dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-10-02 10:34:25: A few weeks back we noted how Google's franchise deal with Kansas City for Google Fiber was a particularly sweet arrangement. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Competition

Compared to AT&T giving complete phone and internet data to the NSA without a court oversight? Compared to AT&T, Google is Jesus.


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA
reply to tmc8080

Re: deal or no deal?

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.



workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to maestro7

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

It would be funny if it were true which it is not.

Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to morbo

Re: Competition

said by morbo:

Compared to AT&T giving complete phone and internet data to the NSA without a court oversight? Compared to AT&T, Google is Jesus.

You don't think Google will give out internet data to the NSA?

Google monitors everyone and uses it to build a database about you. They probably know more about you than your closest friend or significant other. I don't think that is much better.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

said by ltecajun:

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.

You won't get anywhere with that argument. Because they will say some frat house with 20 members and 12 devices each and downloading HD videos 24hrs a day needs 1gb/s at $100/mo. and not providing it is a human rights violation.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/


n1581j

@wildblue.net
reply to workablob

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to funehi

said by funehi :

Why couldn't they? They would just have to build new like Google is doing.

Which would be extremely expensive. I am all for building new fiber networks, but the fact remains that it is expensive. It is a serious investment for something that at this point we do not need. I congratulate the companies that do it. But I also understand why a lot of companies do not do it.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Who cares, give me one gig

Seriously, who gives a damn if incumbents are being treated "unfairly". Give us a damn gig everywhere.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Fair is Fair.

You make assumptions that you know nothing of concerning why it was a 2 year agreement.

At least they openly put a limit on their plans if it is not going well where as your corporate bed buddies just keep on saying they are doing this and doing that while getting incentives and then suddenly stop without warning.

Bottom line, as pointed out in the article, is that both TW and AT&T had their chance. They choose to do nothing, they choose not to try and work out a deal with the city to improve there, they ultimately choose to have a competitor come in and pickup the market they didnt want to invest in.

I personally would tell them NO, you can lease the lines from Google as we dont think it is in our cities best interest to run multiple fiber lines all over the city to reach the same destination of homes and businesses.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to maestro7

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···_say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.


insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

They had their chance, they didn't do it

The first person into a new market always has an advantage. They at any time could have offered gigabit without caps and negotiated deals with the city for any regulatory breaks. They chose not to.

Someone else beat them to it, now they lose. Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

LOL, another one of those 1gbps is overkill guys.

First, you do realize more than one person, service, application and appliance can use the internet at on time right?

Second, lets look at the shear short sided view of your silly comment.
- In 1994 dialup was pretty much the only thing any body needed and I am sure there were morons then too that claimed 28.8 modems were plenty.
- Innovation doesnt happen when you dont have the room to innovate
- Innovation is very slow to happen when you lack the drive to do so.
- What you may see as too much, other may see as not enough.
- The quicker you get someone on the network and off the network the more time they save and the less resources of the network are being used as a whole.

Some nutbags here will claim that 1gbps is just way too much and yet say that a company making a profit of $3+ billion every quarter or a person being worth $100's of millions is not too much. What could they possibly do with all that money? Shouldnt they be required to turn it over to the Federal Reserve and have their salaries greatly cut? Surely they are one in the same.

One last thing..... I am sure if Google did this and only offered the services that matched TW and/or AT&T and did it at the same price not a single one of you corporate pony riders would be here complaining. But of course, since Google makes your companies look like the AOL's of last century you come here whining and complaining and making the only argument you can... "it just isnt needed". Which is quite entertaining and quite revealing by the way.


Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to insomniac84

Re: They had their chance, they didn't do it

said by insomniac84:

Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals.

Exactly, these companies have never had consumer interests as a priority. And the way they work, they never will.

Too bad for them the internet is an information technology, and even if they are not advancing at the same rate Moore's law advances, it doesn't mean that the technology to keep up with Moore's law will stop existing.
Progress waits for nobody.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to FFH

Re: Fair is Fair.

No the cost goes down. If they get lower pole costs, then theoretically franchise fees should go down, but you know that one will need to be pulled off like "dial tone fee".

