
Google’s fiber effect: Fuel for a broadband explosion - prlin
http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-fiber-effect-fuel-for-a-broadband-explosion/
======
niels_olson
> AT&T and local cable operator Grande Communications have beaten Google to
> market

Oh, gee, look at all this bandwidth I just found...

> AT&T maintains it has been planning this fiber upgrade for a long time, and
> that Google's announcement didn't affect the timing of its network.

No, no, we planned this all along...

> What Google recognized that others didn't is that Americans want to have the
> best communications infrastructure

Yes, as it turns out study after study showing Americans were fiercely proud
of being in 15th place, may have suffered some sort of statistical vagaries.
We're looking into it.

~~~
notatoad
yeah, and it's just a total coincidence that AT&T's upgrades that they've been
"planning all along" are only in the cities that google announces Fibre in.

~~~
jrockway
AT&T, maybe, but Time Warner recently doubled speeds in NYC for free. The
announcement was rather silent; I noticed downloads being faster, did a speed
test, and had to search for information about it. A couple months later, I got
a little card in the mail about it.

100Mbps isn't 1000Mbps, but I'll take it.

~~~
higherpurpose
TWC definitely did it because of Google Fiber, too. They started doing this
right around the time Google made it clear it's not just an "experiment"
anymore, and they were starting to get a lot of media attention.

I strongly urge people that if they have to choose between Google Fiber and
AT&T or Comcast or any of these other guys who've frustrated you for years and
couldn't care less about you until Google Fiber arrived, to dump them
_immediately_ and go with Google Fiber anyway, even they are matching speeds
and prices by then.

They don't deserve you as a customer anymore, and they wouldn't have given you
this speed were it not for Google Fiber. So Google Fiber deserves to be
rewarded with customers because of that, and Comcast/TWC/AT&T _does not_.

If Google Fiber isn't rewarded with customers for its fiber expansion, then it
might die, and then what do you think will happen then? Comcast/etc will go
back to their shitty services once again and not care one bit about upgrading
anymore, and we'll be in the same situation we are now 5-10 years from now, or
perhaps much worse if there's no net neutrality anymore, and all the current
telco cartel boys get to bully small start-ups without any fear of any real
competition that might _not_ do that, and without having to risk losing
customers again. That's why you should quit them immediately.

~~~
mhurron
What has Google done to deserve you as a customer. What in the data gathering
they do now makes it a good deal to expand their view of you?

The only thing that makes Google different in this situation is they haven't
pissed you off yet.

No I would not be getting Google Fiber when/if it showed up, but I don't live
anywhere where it would any time soon, if ever.

~~~
coldpie
> What has Google done to deserve you as a customer[?]

Introduced competition into a market that had none. That's worthy of a switch
in my opinion.

~~~
mhurron
There was a time that the cable companies did that. Then everything converged
to a new normal.

I don't buy into the Google worship. They are a corporation like any other and
act like one. When switching to Google Fiber means ubiquitous Google data
collection, I don't see it as a positive thing.

I suppose if you have the memory of a goldfish Google fiber is great as huge
speed bump.

~~~
mercnet
Sadly, I would take data collection w/fiber over Comcast anyway. If I want
protection than I can just purchase a VPN account.

------
dingaling
The case-study with which the article starts isn't a particularly good example
of a reason for upgrading to fibre-based connectivity: latency doesn't care
whether your connection is 1Gbps or 1 Mbps.

There might be a slight improvement given that routers and switches aling the
way have to operate faster to handle gigabit switching but in the UK the there
have been complaints that VDSL interleaving ( which can't be turned-off )
actually raised latency above their ADSL levels.

~~~
pcl
I was wondering the same thing. I'm not much of a gamer these days, but back
when I played a lot of LMCTF, it was all about latency (and the offhand
grapple). Have game engines gotten so much worse that bandwidth is now an
issue, or is this just artistic license?

~~~
evadne
It’s all assets. For example, an average Team Fortress 2 map is 50MB, and
servers can push new maps to clients when they connect.

Lag compensation [1] does not compensate for lost kills, unfortunately, and I
bet people still uniformly complain about bad net code nowadays.

[1]
[https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation](https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Lag_compensation)

~~~
gizmo686
How common is it to need to load a new map, as apposed to downloading the map
once then caching it for future use?

~~~
evadne
Not frequently. Competitive players loathe new maps ;)

------
baweaver
> customers don't need that kind of speed.

Sure they don't, they also don't need bluray or terabyte hdds either... Should
be rephrased to 'We hope customers don't realize they can use that type of
speed.'

