
  - jrockway 12y ago
    AT&T, maybe, but Time Warner recently doubled speeds in NYC for free. The announcement was rather silent; I noticed downloads being faster, did a speed test, and had to search for information about it. A couple months later, I got a little card in the mail about it. 100Mbps isn't 1000Mbps, but I'll take it.
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      TWC definitely did it because of Google Fiber, too. They started doing this right around the time Google made it clear it's not just an "experiment" anymore, and they were starting to get a lot of media attention. I strongly urge people that if they have to choose between Google Fiber and AT&T or Comcast or any of these other guys who've frustrated you for years and couldn't care less about you until Google Fiber arrived, to dump them immediately and go with Google Fiber anyway, even they are matching speeds and prices by then. They don't deserve you as a customer anymore, and they wouldn't have given you this speed were it not for Google Fiber. So Google Fiber deserves to be rewarded with customers because of that, and Comcast/TWC/AT&T does not. If Google Fiber isn't rewarded with customers for its fiber expansion, then it might die, and then what do you think will happen then? Comcast/etc will go back to their shitty services once again and not care one bit about upgrading anymore, and we'll be in the same situation we are now 5-10 years from now, or perhaps much worse if there's no net neutrality anymore, and all the current telco cartel boys get to bully small start-ups without any fear of any real competition that might not do that, and without having to risk losing customers again. That's why you should quit them immediately.
dingaling 12y ago
The case-study with which the article starts isn't a particularly good example of a reason for upgrading to fibre-based connectivity: latency doesn't care whether your connection is 1Gbps or 1 Mbps. There might be a slight improvement given that routers and switches aling the way have to operate faster to handle gigabit switching but in the UK the there have been complaints that VDSL interleaving ( which can't be turned-off ) actually raised latency above their ADSL levels.
- pcl 12y ago
  I was wondering the same thing. I'm not much of a gamer these days, but back when I played a lot of LMCTF, it was all about latency (and the offhand grapple). Have game engines gotten so much worse that bandwidth is now an issue, or is this just artistic license?
  - kbar13 12y ago
    I did some math back (a few years ago) when I was on U-Verse to determine if this was an issue. It's not, not even close. The average shooter, based on the highly scientific study of Counter Strike Source and Urban Terror (a quake mod), the average bandwidth used was under 128kbps. Latency, especially the variance of latency and packet loss are the biggest issues at hand. I find it absolutely hilarious whenever ISPs market their larger packages for the "hardcore gamer", when in fact a real hardcore gamer would probably opt for the smallest package.
  - evadne 12y ago
    It’s all assets. For example, an average Team Fortress 2 map is 50MB, and servers can push new maps to clients when they connect. Lag compensation [1] does not compensate for lost kills, unfortunately, and I bet people still uniformly complain about bad net code nowadays. [1] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation
    - gizmo686 12y ago
      How common is it to need to load a new map, as apposed to downloading the map once then caching it for future use?
sysop073 12y ago
He was spending $208/month for 20Mbps? What the hell is going on in Austin?
- wmf 12y ago
  U-Verse is "triple play" so he probably had phone(s), TV(s), and Internet.
  - axaxs 12y ago
    This is stll ridiculous pricing. I pay something like 120 a month for tv, hbo included, and 30 mbps internet. Unless he has every station on earth, he's being overcharged,
    - justjimmy 12y ago
      And there are people renting phones - yes, phones, really cheap ones too, those with only the 12 buttons and no other functions - for over $50 a month, from their telephone companies. These customers are mostly elderlies. It was just sickening. (Worked at a call center)
    - digitalengineer 12y ago
      What? I Can't believe those prices you're forced to pay. I have Triple Play, 120 Mb/s and a iPad App to view shows/sports separately for 55 euro's a month.
    - wj 12y ago
      I would be paying the same except for the charge for two extra cables boxes and the charges for HD on three cable boxes and the charge for the DVR listing. Not to mention all of the taxes and fees. My bill ends up being over $200 with no phone. Nickel and dimeing is off by a factor of 1,000.
    - area51org 12y ago
      I'm paying ~$300/mo for TV (HBO etc), phone (no long distance charges) and ~$35/mbit Internet connection. It's a rip-off, of course. But since there's no real competition (U-Verse?!) I have no choice. Meanwhile, the cable industry is reducing potential for competition (Time-Warner merging with Comcast).
jimmcslim 12y ago
