Comments on news posted 2013-01-11 09:05:20: While a few paid (by Microsoft and AT&T) pundits like Scott Cleland have insisted demand won't be there for Google Fiber, a new survey unsurprisingly finds that Kansas City locals are thrilled about the possibility of symmetrical 1 Gbps for $70. ..
Verizon hinting at 1gigabit? Plenty of hot air, zero action. Isn't it great to have an incumbency with duopoly price and technology deployment collusion? Plus corrupt government who've winked an nodded (off) the last decade while you got fleeced?
THIS is what google fiber's been deployed to combat.
Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.
If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.
Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.
It used to be said that no one had a need for dsl. What use was there? Then they got dsl...
You are SOOOOO funny. Let Google grow some balls and deploy in a FiOS area. "Combat", please. Would they ever do it? Hell no because they know all VZ has to do it swap out an ONT, and VIOLA! Gbps speeds.
"score one google" Google has the convenience of deploying with TODAYS technology, what a concept, eh? If Verizon was starting out today, theyd be outfitting with such equipment as well.
Google is 10 years late to the FTTP party. They really arent doing anything that groundbreaking.
Whats the score in the Google Vs. Cablevision match? lol
So, what you're saying is don't build the pipeline until the applications that need the speed are in place.
Clue: The applications that would use this technology can't be built and deployed UNTIL the infrastructure is in place to support them.
The simple fact is, these speeds are already useful to most families. They provide the ability to do concurrent tasks in short time without negatively impacting the other tasks. We're just used to the limits currently imposed and so therefore limit our usage and expectations to fit.
Early on in the history of photography still images were all that existed. Someone, somewhere, invented a high-speed shutter mechanism. What was the point? Certainly no one needed such a fast shutter!
Except that until such a shutter was invented, no one truly envisioned the possibility of motion pictures as we know them today.
Certainly not.
The high-speed spring-loaded mechanical shutter was developed for *still* photography -- not for motion pictures.
In motion picture cameras, the shutter is a simple disc that rotates once per frame, mechanically synchronized to the intermittent gear. The disc has a cutout in it. The "standard" shutter in the motion picture industry is a 180-degree shutter -- i.e., a semicircular disc. At 24 frames/second, this is equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/48 second.
The reason we didn't get motion pictures until the late 19th century is that there was no film until the late 19th century. You can shoot still photos on glass plates, but not movies!
But film wasn't developed in a "build it and they will come" manner, either. It had direct applications to still photography.
Most people dont need Gbps, thats a fact jack. When theres widespread, and popular applications for such speeds, let me know. Thanks for the honorable mention.
Might not need it, but when your average Joe buys that nice new download game on Steam or Xbox 360 or PS3, they sure as hell won't mind having it done in seconds or minutes rather than the better part of an hour or day(s) for those of us still stuck on DSL or slower cable.
Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.
If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.
The problem in the case of Netflix is most people simply don't have the connection speeds as it is to watch above 480p without tons of buffering and/or pissing off anyone else trying to use the internet in the house at the same time. An Average of 5.3Mb/s doesn't go that far.
How about we just skip the next war? That should more than pay for it!!
Who needs a war? We could redirect $200B of the defense budget and still be about five times what any other country in the world spends, or still more than the next 7 countries combined spend.
.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit? Makes perfect business sense. I guess they should do it for the sake of "progress".
Im not against fast networks, Google Gbps is complete overkill, at the moment. We'll see if they invent something to utilize the bandwidth. If I had a choice to pay $70 a month for 20/5 , or $80 for symmetrical 1Gbps, guess which one I choose. Guess which one MOST people would choose.
The incumbents that spend billions of dollars to make sure that current non-incumbents don't build population backed networks that are faster than what incumbents offer? Or are there some other cheap, friendly, local, non-corporate.. incumbents that I've missed somewhere.
How about the non-incumbents get to do whatever the hell they want without interference like the interference in my state where PUBLIC network providers CANNOT sell internet to the PUBLIC!
A bunch of stupid pathetic industry shills and and the people that believe they're just concerned consumers is the downfall of broadband in the united states. Go freedom! (as long as it doesn't interfere with decades old corporate monopolies)
Ive never said never. I hope they come out with popular applications to utilize Gbps speeds. I just dont see it happening anytime soon, not when you need 7Mbps to stream netflix "superHD" , whatever that means.
If something is created for such speeds, we'll see what Google comes up with in KC. We'll see if its applications that dont erode their very own TV service revenues. If something occurs, other providers will follow.
You're just throwing out misleading nothings hoping people believe it.
Most people can take more pictures in day on a single camera they own than they could possibly upload in a year because the damn internet upload for most people sucks. One photo here averages about 3 MiB. 30 Minutes of video 4 gigs.. on a non-profeesional 2 year old device. We've had the real world popular real things for years and no internet to deal with it for even a large minority of the population. Quit making out like there's no use today for super fast internet because it's not true, it's here, it's been here and the internet in the United States has been lagging behind the technology creating data for a decade!
It depends on if Google is doing this as a dedicated business case (if they want to make money as an ISP) or specifically to try and accelerate the growth of high-speed connections.
