site Search:


 
   
story category
Telco Parrot Scott Cleland Hates Google Fiber
Thinks Overpriced Existing Services Good Enough
by Karl Bode Tuesday 31-Jul-2012 tags: prices · competition · business · Op/Ed · Politics · municipal · broadbandbits · Hype · consumers
Scott Cleland is a policy consultant paid by incumbent ISPs to sell his client's unfiltered Kool-Aid to reporters and politicians, and is frequently called to Washington as an "objective" industry analyst, despite his obvious role as little more than a paid parrot. You might recall that when we last saw Scott Cleland, he was busily beating up on Google for not investing in broadband infrastructure, despite billions spent on global fiber runs and storage capacity.

With Google Fiber launching last week, Cleland is back to do his masters' bidding, penning a piece for the Daily Caller (who fails to note he's a telco mouth for hire) poo poo'ing all over Google's recent 1 Gbps service launch. What's Cleland's problem with Google Fiber? Aside from his disgust at the "vile socialism" involved in Kansas City actually working with local government to improve broadband, Cleland apparently believes that because Comcast and Verizon now offer 300 Mbps tier in some markets (at $200-$300), Google Fiber just isn't necessary:

Click for full size
...in hyping Google Fiber’s 1,000 Mb per second offering as being “100 times faster than today’s average broadband,” Google ignores that consumers can buy 300 Mpbs broadband in the marketplace today from Verizon (and soon from Comcast and others), and that consumers choose not to buy faster available speeds because they do not yet see their utility or value.

Thus “100 times faster” is a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison of Google’s only super-fast speed offering to the lower-speed tier offerings consumers have chosen to buy. Tellingly, Google also ignores that Verizon and Cable Labs are already working on delivering bandwidth performance ten times faster than Google Fiber. Competition works.

Competition works so well, that most people in the United States are lucky if they can get 5 Mbps downstream for $50-$60 from just one ISP. Amusingly, Cleland's central argument appears to be that because consumers aren't jumping at paying $200-$300 for a broadband connection (assuming they can get it), that must mean there's simply no real interest in faster broadband. He kind of just skips over the fact that Google is offering symmetrical 1 Gbps service for just seventy bucks, and a 5 Mbps connection that's essentially free (after a $300 installation fee). It's the best selective logic telco money can buy.

While you could certainly argue that Google Fiber remains more hype than substance at this moment, there's little doubt that the deployment is getting people excited about what's possible. That's something Cleland's clients at AT&T and elsewhere have failed miserably at, focusing most of their attention on turf protection, eliminating competition, and smoke and mirrors.

In fact, the excitement surrounding Google Fiber's entry into the market clearly illustrates these companies should probably throw more money at giving consumers what they want, and less money at parrots.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

thecybernerd
Premium
join:2007-01-05
Great Falls, VA

IDIOT

This guy is an IDIOT!
ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: IDIOT

Yes, but there are millions of idiots out there that would sign up for Gbps service thinking it will make their youtube, facebook, Netflix and hotmail work faster.

Im all for making faster speeds, but for 99% of households, 20-30Mbps is more than enough for todays applications.

thecybernerd
Premium
join:2007-01-05
Great Falls, VA

Re: IDIOT

the whole point of the Google Fiber project is not for "todays applications" but for tomorrows applications. They want to foster innovation that is only possible with this much bandwidth.
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

Re: IDIOT

Also, most services have very low uplink speed or charge a lot for more uplink. There will be a lot of future apps that take advantage of faster uplink.
Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Re: IDIOT

said by xenophon:

Also, most services have very low uplink speed or charge a lot for more uplink. There will be a lot of future apps that take advantage of faster uplink.

big time, I think we may even soon see a web os (litterly on the cloud idea) in such a idea the upload is needed to speed up to 20-40mbps to really use it..

storage is getting cheap and companies are competing on the cloud storage areas I would not be surprised if we don't see some one come along and beat Google 1tb.. that being said we need more speed
buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME

Re: IDIOT

Many users already have a need for that kind of upload.

Lets not forget what small to mid-size business needs.
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

Re: IDIOT

Google is not targeting small/medium biz but I imagine after a year of eval, if they decide to stay in ISP biz, they'll allow SMBs. They've given some indication it's a future thing.

bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Sprint Mobile Br..
said by Cobra11M:

said by xenophon:

Also, most services have very low uplink speed or charge a lot for more uplink. There will be a lot of future apps that take advantage of faster uplink.

big time, I think we may even soon see a web os (litterly on the cloud idea) in such a idea the upload is needed to speed up to 20-40mbps to really use it..