~~~
xhrpost
Yup. That argument tends to bug me a bit. It's not that users don't need it,
but more that they can't use it because they don't have it. I'd love to backup
all my computers to the secure encrypted cloud with something like Backblaze.
But, with 2mbps upload, I'm looking at like a month of straight upload time.
If I had gig or even 100Mbps upstream, there would be no question here, I'd
get to it. For now though, someone can argue "Oh look, you don't need gig
because you're not even using your 2 meg all the time". Umm, yea, there's a
reason I'm not using it all the time.

------
pwarner
Verizon never gets enough credit for their fiber roll out. Sure they don't
offer 1Gbps, but they laid fiber so they can hit those speeds when the time is
right. And until then 50 or 100Mbps over fiber is a lot better than 20Mbps
over DSL. Not just in the speed department but in terms of latency and
consistency. DSL does amazing things but is just at greater risk of
interference. My DSL seems to trane at different speeds each day. Fiber is
just a much better medium, things don't get too weird until you want greater
than 100 Gbps per wavelength.

Disclosure: I wrote some of the software for the early hardware behind FiOS
back 10 years ago or so. Wow FiOS has been out there for a long time. Also I
am old.

~~~
lotsofpulp
...what fiber roll out? As far as I know, they did some token fiber
installations, but the vast, vast majority will never get it. In fact, from
what I've read, they took the subsidies for fiber, and used it to build out
their metered wireless network.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizo...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140424/06185027014/verizon-
knows-youre-sucker-takes-taxpayer-subsidies-broadband-doesnt-deliver-lobbies-
to-drop-requirements.shtml)

[http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_town...](http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2014/03/hopewell_township_and_cumberland_county_officials_say_verizon_is_reneging_on_fios_promise_to_new_jer.html)

~~~
pwarner
Depends how you define token? They have about 5 million subscribers on FTTH.
Supposedly passing 18M houses.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS#Stable_footprint_.282010-present.29)

Note: I was focused on them being technical leaders. Which they were. I make
no endorsement of their business practices. Also they were not the first to
FTTH in the US or not the world, just the first big mover in the US.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Sorry, I was talking about the huge about-face they did once smartphones
became popular and they realized there were much larger profit margins to be
had in the wireless industry, so basically started shutting down expansion of
fiber internet.

~~~
yuhong
I think Ivan Seidenberg was fired because of short term returns on FiOS being
low.

------
sreya
As awesome as it is to see Google kick the regional monopolies into upgrading,
it's really a lack of competition that's stifling both modern connection
speeds and reasonable prices. Prices for the ridiculously named "Gigapower"
are undoubtedly going to go increase repeatedly over time if Fiber backs out
since it has achieved what it wants. Competition would have the opposite
effect.

Or better yet, why not treat ISPs as utilities. Could anyone offer insight as
to why internet in this day and age is not regulated like electricity or other
utilities?

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
_Could anyone offer insight as to why internet in this day and age is not
regulated like electricity or other utilities?_

This was the obvious solution after the telecom act of '96\. Many experts in
the field said so much at the time. But the telecoms dug their heels, broke
the law by locking out people from the DSLAMS, and used disinformation and
lobbying to get the FCC to say it was O.K. to have a telecom-cable duopoly.
This was also around the time that telecoms did everything they could, at the
state level, to prevent cities from offering free city-wide internet [1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Controversy)

------
floody-berry
> The mere promise of Google Fiber seems to be enough to send rivals
> scrambling to deliver ultrafast Internet service at a reasonable price.

We have a TWC connection 2000m outside of Google Fiber availability that's
been disconnecting up to 10-20 times a day for months that says some rivals
just don't give a shit. The disconnections are only mildly more annoying than
the constant spiking and pl that had been going on for a year or so..

------
phreeza
Google is extremely good at commoditizing their complement. A whole lot of
their strategy makes sense in this light: Android, "Project Ara"/Phoneblocks,
Chromebooks, Google Fiber.

Good read on the subject:
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html)

~~~
wes-exp
This strategy makes sense when we are talking about actual commodities that
are interchangeable, like gasoline, but the effects are a lot more ambiguous
when we are talking about unique inputs to a business like technology.

As an example, consider the current topic of broadband. In theory net
neutrality is beneficial in terms of keeping costs down. This is beneficial
for web companies. However, consider that without net neutrality, broadband
providers have additional business models available that increase overall
revenue. This additional revenue can help drive broadband R&D, which in turn
could actually benefit web companies in the long run.

Making technology cheaper is good in the short run, but in the long run it may
interfere with innovation, which benefits from things not being cheap, but
actually profitable to produce.

------
sysop073
He was spending $208/month for 20Mbps? What the hell is going on in Austin?

~~~
wmf
U-Verse is "triple play" so he probably had phone(s), TV(s), and Internet.