Great, can Google Fiber take a serious look at our market in Australia: the current chumps running the country seem to be taking backward steps with the previous government's (admittedly ambitious) plans for a National Broadband Network every day.
- proexploit 12y ago
  I just visited my sister in Australia and much worse than the speed was the bandwidth caps. Instead of unlimited, she bought credit for a specific amount of data. Is that how it works all over?
  - NamTaf 12y ago
    Almost completely. There's a few ISPs that offer unlimited data but they're usually fairly oversubscribed as a result. Quotas have always been the major cost point here, not speed.
- te_chris 12y ago
  As much as I have problems with the current govt. here in NZ. We're getting Fibre to the Home rolled out and it seems to be working. My suburb (admittedly one of the nicest in the country...) has got it already and it's pretty great. We just had two of the biggest ISP's announce unlimited fibre for $110 per month with a phone line, ~$80 Naked. Things are getting better here slowly, can't believe how retarded the liberal party is over the NBN.
- allfornothings 12y ago
  A millions times, yes! I'm so mad every time I heard that the people who voted "Liberal" thought they'd fix, not jeopardise the NBN. Please help us, Google!
- pascalo 12y ago
  Yep, broadband speed here in Australia is pretty bad overall, and the contracts are very expensive, and most are capped for bandwidth as well. I am on an unmetered contract with TPG, but they're the exception. I was holding out for the NBN, but with the recent change in government, this has all but fallen apart.
baweaver 12y ago
> customers don't need that kind of speed. Sure they don't, they also don't need bluray or terabyte hdds either... Should be rephrased to 'We hope customers don't realize they can use that type of speed.'
- xhrpost 12y ago
  Yup. That argument tends to bug me a bit. It's not that users don't need it, but more that they can't use it because they don't have it. I'd love to backup all my computers to the secure encrypted cloud with something like Backblaze. But, with 2mbps upload, I'm looking at like a month of straight upload time. If I had gig or even 100Mbps upstream, there would be no question here, I'd get to it. For now though, someone can argue "Oh look, you don't need gig because you're not even using your 2 meg all the time". Umm, yea, there's a reason I'm not using it all the time.
floody-berry 12y ago
> The mere promise of Google Fiber seems to be enough to send rivals scrambling to deliver ultrafast Internet service at a reasonable price. We have a TWC connection 2000m outside of Google Fiber availability that's been disconnecting up to 10-20 times a day for months that says some rivals just don't give a shit. The disconnections are only mildly more annoying than the constant spiking and pl that had been going on for a year or so..
aleksandrm 12y ago
I used to have a 3Mbit DSL connection from AT&T, I have now switched to a 6Mbit DSL connection from a local provider (who is using same wires). Sure, I'd love more speed, although I've grown to cope with the lack of it. I am just appalled at the prices. And now all of a sudden they are offering 1Gbps connections; if they like tiers so much, why not offer something "slower" for a cheaper price, I'd be more than happy to have a 50Mbit connection, do consumers REALLY need 1Gbps? And what's up with San Francisco disliking fiber so much?
- martinald 12y ago
  NIMBYism. No-one wants the street cabinets which contain the routers and what not on their street corner and are doing everything in their power to block them. Result = terrible internet speeds.
sreya 12y ago
As awesome as it is to see Google kick the regional monopolies into upgrading, it's really a lack of competition that's stifling both modern connection speeds and reasonable prices. Prices for the ridiculously named "Gigapower" are undoubtedly going to go increase repeatedly over time if Fiber backs out since it has achieved what it wants. Competition would have the opposite effect. Or better yet, why not treat ISPs as utilities. Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other utilities?
- Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
  Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other utilities? This was the obvious solution after the telecom act of '96. Many experts in the field said so much at the time. But the telecoms dug their heels, broke the law by locking out people from the DSLAMS, and used disinformation and lobbying to get the FCC to say it was O.K. to have a telecom-cable duopoly. This was also around the time that telecoms did everything they could, at the state level, to prevent cities from offering free city-wide internet [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy
- jpadkins 12y ago
  because utilities suck? Innovation, price, customer service, take your pick on which dimension they suck. Governments have had a century of experience dealing with utilities. I'm glad they are at least trying new models before going with the known to suck model.
- pjspycha 12y ago