Something like Chrome OS maybe?
--

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Re: IDIOT

said by bobjohnson:

said by Cobra11M:

said by xenophon:

Also, most services have very low uplink speed or charge a lot for more uplink. There will be a lot of future apps that take advantage of faster uplink.

big time, I think we may even soon see a web os (litterly on the cloud idea) in such a idea the upload is needed to speed up to 20-40mbps to really use it..

Something like Chrome OS maybe?

yup forgot about that haha
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
If you build for today what you need for today, then tomorrow brings nothing but more problems. It always has and it always will be that way.

You build what you need for tomorrow and you let today work it's way toward tomorrow. It always does and it always will get there.

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US

Re: IDIOT

said by Skippy25:

If you build for today what you need for today, then tomorrow brings nothing but more problems. It always has and it always will be that way.

Very true Skippy...
A great example besides broadband in the US is our highway/ roadway systems the knowledge of demand exploding was always there however they did not want to expand past the normal 1-2 lanes in each direction. It was overlooked now, there there building 5-6 lanes in almost every major urban area well after congestion has taken place and there now having to take eminent domain in some areas for land space that should have been set aside for roadways/Highways in the first place.

Another area where the US failed at is there passenger railroad program, from the invention of Amtrak ( in the 70s) The goal should have been to build and maintain there own railway ( high speed lines running on electricity) At least east of the Mississippi where the majority of our population lives, Similar to Amtrak in the NEC which Amtrak makes a heck of a profit on, and similar to rail lines in Europe, china, and the UK. The ball was dropped and now that high gas prices are here to stay, theres and the cost to build such a railroad network have sky rocketed there is no alternative to, cars, buses, and planes which all share in high fuel cost as none currently can run of a pure renewable energy.

"IF you build it, they will come" ..... field of dreams...
That phrase holds true in almost all aspects.

camaro92
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
I think the word is half assed
Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
you sir don't know the potential with 1gbps.. its not all about just downloading.. the cloud is the future and no cable company can get their act together quick enough.. Files being uploaded on a 1mbps isn't enough the cable companies cant even match speeds with all the extra crap they got running on it

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: IDIOT

No one is arguing the potential of 1Gb service. The argument is that we do not NEED it today and we do not NEED it in the very near future. There is no current demand for it today.

Will we need it in the future? Certainly. Do we need to push to make sure that every house has it in the next 2-3 years while bankrupting as many people as possible? Nope. (Remember the dot bomb build outs?)

The important thing that this project does is provide a place in which to develop the that future need so that there is future demand to which providers will provide.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Re: IDIOT

There is not a damn thing wrong with being ready.Why do people like you always want to be behind the 8 ball rather than infont?Dot com means shit in this climate.This is and will continue to be the online climate for decades to come.Apps and programs will come and go as will the iphone but the net will still be there

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: IDIOT

If you don't lean from mistakes (see dotbom era) you at doomed to repeat them again. Lots of companies over built with no real need and many went belly up. Phone companies regardless of size do not have endless supplies of money
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20

Re: IDIOT

If Google really is deploying this all on GPON (rather than 10GPON), they're deploying exactly the same type of network as Verizon is using for FiOS. They only difference would be that Google is setting the max rate per customer higher (and potentially using a lower split ratio per node).

It's hard to argue that that's overbuilding, since there is no real technical difference between them promising 100 Mbps or 1000 Mbps per customer; it's the same physical deployment either way.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

Re: IDIOT

Does this give any possible insight to the Google infrastructure?

»www.google.com/patents/US20110299851

tmh

@myvzw.com
said by battleop:

No one is arguing the potential of 1Gb service. The argument is that we do not NEED it today and we do not NEED it in the very near future. There is no current demand for it today.

Will we need it in the future? Certainly. Do we need to push to make sure that every house has it in the next 2-3 years while bankrupting as many people as possible? Nope. (Remember the dot bomb build outs?)

The important thing that this project does is provide a place in which to develop the that future need so that there is future demand to which providers will provide.

I recall a similar argument when dialup was king and DSL was just rolling out.

Doubtless, the slow to respond will die. Just ask Earthlink. Doubtless also, many new businesses will grow. Just ask Amazon, Roku, iTunes, Netflix, and, and...

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
said by ITALIAN926:

Im all for making faster speeds, but for 99% of households, 20-30Mbps is more than enough for todays applications.

15 Years ago, 56k was "more than enough for todays applications". And then came Napster, and suddenly it was taking half an hour to download a single 3 minute song.

