  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Precedent If Google were to allow this, then everyone else would want to be able to do it as well. I can't blame Google for rejecting the idea.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
 |  somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Precedent said by pnh102:If Google were to allow this, then everyone else would want to be able to do it as well. I can't blame Google for rejecting the idea.
Looks like this could be a black mark against 'evil' Google's KC Fiber project. Not very good PR tactics...
Hell, even my 'socialist' muni FTTH ISP has a heart and offers free internet service and wifi to non-profits!  | |
|
| | | | Re: Precedent said by somms:said by pnh102:If Google were to allow this, then everyone else would want to be able to do it as well. I can't blame Google for rejecting the idea.
Looks like this could be a black mark against 'evil' Google's KC Fiber project. Not very good PR tactics... Hell, even my 'socialist' muni FTTH ISP has a heart and offers free internet service and wifi to non-profits! Your can write off donations to 503(c) Non-Profits, you can't to poor people. | |
|
| | | somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Precedent said by AnonFTW :said by somms:said by pnh102:If Google were to allow this, then everyone else would want to be able to do it as well. I can't blame Google for rejecting the idea.
Looks like this could be a black mark against 'evil' Google's KC Fiber project. Not very good PR tactics... Hell, even my 'socialist' muni FTTH ISP has a heart and offers free internet service and wifi to non-profits! Your can write off donations to 503(c) Non-Profits, you can't to poor people. Michael Liimatta, co-founder of local nonprofit Connecting for Good, said Google told the groups involved that the idea wasn’t in line with planned licensing agreements for the new product, Google Fiber.
Read more here: »www.kansascity.com/2012/06/28/36···link=cpy | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Precedent There are many types of Non-Profits. Only a 503(c) can write expenses off.
They don't advertise themselves as a 503(c), but rather as "Connecting for Good is a registered Kansas not-for-profit corporation #4563276". | |
|
| | | | |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | Re: Precedent Any non-profit can write off expenses.
503(c) just defines which a subset of 501(c) corps for which donations to those corporations are deductible. many 501(c) statuses (such as some 501(c)(3) corps) do not require registering with the IRS for the donors to receive deductions. As long as this group has receipts under $5k, there is a good chance they fit under the 501(c)(3) filing exemptions.
Heck, Google can write off the expenses either way as an expense of business. And I suspect that 501(c) status is a hurdle the group could take if it was necessary to reach an agreement with Google.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | | | somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Precedent said by marigolds:Any non-profit can write off expenses.
503(c) just defines which a subset of 501(c) corps for which donations to those corporations are deductible. many 501(c) statuses (such as some 501(c)(3) corps) do not require registering with the IRS for the donors to receive deductions. As long as this group has receipts under $5k, there is a good chance they fit under the 501(c)(3) filing exemptions.
Heck, Google can write off the expenses either way as an expense of business. And I suspect that 501(c) status is a hurdle the group could take if it was necessary to reach an agreement with Google.
Thank you for clarifying this and including accurate info which seems to be missing from the partisan tone of these forums lately! 
Google has just missed the boat on getting the positive PR this time...  | |
|
| | | said by pnh102:If Google were to allow this, then everyone else would want to be able to do it as well. I can't blame Google for rejecting the idea.
I agree. You'd wind up with a few paying customers who are maxing out their 1Gbps line. And for Google, no way to siphon data for advertising purposes.
What I find fascinating, is that Google believes that building a 1Gbps fiber network is inexpensive enough to make up for in advertising.
No wonder the incumbents are shitting their pants. Google is poised to pull back their curtain so to speak and expose the last mile lie.
The next 12-24 months are going to be interesting. | |
|
| | | | Re: Precedent kinda makes you wonder if google aint got somethin up their sleeve.. their advertising is where they make the most money I kinda wonder if the content people are gonna be looking at on googles servers would be posied with advertising more often the reg.., either way I would love to see advertising if that meant Fiber where im at  | |
|
| | | | No, it's not that cheap to build out fiber. It's expensive.
They aren't trying to recoup their costs on this and make a profit. There is a reason they chose to go small scale and not be a nationwide ISP. Because it is very expensive to overbuild.
If it were cheap, the incumbents would already be gone, because you'd have 5 or 6 fiber connections to your house, nationwide. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | It should have been OK if it were business class. I can kind of understand how they don't want to erode their potential subscriber base though.