  Utilities would kill any chance of competition. Playing devils advocate here but if your city was in charge of upgrading your internet, you would be stuck with their plans and budget and red tape. No hope for google fiber or otherwise to attempt to make things better.
gonzo 12y ago
I live in Austin. I have Grande and AT&T fiber to my house. I have service from Grande. AT&T won't sell me their 300Mbps service. When Google comes, Grande is dropped like a hot rock.
phreeza 12y ago
Google is extremely good at commoditizing their complement. A whole lot of their strategy makes sense in this light: Android, "Project Ara"/Phoneblocks, Chromebooks, Google Fiber. Good read on the subject: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
- wes-exp 12y ago
  This strategy makes sense when we are talking about actual commodities that are interchangeable, like gasoline, but the effects are a lot more ambiguous when we are talking about unique inputs to a business like technology. As an example, consider the current topic of broadband. In theory net neutrality is beneficial in terms of keeping costs down. This is beneficial for web companies. However, consider that without net neutrality, broadband providers have additional business models available that increase overall revenue. This additional revenue can help drive broadband R&D, which in turn could actually benefit web companies in the long run. Making technology cheaper is good in the short run, but in the long run it may interfere with innovation, which benefits from things not being cheap, but actually profitable to produce.
noxxten 12y ago
Just out of curiosity, I checked Virgin's prices in the UK. In my area (Kentucky, US) my ISP options are AT&T DSL and Comcast cable internet. I'm paying for the cheapest internet plan offered by comcast $45 for 25Mb down. The MOST EXPENSIVE plan offered by Virgin for £37.50 gets 152Mb down.
- jpadkins 12y ago
  UK is much more dense than Kentucky. Really hard to compare prices like that.
  - adventured 12y ago
    For those curious: UK: 660 people per sq mile Kentucky: 101 people per sq mile
  - martinald 12y ago
    I disagree. The US has already built all this cable and telecom infrastructure (only ~50% of the UK has access to cable, which is way lower than the US). The expensive part - digging the road and laying the physical cable - is already done, and was done 30+ years ago in many cases. These assets have been paid for. The high internet prices in the US are down to terrible regulation. While there are many things that the EU hasn't done well, it has really nailed telecom (both fixed and cellular) regulation.
lettergram 12y ago
I can't seem to find the article right now, but Google said their intent with Google Fiber was to prove it is possible. Further, to then force other companies to improve their service. They seem to be on that second point and it seems to be working well.
talmand 12y ago
What I want to know is when does everyone start to realize that if one can get service of 1Gbps for around $70 and not just from Google, why does existing much slower service cost almost as much or more than that?
izzydata 12y ago
I'll believe it when there is any better available service. I even live in a location where google fiber was announced, but so far it is just nothing.
nshepperd 12y ago
I suppose this just goes to show that internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly and it takes a company with $400 billion market cap to disrupt the market and create actual competition.
jmsduran 12y ago
Living in Austin, I've been closely following news related to Google Fiber's rollout throughout the city. The two big providers here, TWC and AT&T, are still doing business as usual. TWC has promised increased speeds by summer 2014, but as a TWC customer myself I cannot help but view their announcement with a fair bit of skepticism [1]. Interestingly enough, Grande Communications has actually beat Google with regards to being the first company to actually start offering/installing fiber services within the city limits [2]. Granted, their fiber offerings are limited to a small subset of people living in downtown/west Austin, but it's progress nonetheless. Google has been incredibly tight-lipped about their fiber rollout. To this day, there have not been any official announcements since their initial unveiling 1 year ago. But from small news pieces I can find online, it seems their service launch has been delayed to 'later this year' (compared to the summer 2014 date they originally gave) [3]. Last, performing a search of permits files by Google for fiber construction reveals that their initial rollout/offering will be exclusively to south Austin residents (south of Lake Austin) [4]. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable-ups-austin-broadband-speeds-as-google-fiber-looms.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable... [2] http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ [3] https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-launch-plans-and-offers-a-look-at-future-service-areas/ https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-lau... [4] https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q.kpvawAIdVCMA https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q....