~~~
axaxs
This is stll ridiculous pricing. I pay something like 120 a month for tv, hbo
included, and 30 mbps internet. Unless he has every station on earth, he's
being overcharged,

~~~
area51org
I'm paying ~$300/mo for TV (HBO etc), phone (no long distance charges) and
~$35/mbit Internet connection. It's a rip-off, of course. But since there's no
real competition (U-Verse?!) I have no choice. Meanwhile, the cable industry
is reducing potential for competition (Time-Warner merging with Comcast).

~~~
talmand
There's always a choice. You can always choose to disconnect one or two of
those.

~~~
area51org
That's a non-choice. A _choice_ would mean being able to choose between a
variety of competing services with good offerings. Disconnecting is not a
realistic choice.

------
noxxten
Just out of curiosity, I checked Virgin's prices in the UK. In my area
(Kentucky, US) my ISP options are AT&T DSL and Comcast cable internet. I'm
paying for the cheapest internet plan offered by comcast $45 for 25Mb down.
The MOST EXPENSIVE plan offered by Virgin for £37.50 gets 152Mb down.

~~~
jpadkins
UK is much more dense than Kentucky. Really hard to compare prices like that.

~~~
martinald
I disagree. The US has already built all this cable and telecom infrastructure
(only ~50% of the UK has access to cable, which is way lower than the US).

The expensive part - digging the road and laying the physical cable - is
already done, and was done 30+ years ago in many cases. These assets have been
paid for.

The high internet prices in the US are down to terrible regulation. While
there are many things that the EU hasn't done well, it has really nailed
telecom (both fixed and cellular) regulation.

------
jmsduran
Living in Austin, I've been closely following news related to Google Fiber's
rollout throughout the city. The two big providers here, TWC and AT&T, are
still doing business as usual. TWC has promised increased speeds by summer
2014, but as a TWC customer myself I cannot help but view their announcement
with a fair bit of skepticism [1].

Interestingly enough, Grande Communications has actually beat Google with
regards to being the first company to actually start offering/installing fiber
services within the city limits [2]. Granted, their fiber offerings are
limited to a small subset of people living in downtown/west Austin, but it's
progress nonetheless.

Google has been incredibly tight-lipped about their fiber rollout. To this
day, there have not been any official announcements since their initial
unveiling 1 year ago. But from small news pieces I can find online, it seems
their service launch has been delayed to 'later this year' (compared to the
summer 2014 date they originally gave) [3]. Last, performing a search of
permits files by Google for fiber construction reveals that their initial
rollout/offering will be exclusively to south Austin residents (south of Lake
Austin) [4].

[1] [http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-
cable...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/aha-time-warner-cable-ups-
austin-broadband-speeds-as-google-fiber-looms.html)

[2] [http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-
internet/](http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/)

[3] [https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-
lau...](https://gigaom.com/2014/04/08/google-delays-austin-fiber-launch-plans-
and-offers-a-look-at-future-service-areas/)

[4]
[https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q....](https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q.kpvawAIdVCMA)

------
jimmcslim
Great, can Google Fiber take a serious look at our market in Australia: the
current chumps running the country seem to be taking backward steps with the
previous government's (admittedly ambitious) plans for a National Broadband
Network every day.

~~~
brc
You do realise the previous government of chumps passed a law making it
_illegal for Google to create Fiber in Australia_ even if they decided they
wanted to?

The NBN is the worst policy idea to hit the Australian tech industry, ever. I
doubt there will be one worse. It has already wreaked a trail of destruction
and slowed down adoption of high speeds, it will continue to do so for at
least the next 5 years, until some future government finally sells the scraps
and turns it over to private companies, as it should have done from the get-
go.

We had a grandiose government scheme announced 7 years ago. 7 Years down the
track, private investment is forbidden, none of the Telcos have made any
additional investment, existing infrastructure is being torn up. And the
number of people passed by the new system is less than what a decent football
stadium will hold, but they are $15 billion spent already. The forecast cast
has progressed beyond $65 billion, but any number you hear is just finger-in-
the-wind anyway.

It's fashionable - very fashionable- to love on the NBN, but it is a terrible,
terrible idea. Fibre? great. Government owned communications monopoly with
grandiose promises and an army of people and advertising, but little actual
rollout.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

You think I'm being partisan? No. I would have opposed the idea no matter
which party put it up. You've only got to look at various transport projects
which are endlessly promised, re-promised, and then re-re-promised when a PR
opportunity is ready. The Redcliffe rail link has been promised for _100
years_ now.