What the crux of this is NOT about franchise fees, they simply pass them through to the customer, but Franchise agreements which today say wire me 100% or not. What these guys want to do is have selective "cherry picking" WITHIN a franchise market so they can only wire the profitable markets.

This is great because if this happens, these corporations won't help themselves and will just start wiring where they can make money, and sooner or later the taxpayers will revolt and voila fiber will become a utility like it should have 10 years ago.

Then rinse and repeat on the big guys finding legislative ways to block competitors so that thinks are only fair....and by fair keeping all those potential innovators out...


Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to FFH

Re: deal or no deal?

said by FFH:

You won't get anywhere with that argument. Because they will say some frat house with 20 members and 12 devices each and downloading HD videos 24hrs a day needs 1gb/s at $100/mo. and not providing it is a human rights violation.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." right?

Not even Bill Gates would say something like that.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Well there you have! Silbaco has spoken and fiber networks are not needed at this point.

Everyone can pack up and go home now. Nothing more to see here as he will be sure to reach out to the internet world to let them know when it is ready for fiber.


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to n1581j

said by n1581j :

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.

Wrong about the original PC memory restriction.

The reason IBM only put 256K on-board was:
a) the original PC was an experiment as far as IBM was concerned. They only expected to sell about 10,000 of them over its lifespan.
b) IBM had other machines in their line (not PC's per se but running an IBM proprietary os) at the time which were roughly comparable speedwise but had more memory. These machines cost a lot more than a PC (ie. 4-5x more IIRC).
c) IBM didn't want a 'capable' PC cannibalizing the sales of it's more expensive machines.


CryMeARiver

@bahnhof.se
reply to Gozo

Re: Why shouldnt they?

said by Gozo:

Google is partially funded by our tax payer money through the NSA and Darpa which is why they can afford to offer so many services for free or cheap.

I'd call that an unfair advantage.

Are you claiming that AT&T and TWC aren't receiving government subsidies? That sure sounds like what you're saying.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasZzenuYxI


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.

Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Google promised something in return...

...for an "unlevel playing field": gigabit to the areas who wanted it, for less than TWC charges for 50/5 on-promo.

If TWC and AT&T are promising FTTH builds with comparable speeds in return for the same things Google is getting...and if there are penalties (like being forced to pay back franchise fees or the coax/telco infrastructure gets repo'd by the city) if they don't meet their promises, fine. Give 'em the perks that Google has gotten.

But if TWC or AT&T are going to turn around and use those perks to offer the same services at roughly the same price (or maybe they'll try predatory pricing to make sure that GFiber fails), then the incentives (and that's all these perks are) have failed.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by Skippy25:

Well there you have! Silbaco has spoken and fiber networks are not needed at this point.

Everyone can pack up and go home now. Nothing more to see here as he will be sure to reach out to the internet world to let them know when it is ready for fiber.

Can you counter what I said? Can you prove that we need the speeds beyond what existing copper lines can provide, specifically in Kansas City? Or do you just troll because you have nothing worth adding?

ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA
reply to Skippy25

Re: deal or no deal?

Seriously.... Is that your argument? I sit near the most connected city in the US and have had discussions with friends who have LUS fiber service and when asked about their usage habits they all advise that their average usage rate over any given period is much lower than 100mbps. Closer to 30-50Mbps dependent on what legal content is being viewed or downloaded.

Personally, I am not complaining that Google is trying to provide a service that does in some instances drive innovation. What I am complaining about is Google (which does happen to be a fairly large corporation) ultimately ends up leaving people with failed promises in everything they do and ultimately will make profit via the selling of a person's privacy.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to FFH

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Geeze Tommy. Repeat yourself much?


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Kamus

Re: deal or no deal?

said by Kamus:

said by FFH:

You won't get anywhere with that argument. Because they will say some frat house with 20 members and 12 devices each and downloading HD videos 24hrs a day needs 1gb/s at $100/mo. and not providing it is a human rights violation.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." right?

Not even Bill Gates would say something like that.

At the time that was enough. What's your point? If a company build their product solely to provide what "could" be future demands years down the road, they will never stop building and certainly never make money.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to ltecajun

said by ltecajun:

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.