159 points by prlin 12y ago

This is definitely a thing. Here's a link from my friend in Kansas, and how Comcast is preparing for it already: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379 http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379 Incredible what happens when you get a little competition!

hrrsn 12y ago
I'm due to get fibre installed later this month. Can't wait to go from 10mbit/0.8mbit ADSL to 100/50.
pwarner 12y ago
A reasonable article on how cable companies can respond. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-comcast-and-other-cable-isps-arent-selling-you-gigabit-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-co... tl;dr: by using more spectrum in the coax cable can get pretty fast... So pressure from Google should get them to crank up the speed sooner than later.
- ihsw 12y ago
  As mentioned in the article, this requires a DOCSIS 3.0+ modem, and there are costs to rolling out equipment. Cranking up the speed isn't simply a matter of turning the dial on their end. However you are correct that coaxial cable has plenty of room for improvement with a cost that pales in comparison to rolling out FTTH.

pwarner 12y ago

Verizon never gets enough credit for their fiber roll out. Sure they don't offer 1Gbps, but they laid fiber so they can hit those speeds when the time is right. And until then 50 or 100Mbps over fiber is a lot better than 20Mbps over DSL. Not just in the speed department but in terms of latency and consistency. DSL does amazing things but is just at greater risk of interference. My DSL seems to trane at different speeds each day. Fiber is just a much better medium, things don't get too weird until you want greater than 100 Gbps per wavelength. Disclosure: I wrote some of the software for the early hardware behind FiOS back 10 years ago or so. Wow FiOS has been out there for a long time. Also I am old.

lotsofpulp 12y ago
...what fiber roll out? As far as I know, they did some token fiber installations, but the vast, vast majority will never get it. In fact, from what I've read, they took the subsidies for fiber, and used it to build out their metered wireless network. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizon-knows-youre-sucker-takes-taxpayer-subsidies-broadband-doesnt-deliver-lobbies-to-drop-requirements.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizo... http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_township_and_cumberland_county_officials_say_verizon_is_reneging_on_fios_promise_to_new_jer.html http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_town...
- pwarner 12y ago
  Depends how you define token? They have about 5 million subscribers on FTTH. Supposedly passing 18M houses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_.282010-present.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_.... Note: I was focused on them being technical leaders. Which they were. I make no endorsement of their business practices. Also they were not the first to FTTH in the US or not the world, just the first big mover in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 12y ago
    Sorry, I was talking about the huge about-face they did once smartphones became popular and they realized there were much larger profit margins to be had in the wireless industry, so basically started shutting down expansion of fiber internet.
    - yuhong 12y ago
      I think Ivan Seidenberg was fired because of short term returns on FiOS being low.
Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
Verizon never gets enough credit for their fiber roll out. Check the amount of subsidies that they have received over the years for promising fiber to the home. That is why, IMO.

niels_olson 12y ago

> AT&T and local cable operator Grande Communications have beaten Google to market Oh, gee, look at all this bandwidth I just found... > AT&T maintains it has been planning this fiber upgrade for a long time, and that Google's announcement didn't affect the timing of its network. No, no, we planned this all along... > What Google recognized that others didn't is that Americans want to have the best communications infrastructure Yes, as it turns out study after study showing Americans were fiercely proud of being in 15th place, may have suffered some sort of statistical vagaries. We're looking into it.