If it's only a residential service, then there's no resale, period. | |
|
 SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA | No soup for you A walled garden approach would work to prevent open wifi networks from popping up. | |
|
| | why not lots of shared connections it actually surprises me a bit that it has not become the norm for building to have shared connections for tenents | |
|
| zed260Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: why not lots of shared connections said by tom thomas:it actually surprises me a bit that it has not become the norm for building to have shared connections for tenents
well most companys have caps to stop that from resedential side
and on bussnuss side using charter as an example it forbids resale of the service unless you get one of the special fiber hookups which are crazy expensive | |
|
|  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | this is how they do it in Japan
they have 1Gps pipe in the building and the tenets share it over ethernet
i have seen some condos that offer service like this too but they have there own TV service as well | |
|
| | | | Re: why not lots of shared connections That's how things are at my building in Chicago. 1Gbps line in the basement, each unit wired with ethernet. TV service is brought in via a DirecTV satelite array on the roof with enough capacity to handle multiple STB's per dwelling. Landline phone service is offered through AT&T as well, but most of us (the smart ones anyway) just use VoIP for that. It's a great setup from multiple angles - we're not at the mercy of any one provider, we pay super cheap rates, and the service is better than anything I've found from FIOS or Xfinity. Needless to say, I'm not moving any time soon. | |
|
| | | | | Re: why not lots of shared connections Yeah, but your building is paying more than $100 or whatever Google has in mind | |
|
| | | |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: why not lots of shared connections and when you have a few hundred tenants the price per tenant becomes very low. | |
|
| | How much of the 1 Gbps will be for TV? U-verse uses multicast and there feeds to the home and a 4 active streams max.
Now with fiber Google does not need the 4 active streams max and can maybe go 6+ HD fees at 7-10 Mbps MPEG4. | |
|
| elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: How much of the 1 Gbps will be for TV? even if they did it that way it would only take up 500Mbps at most
and leave another 500 free thats STILL a crap ton of bandwidth | |
|
|  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | With Google Fiber, they could probably do 50 HD streams @ 10mbps and still not break a sweat. You'd only be using 500 mbps out of 1000 mbps. | |
|
| | | | Re: How much of the 1 Gbps will be for TV? said by Gbcue:With Google Fiber, they could probably do 50 HD streams @ 10mbps and still not break a sweat. You'd only be using 500 mbps out of 1000 mbps.
possibly a bit more than that, It def makes cable look like crap... | |
|
| | | | | Re: How much of the 1 Gbps will be for TV? How does that make cable look like crap?
Using QAMs, a cable plant can send over 6gigabits/sec of video to your house. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: How much of the 1 Gbps will be for TV? Technically, yeah, but...
To get it, you all but have to use their equipment, and that means shelling out big bucks for every single stream you want to receive.
If its an IP solution, there's no reason a single PC (or proprietary box) couldn't grab as many streams as it wants (think unlimited channel DVR).
If its a true fiber/IP solution, then the individual streams aren't modulated and require multiple tuners to demodulate back to the baseline digital video.
This is where the big advantage for IP-video comes in. | |
|
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | And an individual residential account would NEED 50HD streams at once for....???? | |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | It's not evil for a business to not be a charity Google is a business, not a charity. They expect to make a return on investment on stuff like this, especially if they're using Google Fibre as a proof to show incumbent ISPs that they can deliver this sort of service and still be profitable.
Community sharing group run counter to that. As cool an idea as they are, any kind of mass broadband deployment requires a certain percentage of passed customers to actually sign up for the service for it to be profitable. If a community sharing group substantially reduces the subscription density, it could take what is probably already going to be a relatively low-margin service and make it completely unprofitable. As such, it's perfectly reasonable (and not at all "evil") for Google to take this position.
This is one of the reasons why business services typically cost more than residential services. A good compromise might be for Google to offer to sell the residents who want to do this a business-class service, if they decide to offer such a thing. This could go a long way to offsetting the lost revenue, and could potentially benefit both parties: for example, if a business service cost five times more, but could be shared with ten people, then there is still a substantial cost savings involved.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
|
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: It's not evil for a business to not be a charity I know this is off topic, but when I read your post, all I could hear was Shredder's voice.
