Who cares if this doesn't receive massive deployment?
i will probably never see fiber where I live. That's considering i live in a decent sized area of near 200k located not to far from a major city.
Even if it takes a few years for KC or Austin, that's better than never. Even if Google supports it for 2 years, that's still better than none at all.
Google has done all the right things so far with their rollouts. Every city they rollout is a win. Most people thought that KC would be a one-time only deal and no other cities would ever be included.
I'm not much of a google fan, but I can applaud the fact that they are at least trying unlike the existing operators.
said by sparc: Maybe, it's way too soon to have seen any real results yet.
... Every city they rollout is a win....
In 5-10-20 years, will we see ACTUAL greater prosperity in those cities because of this?
How will taxpayers/ratepayers/property owners be effected by the subsidies given to google (and every other provider, once they get done in court)?
do the negatives overwhelm any positives?
have you attracted productive citizen and industries? or are you just a mecca for leaches looking for a cheap connection?
anything is better than the existing operators who aren't doing anything to improve any of those factors. They're just driving their own corporate profits and taking money out of the community.
Google is investing heavily in these communities. I don't see comcast or AT&T doing that in my area.
said by sparc: I HATE to see people say that, without knowing what "ANYTHING" is.
...anything is better than the existing operators .....
If Google or any other for profit corporation, showed up in your town and said "We'll give you (something highly desirable) at a very low price, IF you give us a few things. you should be very afraid.
pretty soon they are offering this option or that option, " it won't cost much more"
but suppose the High end, most perfect, highly desirable thing ends up being so expensive it price you out of receiving it, or even out of living there any more?
Just because they disguised the total cost by shifting some of it to the city and some to the utilities, it doesn't make it cheaper.
And I think you can see why the existing providers who everyone hates and no one would offer such cooperation and cost sharing are reluctant to make such a huge investment.
This is still an long term experiment with no sign of a commercial viable business model yet, no matter how appealing the product is.
|reply to sparc |
You won't see At&t or Comcast doing it anytime soon. They have huge debts from their last buildouts that still need to be paid off.
Most people, honestly, are happy with the speeds they have. I can't count how many people I have heard recently say they are "happy with what I have" and refuse to take fiber rolled out by my ISP. It will be installed for free with a drastic increase of speed and quality for the same price. But they are happy with the DSL they have. Those who are unhappy speak the loudest, but truly are the minority.
I think they have avoided the unsustainable (commercially) debt loads of fios and google fiber, and can continue to invest at the current rate and continue the more measured path of advancing fiber closer to the home while greatly increasing available speeds from previous generation broadband (not that the very vocal minority here would ever admit it, but both D3 and Uverse are big steps in the right direction without the company crippling debt that fios caused Verizon and that a wider rollout of google fiber would cost google IF they do more then their current dabbling.
ALL are valid experiments, so far AT&T and comcast are viable, fios MAY recover in it's limit footprint, and google hasn't done the full monty.
your moderator at work|