Do you know how big the files are when my palm sized digital camera takes HD video? It's about 4 gigs an hour of content I can create at the resolution I want to create it at. I also would want to be able to share that content at a rate that isn't just equal to the speed needed to just watch it. It would also be nice to not be required to have an extra service to make up for the lack of speed of ones own internet connection.

Not everyone is enslaved to commercial products that are restricted and limited and have a degraded quality when delivered online wich meets the threshold for for "good enough".
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by silbaco:

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.

ROFLMAO


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to ltecajun

Re: Google playing games again.

said by ltecajun:

"Google Fiber exists because companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable failed to provide the kind of connectivity consumers want; despite adequate resources"

I am quite sure that 95% of everyone else does not have your same viewpoint. All they care about is the cost of said services. Personally I think this is another attempt by Google to pressure others to do their own bidding which will ultimately fail with Google leaving a junk network behind.

Care to back any of that up with facts?

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH

Re: deal or no deal?

said by FFH:

said by ltecajun:

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.

You won't get anywhere with that argument. Because they will say some frat house with 20 members and 12 devices each and downloading HD videos 24hrs a day needs 1gb/s at $100/mo. and not providing it is a human rights violation.

Generally, it's the enthusiast crowd that usually finds the killer apps for the bandwidth.. generally speaking HD VIDEO at high bitrates and 1080P + resolutions would eatup 125 megabytes per second easily.. (aka 1 gigaBIT per second) That's about the fastest most hard drives do on BURSTs of data for a single computer.. divide it by 3, 10, 30 devices and it will be best effort shared... most smart phones & tablets under wifi 802.11n can only get throughput of about 25MB/sec because they run on 1500mah (or less) Li-Ion batteries.

1 gigabit is the dividing line between old and new generation broadband.. because the delivery mechansim pushes fiber optics either to the premise or very close (should cable/metro ethernet still decide on coax or bonded/multiplexed copper wire solutions). Back in the day bandwidth we've come to know as broadband ranged from 64kbits (the slowest isdn bandwidth) to t3 lines (approx 45 megabits). Nothing faster was usually necessary due to the constraints of the equipment of the day.. there was no 1080p video conferencing... or multimedia internet as we know it today. It was crazy talk for a residential customer to want a t3 line.. crazily expensive. Today asymmetric 50 megabits are commonplace in most major metro areas.. and no it shouldn't take another 20 years to get to gigabit.. these companies have had it too good the last decade to rest on their laurels. I know once google fiber is lit-up that will light a fire under consumers in the northeast to pressure telco & cableco alike to get the same or better.. at comparable prices too. Without the trailblazers in the notheast, most people in the midwest will be stuck with capped and overage charge gouging everywhere else.. This new bandwidth will bring about a 10,000% decrease in the cost of wholesale bandwidth (over 10 years).

ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA
reply to firephoto

The fact you and I are here make us the ones that are unique in our needs. I don't know of one person in my family that has a need to share HD video or any video for that matter. Most people now days take home video's on their smartphones including me and I don't have the need to store them off site due to the fact I have 4TB's worth of disk space.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

I like your conjured statement of Google ultimately leaving people with failed promises. Google has brought much good to many markets beyond this and the fact we are here discussing this shows they have brought good to even this.

How you selectively pick Google out of this bunch is quite entertaining being that TW and AT&T, along with all the other incumbent providers have made "failed promises yet reaping the rewards" an art form.

So some come here preaching fairness and the lack of need for it from Google, but support the lack of fairness that brought Google here to begin with.

You want fairness? How about TW and AT&T are not allowed to service either city in anyway for 10-15 years while Google creates their network and builds their captured marketplace. Or how about Google takes billions to build the wired networks from local and federal subsidies and then uses it to build a competing nationwide wireless network instead. Or how about Google gets to purchase TV channels and selectively provide them, after of course they get their market captured. Bottom line no matter how you spin it - They had their chance (even with their incentives) and failed or Google wouldnt even be there. You claiming 1gbps is not needed is no more valid then me claiming you dont need to make more than $70k a year. So shut it.