Well played.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| WiFi Sharing Cooperatives for Google Gigabit in KS First, this "news" is a month old. Second, Google stated why it was doing the project during the application period. To create a large web application test environment utilizing very high speed symmetrical FTTH, FTTB, and FTTC serving a large socioeconomically diverse population. They are not going to get the test environment they seek from households connected with a shared community WiFi signal. Google has not even announced pricing, so predictions of unaffordability are premature in my view. What if they decide to charge only $15/month and no installation fee? What if there is no charge for a new 802.11ac WiFi equipped "modem" with 8 Gigabit LAN ports and 4 USB 3.0 ports? And what if they offered, for the first 100,000 households that sign up, a free solid state hard disk drive netbook running Linux Mint? That might be a better deal for low income households than providing low cost connections to a WiFi cooperative. | |
|
| | | Re: WiFi Sharing Cooperatives for Google Gigabit in KS said by davidhoffman:And what if they offered, for the first 100,000 households that sign up, a free solid state hard disk drive netbook running Linux Mint? That might be a better deal for low income households than providing low cost connections to a WiFi cooperative. Why would Google give away laptops that aren't running ChromeOS? And how would an offer like that to the first 100,000 benefit a low income household anyway? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: WiFi Sharing Cooperatives for Google Gigabit in KS There are 146,453 people in Kansas City, KS according to the 2010 US Census. At an average of 2 people per household, that equals 73, 226 households. If they had 100,00 netbooks to give away, they would more than cover the city's low income families.
As for Google Chrome vs. Linux Mint for an OS choice, I forgot Google had a netbook OS. My mistake. I have never seen a netbook running Google Chrome OS and had assumed the project was paused. I do know that a few variations of Linux are active and in use on netbooks. | |
|
| | | | | Re: WiFi Sharing Cooperatives for Google Gigabit in KS Don't forget, KC, MO, is part of the project too.. Population about 450,000, and the potential is that the whole metro area could have coverage, population 1-2 million depending on how its counted and what you consider metro. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: WiFi Sharing Cooperatives for Google Gigabit in KS I did not forget KC, MO. I am making the assumption that KC, KS will be the first to have Google Gigabit, as that city was the winner of the competition. But, it could be that both KCs are activated at the same time. I do not think areas outside the legal boundaries of the two KCs are in the first parts of the experiment. I am not familiar with how the electrical distribution is done in that area. If the two KCs electric utilities also supply electricity to the surrounding small cities, then the agreements for pole placement may be able to be extended easily. Where I live, the electric cooperatives, private electric companies, and some municipal public electric utilities serve large geographic areas without regard to city, county, or state boundaries. They could easily agree to pole placements that cover their entire service areas without consulting or getting approval from each political entity. Do the electric utilities in KS and MO have similar boundary crossing freedoms? | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Gotta spread that bandwidth around... So much for not being evil...so un-progressive of them especially since they didn't build their business. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Gotta spread that bandwidth around... How are they being evil or un-progressive? They have not announced any service pricing. They have not stated if there will be lower cost speed tiers for a lower price than the 1Gbps symmetrical service. They have not stated if there will be a free purely advertising supported option. They have not stated what the customer premises equipment choices will be. They have not published a deployment progress map. How can you judge the future service offers, if there is no detailed information on those future service offers?
I think it is unfair to judge a company's offering of future services, when the details of those future service offers are completely unknown. | |
|
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Gotta spread that bandwidth around... Actually they did say that the 1gb will be $100, and a 100/100 will be $50.
But still thats far far lower than any other isp in the nation. Comcast's 100/15 costs like $300 and their 1gb costs a few thousand(granted its a dedicated line) Heck Tw and att(which service most of the area google will be in) dont even offer 100m connections here. Surewest does offer 100/100 but its $100.
But I agree not at all un-progressive. They are a private company not the government, its not their job to offer stuff to lower income people at a lower price(heck even the local government doesn't really do that around here) If they let people bundle together to buy the connection they would open themselves to the possibility of people reselling the connection($20 for a 20/20 connection, 6 of them and you are turning a profit with still over 800/800 to yourself).
Not to mention lots of people pay more than what the 100/100 would cost for far less as is around here. Google is a privately owned business, not a social program or charity. | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
| Hopeless Hell I would be so damn happy to just have fiber running through my town,I will pay anything reasonable for that service in my town.
You can get a T1 line from my local gas/electric (we have a combined bill in my town) which supply's the local university but that's a little excessive lol. | |
|
| elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Hopeless T1 is only 1.5Mbps which is nothing any more | |
|
| | | | Re: Hopeless I think that is kinda the point. | |
|
|  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | A T1 line? What is this, the 70's? | |
|
|
|