notatoad 12y ago
yeah, and it's just a total coincidence that AT&T's upgrades that they've been "planning all along" are only in the cities that google announces Fibre in.
- jmspring 12y ago
  PacBell installed a bunch of fiber in the Bay Area that suddenly went unused/projects cancelled when SBC bought them. Competition they call it.
- jrockway 12y ago
  AT&T, maybe, but Time Warner recently doubled speeds in NYC for free. The announcement was rather silent; I noticed downloads being faster, did a speed test, and had to search for information about it. A couple months later, I got a little card in the mail about it. 100Mbps isn't 1000Mbps, but I'll take it.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    TWC definitely did it because of Google Fiber, too. They started doing this right around the time Google made it clear it's not just an "experiment" anymore, and they were starting to get a lot of media attention. I strongly urge people that if they have to choose between Google Fiber and AT&T or Comcast or any of these other guys who've frustrated you for years and couldn't care less about you until Google Fiber arrived, to dump them immediately and go with Google Fiber anyway, even they are matching speeds and prices by then. They don't deserve you as a customer anymore, and they wouldn't have given you this speed were it not for Google Fiber. So Google Fiber deserves to be rewarded with customers because of that, and Comcast/TWC/AT&T does not. If Google Fiber isn't rewarded with customers for its fiber expansion, then it might die, and then what do you think will happen then? Comcast/etc will go back to their shitty services once again and not care one bit about upgrading anymore, and we'll be in the same situation we are now 5-10 years from now, or perhaps much worse if there's no net neutrality anymore, and all the current telco cartel boys get to bully small start-ups without any fear of any real competition that might not do that, and without having to risk losing customers again. That's why you should quit them immediately.

dingaling 12y ago

The case-study with which the article starts isn't a particularly good example of a reason for upgrading to fibre-based connectivity: latency doesn't care whether your connection is 1Gbps or 1 Mbps. There might be a slight improvement given that routers and switches aling the way have to operate faster to handle gigabit switching but in the UK the there have been complaints that VDSL interleaving ( which can't be turned-off ) actually raised latency above their ADSL levels.

pcl 12y ago
I was wondering the same thing. I'm not much of a gamer these days, but back when I played a lot of LMCTF, it was all about latency (and the offhand grapple). Have game engines gotten so much worse that bandwidth is now an issue, or is this just artistic license?
- kbar13 12y ago
  I did some math back (a few years ago) when I was on U-Verse to determine if this was an issue. It's not, not even close. The average shooter, based on the highly scientific study of Counter Strike Source and Urban Terror (a quake mod), the average bandwidth used was under 128kbps. Latency, especially the variance of latency and packet loss are the biggest issues at hand. I find it absolutely hilarious whenever ISPs market their larger packages for the "hardcore gamer", when in fact a real hardcore gamer would probably opt for the smallest package.
- evadne 12y ago
  It’s all assets. For example, an average Team Fortress 2 map is 50MB, and servers can push new maps to clients when they connect. Lag compensation [1] does not compensate for lost kills, unfortunately, and I bet people still uniformly complain about bad net code nowadays. [1] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    How common is it to need to load a new map, as apposed to downloading the map once then caching it for future use?

sysop073 12y ago

He was spending $208/month for 20Mbps? What the hell is going on in Austin?

wmf 12y ago
U-Verse is "triple play" so he probably had phone(s), TV(s), and Internet.
- axaxs 12y ago
  This is stll ridiculous pricing. I pay something like 120 a month for tv, hbo included, and 30 mbps internet. Unless he has every station on earth, he's being overcharged,
  - justjimmy 12y ago
    And there are people renting phones - yes, phones, really cheap ones too, those with only the 12 buttons and no other functions - for over $50 a month, from their telephone companies. These customers are mostly elderlies. It was just sickening. (Worked at a call center)
  - digitalengineer 12y ago
    What? I Can't believe those prices you're forced to pay. I have Triple Play, 120 Mb/s and a iPad App to view shows/sports separately for 55 euro's a month.
  - wj 12y ago
    I would be paying the same except for the charge for two extra cables boxes and the charges for HD on three cable boxes and the charge for the DVR listing. Not to mention all of the taxes and fees. My bill ends up being over $200 with no phone. Nickel and dimeing is off by a factor of 1,000.
  - area51org 12y ago
    I'm paying ~$300/mo for TV (HBO etc), phone (no long distance charges) and ~$35/mbit Internet connection. It's a rip-off, of course. But since there's no real competition (U-Verse?!) I have no choice. Meanwhile, the cable industry is reducing potential for competition (Time-Warner merging with Comcast).

