Google Fiber Goes Live, Luring Startups > Unsustainable

Unsustainable

reply to JasonOD
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.

reply to silbaco
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.

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

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

reply to JasonOD

reply to morbo
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.

reply to marigolds
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.

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.)

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)

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.

reply to tshirt

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.

reply to morbo

reply to tshirt
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?