Fast-forward 15 years to today. "20-30Mbps is more than enough for today's applications". Mind you, for a lot of people, 20-30Mbps isn't even available, so 5Mpbs if people are lucky. Oh but then steam had to come along, and Origin, and Garage of Games, and Direct2Drive... 1 "DVD" game around 8GB takes around 5-6 hours to download. Bigger games (some as much as 30gigs) you're looking at a day to download.
ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: IDIOT

Thats fine and dandy, but what percentage of internet users do you think download games?. Everyone I know still buys their games at a local store. We can even mention HD movies. I dont really know anyone that downloads movies, just streams them.

Comparing the 56k dialup to a 5Mbps DSL/cable back then, is much different than comparing a 20Mbps to 1000Mbps today. There simply isnt any real benefit to upgrade to such a connection, right now, for the overwhelming majority of users

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1

Re: IDIOT

said by ITALIAN926:

Thats fine and dandy, but what percentage of internet users do you think download games?. Everyone I know still buys their games at a local store. We can even mention HD movies. I dont really know anyone that downloads movies, just streams them.

Comparing the 56k dialup to a 5Mbps DSL/cable back then, is much different than comparing a 20Mbps to 1000Mbps today. There simply isnt any real benefit to upgrade to such a connection, right now, for the overwhelming majority of users

There are some 4 million people logged into steam right now. That doesn't count Origin, or Xbox Live, or PSN, etc. Many people download games.

20Mpbs is shot when one person is downloading one of those games and does nothing for the on average other 1.5 persons in the household. Oh sorry you were trying to watch a movie using netflix, I'm downloading a game right now and It's going to take half an hour.

The suddenly BOOM 1Gbps. There is plenty of bandwidth for not only that game to download, but for that netflix stream, and hell, while waiting for that game to download the downloader can watch something on netflix as well.

Then like I said the time involved. Just because YOU don't know anybody who downloads games doesn't mean there aren't tons of gamers out there who when they get home to a 300mb patch for their MMO, or they see a good sale on steam that they'll actually be able to jump in and play in a minute or two, rather than a good portion of their limited gaming time getting taken up by waiting on a download.
ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:1

Re: IDIOT

I have to check out this "steam" , my xbox's cd rom crapped out, and didnt feel like replacing it.

LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

Re: IDIOT

Not to be rude, but if you aren't even aware of Steam, I highly doubt you have an accurate perspective of what 20-30mbps can cover today, much less the near to far future.

HaloFans

join:2006-12-18
»youtu.be/qileP4bAzek

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
even more funny is nether Verizon OR Comcast serve KC
KC both states are Served by TWC and AT&T lol
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Actually, he's quite prescient. Google's experiment in subsidy is likely to to demonstrate only how to lose money. They're pretty good at it.

The 99% of us who don't live in KC, KC, or Palo Alto, will NOT see VZ, AT&T, Comcast or TWC quaking in their boots and begging us to buy fiber from them at $70/month. They will, instead, attempt to deliver us basic broadband at a price we'll actually pay.

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: IDIOT

said by elray:

The 99% of us who don't live in KC, KC, or Palo Alto, will NOT see VZ, AT&T, Comcast or TWC quaking in their boots and begging us to buy fiber from them at $70/month.

I don't live in any of those places, but I am looking forward to the day that Sonic.net, LLC rolls out fiber in San José.

I've already kicked AT&T to the curb in favor of Sonic.net.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: IDIOT

said by NormanS:

said by elray:

The 99% of us who don't live in KC, KC, or Palo Alto, will NOT see VZ, AT&T, Comcast or TWC quaking in their boots and begging us to buy fiber from them at $70/month.

I don't live in any of those places, but I am looking forward to the day that Sonic.net, LLC rolls out fiber in San José.

I've already kicked AT&T to the curb in favor of Sonic.net.

As did we, but we aren't privileged to subscribe "Fusion" before the massive price increase, while the performance of said service is a crapshoot, and legacy DSL pricing climbs ever skyward.

You might be willing to pay $70+/month for broadband. We did for many years, i.e. for basic DSL, but today, the $20-30 offerings from CableCo and the former dry-loop DSL rates provide more than adequate bandwidth - I don't see many households wanting to pay those higher rates, 250GB-300GB caps actually happen and actually impact TV viewing - unlikely.

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: IDIOT

said by elray:

You might be willing to pay $70+/month for broadband ...

