Topic 'Re: Unsustainable' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Unsustainable

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:17:51 EDT

morbo posted : It's showing that next generation networks can be built and that there is high consumer and business demand for affordable high speed networks. It's showing the public and politicians how inept and greedy incumbent providers really are, milking consumers for snail paced speeds and charging a premium for doing it. It's showing how high speed internet will encourage innovation.

Like any investment, the payback isn't immediate, but it will be a money maker over time. Then what will telco and cableco give for an excuse for providing such a lousy, expensive service?

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:07:02 EDT

openbox9 posted :

said by morbo:

It may not be a huge money maker for Google initially, but that's not the purpose of this project. It's to show the public how incumbent telco and cableco have been sitting with their thumbs in their butts sending expensive bills to users for slow internet service.

No, it's Google's newest playground to see how it can capture (and exploit) data by giving consumers the ability to do more than most other consumer environments allow.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:40:37 EDT

tshirt posted : I'm not talk redlining as in Income level, it was about COOPERATION.
KCK WAs the original selected target because they were willing to bend over backwards for the actual build (not silly PR stuff like renaming the city, like Topika did) KC, MO was not announced until a few months later, AFTER complaints. KC, MO appears to begetting more benefit as the payments to the power company for pole rights were pledged to reduce power rates.

Either way this experiment is not about ROI in either KC and thus doesn't set a model/example for the traditional ISPs.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:13:50 EDT

marigolds posted :

said by tshirt:

It was KCK that cut the deals, as far as I know, the KCMO build was just a PR add-on when KCMO people complained about redlining (which is actually the basis of this whole project, I don't think you could find another "Cherrypicking" example as clear as the Google fiber selection process)

You have it backwards. KCK was the PR deal (they are the lower income community). KCMO is about 3 times the area and people of KCK and almost twice the per capita income.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:08:20 EDT

tshirt posted : I believe it was reported at the time, KC, MO was not in the original PUBLIC plan.
google it* yourself, it would have been spring 2011 sometime between march and may (when the announced KC, MO was added)

*better use bing, google is pretty careful not too leave easy access to its PR mis-steps.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:51:01 EDT

xenophon posted :

said by tshirt:

KCMO build was just a PR add-on when KCMO people complained about redlining

Not following this. Source?

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:46:49 EDT

tshirt posted : It was KCK that cut the deals, as far as I know, the KCMO build was just a PR add-on when KCMO people complained about redlining (which is actually the basis of this whole project, I don't think you could find another "Cherrypicking" example as clear as the Google fiber selection process)

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:22:03 EDT

marigolds posted : With the exception of tornado siren poles (and those are only mounted every 5 miles or so), the poles in Missouri are all privately owned as we do not have public utilities here other than water. So if Google cut a deal on pole access, it was with private companies.
(And the other teleco companies have huge amounts of public rackspace in St Louis and Kansas City.)

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:13:07 EDT

tshirt posted : It's not easment access, The RoW is public, but the poles are not and Google cut a deal with KC, KS to use the poles at a lower then normal rate, provide rack space in public facilities for free (including electric service) something that was NEVER offered to any other provider, and the taxpayers are on the hook for pole improvements and all future maintaince for said poles, something that normally is paid for by pole attachment fees. so it's not a profitable deal for the city, not even breakeven, but a direct cost on the taxpayers, made worse, now that it's revealed, by the other providers sueing for zero fee attachments and the return of previous fees.
This back room deal will end up being VERY expensive as now anyone who can meet to ROW usage requirment can DEMAND the same treatment.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:19 EDT

tshirt posted : it's showing what?
That if you have large cash reserves you can build a provider network, without regard to cost, sustainability, profit (yes, even google makes a profit, on their core businesses) ?
That if you can OBLIGATE a city to offload normal costs and risks on to the taxpayers, then a buildout is simpler and cheaper for the provider? (which would likely lead to lower monthly rates for users, tough luck for the taxpayer who don't see direct benefit)
OR perhaps that ordinary citizens can be trained to grovel and beg like dogs in order to get the attention of the mighty Google first.

While Google will learn alot about the ISP business, as well as learn and retain a great deal about the habits and uses of internet users in KC, this is hardly a demonstration likely to convince or existing providers to rush forward with FTTH projects.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:43:55 EDT

marigolds posted :

said by JasonOD :

And in this case, the help of Kansas City's anti-competitive easement deals.

Just curious what this part is about. On the other side of the state here in St Louis, the state controls access to easements. The munis get no ability to say "no" or even negotiate prices.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:36:42 EDT

Oh_No posted : They will go with what is already in the area.
Above ground stays above ground.
Underground will stay underground

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:19:40 EDT

silbaco posted : Good. That is how they should all be. Years of being exposed to the elements can impact even the best cables.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:17:12 EDT

xenophon posted : In that particular neighborhood it's above ground hookups. In many others they'll be doing, especially with a lot of hirise housing (including mine), they will be using existing underground conduit.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:14:46 EDT

morbo posted : It may not be a huge money maker for Google initially, but that's not the purpose of this project. It's to show the public how incumbent telco and cableco have been sitting with their thumbs in their butts sending expensive bills to users for slow internet service.

Despite the whining and complaining from telco and cableco, it can be done, and Google is showing that with this project.

Re: Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:07:54 EDT

silbaco posted :

said by JasonOD :

Not saying google won't prop it up indefinitely, but the financials of offering something for free (5mbps) or 1gbps for $70 even while whoring every scrap of data to generate ad revenue doesn't add up without massive company subsidies. And in this case, the help of Kansas City's anti-competitive easement deals.

Look for big price increases soon, or look for this to be the first and last google fiber 'project'.

It may turn out to be profitable, but only because Google cherry picked the perfect neighborhoods in a city that gave them the perfect operating conditions. The fiber appears to be being deployed above ground, which is a poor solution for the longterm but made deployment much cheaper.

As I have said before, if offering free service and 1gbps service for $70 was practical, the dozens of cooperatives in this country that have ftth deployed would be doing it. But it isn't practical in real world deployment outside these ideal conditions.

Unsustainable

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:05:43 EDT

anon posted : Not saying google won't prop it up indefinitely, but the financials of offering something for free (5mbps) or 1gbps for $70 even while whoring every scrap of data to generate ad revenue doesn't add up without massive company subsidies. And in this case, the help of Kansas City's anti-competitive easement deals.

Look for big price increases soon, or look for this to be the first and last google fiber 'project'.