If you want fast speeds, then you need competition. Just like this article
says. Not a quasi government department full of paper shuffling. Please kill
the NBN and invite Google over. Give them tax money if necessary, but
dismantle a nationalised communications network, stat.

~~~
yincrash
It's interesting to see posts on this topic about turning the Internet into a
utility, then see your post about how Australia seemed to try that and failed.

~~~
brc
Utilities can be privately owned. Indeed, many power stations and transmission
lines are privately owned. It should be a utility, it just shouldn't be owned
by the government. Australia would have to be the only country in the 21st
century trying to actively _undo_ Telecommunications privatization by re-
nationalizing the telecoms infrastructure. It's like all the 'baby bells'
getting reformed into the Mama Bell, and all the new entrants being told they
are now only retailers of a fixed price plan. It's nuts. But you'll never hear
criticism from most Australian tech people because they fervently hold out
hope that it's all going to happen and they'll get affordable high speed
broadband. Just like people grow old and die hoping their highway will get
upgraded or their town will finally get connected by a train line.

The problem with government ownership (and particularly with the NBN) is that
the focus of the organization transfers from cost-effective rollout to
political points and favors. Those regions which supported the previous
government were given priority for the rollout, despite them being areas of
poor commercial return. The lack of return from early customers compromises
the cashflow of the organization. Because the technology was selected with a
one-size-fits-all approach - madness in a country the size of the USA with the
population of the Greater NY area - commercial consideration was again
ignored, right down to paying $11 billion to an existing Telco to pull up
working HFC in existing areas.

Definitely a plan is needed - the original case was for the government to lay
down the backbone in Fiber and let the Telcos complete the costly last mile in
whatever worked best. But this didn't fit the grand 5-year plan so beloved of
committed central planners so it was expanded to a FTTN vision - famously
undercosted, underestimated and underperforming.

The result is a disgusting mess that nobody wants to own up to, and meanwhile,
I'm sitting here with the exact same crappy connection that was here 10 years
ago, and no progress because _committee this_ and _study that_. Politically
I'm in the wrong area, and the existing Telcos aren't going to upgrade my line
because it's only going to get torn up and replaced (supposedly) sometime
soon. They aren't even allowed to advertise 4G mobile as a competitor to the
NBN because the government needs every single person on board to have a hope
of making a $50 or 60 billion white elephant look remotely commercial.

------
gonzo
I live in Austin.

I have Grande _and_ AT&T fiber to my house. I have service from Grande. AT&T
won't sell me their 300Mbps service.

When Google comes, Grande is dropped like a hot rock.

------
lettergram
I can't seem to find the article right now, but Google said their intent with
Google Fiber was to prove it is possible. Further, to then force other
companies to improve their service.

They seem to be on that second point and it seems to be working well.

------
talmand
What I want to know is when does everyone start to realize that if one can get
service of 1Gbps for around $70 and not just from Google, why does existing
much slower service cost almost as much or more than that?

------
nshepperd
I suppose this just goes to show that internet infrastructure is a natural
monopoly and it takes a company with $400 billion market cap to disrupt the
market and create actual competition.

------
izzydata
I'll believe it when there is any better available service. I even live in a
location where google fiber was announced, but so far it is just nothing.

------
aleksandrm
I used to have a 3Mbit DSL connection from AT&T, I have now switched to a
6Mbit DSL connection from a local provider (who is using same wires). Sure,
I'd love more speed, although I've grown to cope with the lack of it. I am
just appalled at the prices. And now all of a sudden they are offering 1Gbps
connections; if they like tiers so much, why not offer something "slower" for
a cheaper price, I'd be more than happy to have a 50Mbit connection, do
consumers REALLY need 1Gbps?

And what's up with San Francisco disliking fiber so much?

~~~
martinald
NIMBYism. No-one wants the street cabinets which contain the routers and what
not on their street corner and are doing everything in their power to block
them. Result = terrible internet speeds.

------
objnotdefined
This is definitely a thing. Here's a link from my friend in Kansas, and how
Comcast is preparing for it already:

[http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3479092379](http://www.speedtest.net/my-
result/3479092379)

Incredible what happens when you get a little competition!

~~~
pwarner
A reasonable article on how cable companies can respond.

[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-
co...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/why-comcast-and-
other-cable-isps-arent-selling-you-gigabit-internet/)

tl;dr: by using more spectrum in the coax cable can get pretty fast... So
pressure from Google should get them to crank up the speed sooner than later.

~~~
ihsw
As mentioned in the article, this requires a DOCSIS 3.0+ modem, and there are
costs to rolling out equipment. Cranking up the speed isn't simply a matter of
turning the dial on their end.

However you are correct that coaxial cable has plenty of room for improvement
with a cost that pales in comparison to rolling out FTTH.