Really? Never paid that much in my life:
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      RECEIPT
 
     Sonic.net, Inc.
     2260 Apollo Way
     Santa Rosa, CA 95407
     707.522.1000
     support@sonic.net
 
                                                        Due Date: 2011-11-10
                                       Service from 2011-11-10 to 2011-12-10
     For:
     %Customer% <%Customer%@sonic.net>
     5555 Gigash HDD
     Silly James, CA  95678
     _______________________________________________________________________
     Description                                    Unit Price         Total
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Email account user01                                 0.00          0.00  
     Email account user02                                 0.00          0.00  
     Email account user03                                 0.00          0.00  
     Email account user04                                 0.00          0.00  
     Invoice to email ********@pacbell.net                0.00          0.00  
     DNS example.com                                      1.95          1.95  
     Fusion Broadband - Single Line -                    39.95         39.95  
       STI-00nnnnn-0
     Fusion Broadband Information - STI-00nnnnn-0         0.00          0.00  
       Data $19.97 Voice $19.98
     Voice Federal Subscriber Line Charge Fee             6.50          6.50  
     Voice Federal Universal Service Fund Fee             1.91          1.91  
     Voice California Lifeline Telephone Service          0.16          0.16  
       Surcharge
     Voice California Deaf and Disabled Telecom           0.03          0.03  
       Program Surcharge
     Voice California High Cost Fund-B Surcharge          0.04          0.04  
     Voice California Teleconnect Fund Surcharge          0.01          0.01  
     Voice California Advanced Services Fund              0.02          0.02  
       Surcharge
     Voice California 911 Emergency Surcharge             0.07          0.07  
     Voice San Jose Utility Users Tax                     1.19          1.19  
     Fusion IP address space 173.228.nnn.nn/32            0.00          0.00  
     Fusion Phone Service - 4085553210                    0.00          0.00  
     Voice California Public Utility Commission           0.03          0.03  
       User Fee
     Voice FCC Interstate Telecom Service Fee             0.04          0.04  
     Charge Prorate 2011-11-01 to 2011-11-10 for          0.01          0.01  
       Voice California Advanced Services Fund
       Surcharge
     Charge Prorated charge for DNS example.com           0.65          0.65  
 
                                                             Total:    52.56
 
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 

The last AT&T bill had fewer extras, but was $103.cc for 3.0Mb/s (nominal; 2.5Mb/s actual). Service is now 4.9Mb/s.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: IDIOT

said by NormanS:

said by elray:

You might be willing to pay $70+/month for broadband ...

Really? Never paid that much in my life:
...

You aren't subscribing to Sonic's fiber optic service.
wheelbarrow

join:2010-01-06
USA
kudos:1

$

Polly want a briefcase of money?
ShellMMG

join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI

What's it worth?

Has anyone asked Cleland, "what are YOU offering?"

I have 3Mbps DSL from Frontier, which just deployed in my area last October and I'm very grateful. Is Cleland offering to build out past Ann Arbor and tap the big fiber pipe under the interstate? Is he going to push Verizon Wireless to install their cantennas all over and raise their STILL too stingy and expensive 10G caps?

Hate to say it, but the US is rapidly approaching a digital apartheid. Those who have +1Gbps and those with less than 3Mbps with caps, all of whom pay artificially inflated prices while profits are invested in new tech to squeeze the customers.

So, Mr. Cleland. What are YOU offering other than nothing?
OmagicQ
Posting in a thread near you

join:2003-10-23
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House
·voip.ms

Bring on the 10gigabit service!

"Google also ignores that Verizon and Cable Labs are already working on delivering bandwidth performance ten times faster than Google Fiber."

Yeah! I could finally get some use out of my gigabit ethernet adapter... or will I need to get a 10gig adapter? Better make sure I enable jumbo frames
--
...Who, What, When, Where, How... Why? Why Not?

See 6 replies to this post
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

4 edits

Have checked it out

I live very close to the Google Fiber 'Space' location and was able to check it out a couple times. Last time did a speedtest but it was limited by the test server. So did 5 simultaneous speedtests to 5 different tests sites and the total came to about 750Mbps. Not bad.

Onlive gaming service is purely fluid, awesomeness.

Google TV is very nice. The DVR functions are comparable to TWC but what's cool is that any Android phone/tablet can control the DVR/TV with APIs into the DVR, so much more sophisticated DVR feaatures can be written as an Android app rather than hacking the DVR box. This can open the doors to new ways to approach TV/DVR features written by 3rd parties.

Google also says they don't add any additional compression (other than what the source has). I saw no sign of blockiness during hi motion video, which is a problem with TWC - especially SDV channels.

Now if I could just signup. I live in a valid fiberhood but they are having major problems with multiunit buildings signing up. About 80% of my hood is condo/apt and has not yet met the signup quota. A bunch of other hoods are having same problem. Google has acknowledged and is working to fix it.