jimmcslim 12y ago

Great, can Google Fiber take a serious look at our market in Australia: the current chumps running the country seem to be taking backward steps with the previous government's (admittedly ambitious) plans for a National Broadband Network every day.

proexploit 12y ago
I just visited my sister in Australia and much worse than the speed was the bandwidth caps. Instead of unlimited, she bought credit for a specific amount of data. Is that how it works all over?
- NamTaf 12y ago
  Almost completely. There's a few ISPs that offer unlimited data but they're usually fairly oversubscribed as a result. Quotas have always been the major cost point here, not speed.
te_chris 12y ago
As much as I have problems with the current govt. here in NZ. We're getting Fibre to the Home rolled out and it seems to be working. My suburb (admittedly one of the nicest in the country...) has got it already and it's pretty great. We just had two of the biggest ISP's announce unlimited fibre for $110 per month with a phone line, ~$80 Naked. Things are getting better here slowly, can't believe how retarded the liberal party is over the NBN.
allfornothings 12y ago
A millions times, yes! I'm so mad every time I heard that the people who voted "Liberal" thought they'd fix, not jeopardise the NBN. Please help us, Google!
pascalo 12y ago
Yep, broadband speed here in Australia is pretty bad overall, and the contracts are very expensive, and most are capped for bandwidth as well. I am on an unmetered contract with TPG, but they're the exception. I was holding out for the NBN, but with the recent change in government, this has all but fallen apart.

baweaver 12y ago

> customers don't need that kind of speed. Sure they don't, they also don't need bluray or terabyte hdds either... Should be rephrased to 'We hope customers don't realize they can use that type of speed.'

xhrpost 12y ago
Yup. That argument tends to bug me a bit. It's not that users don't need it, but more that they can't use it because they don't have it. I'd love to backup all my computers to the secure encrypted cloud with something like Backblaze. But, with 2mbps upload, I'm looking at like a month of straight upload time. If I had gig or even 100Mbps upstream, there would be no question here, I'd get to it. For now though, someone can argue "Oh look, you don't need gig because you're not even using your 2 meg all the time". Umm, yea, there's a reason I'm not using it all the time.

floody-berry 12y ago

> The mere promise of Google Fiber seems to be enough to send rivals scrambling to deliver ultrafast Internet service at a reasonable price. We have a TWC connection 2000m outside of Google Fiber availability that's been disconnecting up to 10-20 times a day for months that says some rivals just don't give a shit. The disconnections are only mildly more annoying than the constant spiking and pl that had been going on for a year or so..

aleksandrm 12y ago

I used to have a 3Mbit DSL connection from AT&T, I have now switched to a 6Mbit DSL connection from a local provider (who is using same wires). Sure, I'd love more speed, although I've grown to cope with the lack of it. I am just appalled at the prices. And now all of a sudden they are offering 1Gbps connections; if they like tiers so much, why not offer something "slower" for a cheaper price, I'd be more than happy to have a 50Mbit connection, do consumers REALLY need 1Gbps? And what's up with San Francisco disliking fiber so much?

martinald 12y ago
NIMBYism. No-one wants the street cabinets which contain the routers and what not on their street corner and are doing everything in their power to block them. Result = terrible internet speeds.

sreya 12y ago

As awesome as it is to see Google kick the regional monopolies into upgrading, it's really a lack of competition that's stifling both modern connection speeds and reasonable prices. Prices for the ridiculously named "Gigapower" are undoubtedly going to go increase repeatedly over time if Fiber backs out since it has achieved what it wants. Competition would have the opposite effect. Or better yet, why not treat ISPs as utilities. Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other utilities?

Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other utilities? This was the obvious solution after the telecom act of '96. Many experts in the field said so much at the time. But the telecoms dug their heels, broke the law by locking out people from the DSLAMS, and used disinformation and lobbying to get the FCC to say it was O.K. to have a telecom-cable duopoly. This was also around the time that telecoms did everything they could, at the state level, to prevent cities from offering free city-wide internet [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy
jpadkins 12y ago
because utilities suck? Innovation, price, customer service, take your pick on which dimension they suck. Governments have had a century of experience dealing with utilities. I'm glad they are at least trying new models before going with the known to suck model.
pjspycha 12y ago
Utilities would kill any chance of competition. Playing devils advocate here but if your city was in charge of upgrading your internet, you would be stuck with their plans and budget and red tape. No hope for google fiber or otherwise to attempt to make things better.

gonzo 12y ago

I live in Austin. I have Grande and AT&T fiber to my house. I have service from Grande. AT&T won't sell me their 300Mbps service. When Google comes, Grande is dropped like a hot rock.

phreeza 12y ago

Google is extremely good at commoditizing their complement. A whole lot of their strategy makes sense in this light: Android, "Project Ara"/Phoneblocks, Chromebooks, Google Fiber. Good read on the subject: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

wes-exp 12y ago
This strategy makes sense when we are talking about actual commodities that are interchangeable, like gasoline, but the effects are a lot more ambiguous when we are talking about unique inputs to a business like technology. As an example, consider the current topic of broadband. In theory net neutrality is beneficial in terms of keeping costs down. This is beneficial for web companies. However, consider that without net neutrality, broadband providers have additional business models available that increase overall revenue. This additional revenue can help drive broadband R&D, which in turn could actually benefit web companies in the long run. Making technology cheaper is good in the short run, but in the long run it may interfere with innovation, which benefits from things not being cheap, but actually profitable to produce.

noxxten 12y ago

Just out of curiosity, I checked Virgin's prices in the UK. In my area (Kentucky, US) my ISP options are AT&T DSL and Comcast cable internet. I'm paying for the cheapest internet plan offered by comcast $45 for 25Mb down. The MOST EXPENSIVE plan offered by Virgin for £37.50 gets 152Mb down.

jpadkins 12y ago
UK is much more dense than Kentucky. Really hard to compare prices like that.
- adventured 12y ago
  For those curious: UK: 660 people per sq mile Kentucky: 101 people per sq mile
- martinald 12y ago
  I disagree. The US has already built all this cable and telecom infrastructure (only ~50% of the UK has access to cable, which is way lower than the US). The expensive part - digging the road and laying the physical cable - is already done, and was done 30+ years ago in many cases. These assets have been paid for. The high internet prices in the US are down to terrible regulation. While there are many things that the EU hasn't done well, it has really nailed telecom (both fixed and cellular) regulation.

lettergram 12y ago

I can't seem to find the article right now, but Google said their intent with Google Fiber was to prove it is possible. Further, to then force other companies to improve their service. They seem to be on that second point and it seems to be working well.

talmand 12y ago

What I want to know is when does everyone start to realize that if one can get service of 1Gbps for around $70 and not just from Google, why does existing much slower service cost almost as much or more than that?

izzydata 12y ago

I'll believe it when there is any better available service. I even live in a location where google fiber was announced, but so far it is just nothing.

nshepperd 12y ago

I suppose this just goes to show that internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly and it takes a company with $400 billion market cap to disrupt the market and create actual competition.

jmsduran 12y ago

Living in Austin, I've been closely following news related to Google Fiber's rollout throughout the city. The two big providers here, TWC and AT&T, are still doing business as usual. TWC has promised increased speeds by summer 2014, but as a TWC customer myself I cannot help but view their announcement with a fair bit of skepticism [1]. Interestingly enough, Grande Communications has actually beat Google with regards to being the first company to actually start offering/installing fiber services within the city limits [2]. Granted, their fiber offerings are limited to a small subset of people living in downtown/west Austin, but it's progress nonetheless. Google has been incredibly tight-lipped about their fiber rollout. To this day, there have not been any official announcements since their initial unveiling 1 year ago. But from small news pieces I can find online, it seems their service launch has been delayed to 'later this year' (compared to the summer 2014 date they originally gave) [3]. Last, performing a search of permits files by Google for fiber construction reveals that their initial rollout/offering will be exclusively to south Austin residents (south of Lake Austin) [4]. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable-ups-austin-broadband-speeds-as-google-fiber-looms.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable... [2] http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ [3] https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-launch-plans-and-offers-a-look-at-future-service-areas/ https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-lau... [4] https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q.kpvawAIdVCMA https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q....