If it's the former, make money as an ISP, then going up against Verizon at this stage wouldn't make sense. They'd want to do that much later; better to cherry pick as much as you can first. This is what Google claims they're doing.
If, however, they're doing this in order to spur the advancement of connectivity (which is what some analysts think they're doing), then Verizon bumping up speeds to a gigabit is a win for Google. They'd be getting exactly what they want. In this scenario, they don't really want you to get a gigabit connection from Google, they just want you to have a gigabit connection (so that they can use it for future high-bandwidth Google applications).
In terms of technology, at this point both Google and Verizon are deploying exactly the same thing, GPON. That gets you, aggregated between however many households you split to, 2.4 gigabits per second downstream, 1.2 gigabits per second upstream. This is shared among all the houses sharing the same optical signal. Verizon started out using BPON at the start of FiOS (622 Mbps down, 155 Mbps up), but then later switched to GPON, which is also what Google is using.
One notable difference is how television is delivered. Google uses IPTV, sending the television service over an IP network, that same internet connection. Verizon uses RFoG, which basically just takes a cable television signal (870 MHz of it in Verizon's case) and shoves that on a separate wavelength. Verizon FiOS television is basically digital cable, although they have some extra stuff they tack on top of that over the data network. The core of it, the TV channels themselves, is just digital cable though.
How is Google utilizing GPON and offering Gbps? I thought they were probably beyond GPON. Splitting 2.4 Gbps among how many customers? Thats worse oversubscription potential than a typical cable node. But then again, its my position that few will be using that bandwidth, so what would it really matter? Do they have an asterisk in their advertisements? *up to 1Gbps ?
$70 is actually more than I'm really willing to spend for just internet, but at least Google is giving some decent upload, which is what I would want more than that unusable download speed! Anyone in the world knows that most servers you get anything from don't come close to serving it up that fast!
I'd also be concerned to death about what info Google might be stealing from you just to be connected through them! Heck, we all know how much info anything else of theirs steals and sells!!
elray and ITALIAN926 are to be believed then we have no need for fiber. Capped cable and DSL are the best things in the world and anyone who questions why mono and duopolies are allowed on something such as last mile internet just hate the freedom we Americans have and they prove that our unregulated internet infrastructure has no problems with greedy corporations or anything like that and the customers don't need anything more than 3mbit DSL anyways.
Looks like there's actually an interest in a product that provides something more than the pathetic offerings Comcast, AT&T and others provide for high cost with low offering on all fronts. Who knew?
ITALIAN926 never tries to back his arguments with anything other then his opinion, and never explains why that is his opinion.
I'll have to find it. The last time I saw it I happened to be casually browsing Reddit and it consisted of a Timescape of several scenes such as city sights.
Whatever business is it that your are in or run, etc, it sounds to me like a hope from you that Google does not stay in the ISP business.
Why would a company do something this disruptive and at great cost if it does not intend to ensure it's continuity to pay back for itself and to grow profits for the future? The downside that you appear not to have expected, is the 60% interest that can translate into unprecedented demand this early in any deployment. If I were Google and assuming that this was very successful and moreover profitable and contribute to advancement of my core business I would sure as hell be looking to burn up other Cities with Fiberhood!.
Google fiber in Kansas City is not a business model, it is a test. If it was setup as an actual business that was trying to expand and be profitable they would not be charging 70$ a month. The folks in Kansas City are lucky at least for these first two years. If google decides to pull out, which their insane contract lets them do, Kansas City might have a problem.
It would be similar to a Kansas City Dealership offering Ford Mustangs for 5,000 dollars it doesn't matter if you need them or not you would not buy it cause its a amazing deal and the rest of the country would be jealous and mad that their Dealerships cant offer the same thing.
I got a quote for gigabit fiber in two locations: my house in a rural community and my grandma's house in a small city of less than 100k people. It was $300,000 to install 1gbps to my house and 30,000 per month with a 3 year contract. It was free install at my grandma's house and $500 per month without a contract. That's a crock. Same company and everything.
You might have the option of a T3/DS3 service from a company like Megapath. They'll provide service to almost anyone and that's 45mbps up and down, so basically one of FiOS's old packages. Price depends on location though... They wanted around $900 per month at my house.
True. The funny thing is there is a lot of Fiber in this area that is unlit that could be utilized to bring Fiber to a ton of homes. What is lit is mainly going to schools who don't quite use their connection to it's capabilities, connecting up Central Offices, Cable nodes, Remote Terminals/DSLAMs or Cell phone towers to the network.
Out where I am there's a gap where the only person who has Fiber nearby is Time Warner. Everyone else has to run a cable at least a mile along a very busy road and then trench it underground. Copper service can be delivered however they would have to pull the line from the Litespan which probably wouldn't be a good idea to put a T3 on and haul it several cable miles back to the CO or figure out another solution such as Wireless that will give low latency T3 speeds.
I know at work, they paid a fortune to get a boatload of fiber installed where none was available. Fiber cable had to be extended a mile for some providers and it went into some pretty big numbers to do that. The bandwidth is dirt cheap per month once you're talking lots of Gigabits per second.
I suppose though if my neighborhood decides to get tired of Time Warner and the DSL network goes away it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to get some big bandwidth coming in and build up a neighborhood ISP.
·