Edit:
If you have questions about the service/features, I plan to go and check it out again.

See 6 replies to this post
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast

Let me know when cable and VZ hit 1 Gbps

...let alone 10 Gbps. The physical cable plant would have to be extended up to at least 1600MHz in order to hit that kind of speed...for a single customer. Verizon can do the same thing with X-GPON but at this point they're just rolling out standard GPON.

The parrot also ignores the fact that Google Fiber is still 20X faster than the fastest, more expensive, tier available from competitors in KC. FiOS isn't available for hundreds of miles. Not from Verizon anyway. Even if it was, $70 would buy you maybe 50 Mbps down, 25 Mbps up. So Google is 20x faster on downloads and 40x faster on uploads than its nearest commercial competitor (you can get 50 Mbps symmetric from EPB for $70).

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Not Socialism

quote:
Aside from his disgust at the vile socialism involved in Kansas City actually working with local government to improve broadband ...
First, words mean things. Socialism has a definition. What you describe here is not socialism.

Second, If I recall correctly, this site reported that the local governments involved were giving Google a hard time about access to utility poles and other easements. It almost derailed the project entirely. Fortunately it seems the governments involved saw the light and got out of the way of Google. If the fact that Google was able to make it market and sell its service is a triumph of government non-interference in the broadband market, not "working with it" to make things happen.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge.

See 15 replies to this post

annon10021

@tmodns.net

He forgot it costs $70

"consumers choose not to buy faster available speeds because they do not yet see their utility or value. "
No, it is because it would cost them an arm and a leg for the faster speed now with Verizon and the cable cos. With $70 Google fiber, i will take it in a heartbeat.

HaloFans

join:2006-12-18

Haters gonna hate

What has Scott Cleland done to improve the broadband infrastructure in America?

NOTHING

SO STFU
towerdave

join:2002-01-16
O Fallon, IL

If nobody wants Google Fiber...

Then he nor his employers should be worried about it at all. Just let them build it and fail.

I guess we'll see if nobody wants it when they get to the end of their "rally" and start rolling it out.

TD

See 9 replies to this post
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

Not so Odd Couple

I understand that Scott and Craig Moffett spend a lot of quality time together.

09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

Why does it matter what Comcast or Verizon are doing?

So why should this matter for Kansas City what Verizon and Comcast are doing when AT&T and Time Warner are the local incumbents for that market?

This is as bad as saying that Kansas City doesn't need 1 Gbps because 1 Gbps is already available from Bahnhof in Sweden.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

registrations will tell the tale..

the community (kansas city) wanted it so badly, so now they have to put up or shut up with acutal uptake rates.. which means 90% or more taking the internt or internet + tv package.. vs the subidized 5mbit plan..

IMO, $70 is a bit steep for most budgets.. that kinda moves into dual play services (price range) for many consumers.. yet it's just internet.. so yeah, I'd rather see a $35 512 mbit plan.. that's enough for me to start.... lol

See 9 replies to this post

moddestmike

join:2009-01-26
Houston, TX

MA in Public Affairs

The guy has a masters in Public Affairs and has literally spent his last few years basing Google. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD SOLICIT SUCH A PERSON TO WRITE ARTICLES FOR THEM!!!

»scottcleland.com/

He has ZERO industry experience!

Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

It seem so apparent now..

Stupid makes money.

HaloFans

join:2006-12-18

Re: It seem so apparent now..

No wonder there are so many management issues for many businesses.

Fire all the hard workers. Hire incompetence at lower salaries and no benefits.

Profit.
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

Re: It seem so apparent now..

and you wonder why are gov sucks at doing its job.....

RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1

Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid
»history1900s.about.com/od/1970s/···town.htm
xsquid40

join:2010-03-18
Staunton, IL

Up To clause

Should we be concerned that there is an "Up To 1 gigabit upload and download speed" disclaimer on the Google Fiber website?

How much oversubscription will there be?
tim tim tim

join:2010-08-14
Lutz, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Bright House

Re: Up To clause

That was my question in it. If there deploying a Gpon system like fios has done in most markets, how are they going to have multiple users split on it and not have issues. I can only assume that your not really ever going to see the full gig up or down unless nobody else happens to be on.

Im sure they will still be pushing several hundred mpbs at most times (depending on over subscription) but I don't foresee the whole gig that there advertising

Just like the poster above who said he was able to test it at 750 Mbps. Still impressive and the speed-test site itself may be limiting but its not even deployed and there not seeing the gig yet.

Saturday, 25-May 09:23:32 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.