

Google Fiber problems become more evident - alnis
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/google-fiber-problems-become-more-evident/

======
breckinloggins
> Yes, the digital divide that people thought was out there really exists:
> People in low-income neighborhoods in Kansas City and Kansas City, Kan.,
> aren’t signing up for faster Internet service. And that’s despite aggressive
> publicity and the fact Google is offering a pretty low-cost version of its
> service to people.

It's disturbing to hear this, but not surprising. People in low-income areas
tend to be less educated, right? If that's the case, then it stands to reason
that you are going to have to educate them on the benefits. I don't think "omg
this is superfast!" is the kind of education we need here. If I'm a lower
income guy with a family and I get a flyer about "Google Fiber", I might
think:

\- I pay $19.99/mo for DSL/cable. Seems fast enough to me, why go through all
this hassle?

\- I don't see a lot of sports mentioned. I'm not switching to something
without ESPN and lots of football on the weekends! (I'm not being mean here.
This is in fact THE reason I haven't "cut the cord" and gone streaming only.)

\- That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but,
again, why is this thing _so much better_ than what I already have?

\- Is there going to be a credit check? (this is a big reason the "poor" might
like to keep what they already have. Getting signed up for services of any
kind when you have bad or non-existent credit is an exercise in frustration,
humiliation, and "security deposits". Once you finally get the damned cable
hooked up, why would you want to go through that again?)

~~~
ktsmith
> \- That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but,
> again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have?

If you are getting the free tier you can pay the one time fee in monthly
installments of $25. One thing to consider about low income neighborhoods is
not that people have $19.99/mo DSL/Cable and are happy with it, but that they
may have NO internet connection at all because $20/mo is food money. My wife
teaches in a low income neighborhood with a very high rate of homelessness and
most of her students have no computer and those that do typically don't have
internet access.

~~~
breckinloggins
And yet they probably have power and running water. I can foresee a day when
internet access (of some speed) is seen as a basic utility and society would
no more tolerate entire neighborhoods of homes without internet access than we
would an entire neighborhood of homes without electricity.

That will be a good day.

------
bishnu
Is there any evidence to go along with any of this dude's claims? He makes
three points:

Point 1 isn't about Google fiber. Point 2 has been self-evident since the day
the product was announced. Point 3 is incorrect. Google's promise on wiring
public libraries and schools has never changed.

Crap article. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, not on Fiber).

------
lumberjack
Why would a low income household want to pay $120 a month for Google Fibre
when they might be getting by on $20 for a cable connection?

Yes you get more bang for you buck but what possible applications of high
speed internet could justify $100 more a month?

In my opinion Google Fiber is being marketed to the common people prematurely.
There is no clear justification for it yet unless I'm missing something?!

~~~
mdwrigh2
You can also pay $25/month for a year, and then get free internet for the next
6 years after that (5/1 mbps I believe).

------
steelaz
Why nobody is mentioning free internet service (for households not public
buildings)? You pay $25/month for 12 months (or $300 one time fee) and then
it's free. Wouldn't it make sense for low-income family?

~~~
mwctahoe
IF the family had $300 in disposable income to spend then yes, but if you are
living paycheck to paycheck and have little to no savings that $300 is a lot
of food for the family or is going to keep the lights on for a few more
months. Many are probably aware that it is a good deal in the long term but if
that investment makes you late on the rent or gets the power shut off then it
isn't worth it.

~~~
greyfade
$25/mo is a lot easier to manage and justify, especially since it's a
guarantee of free access for _at least_ 6 years past the last payment.

------
davycro
I agree with the author that people in low income areas do not care about high
speed internet access. In my experiences developing healthcare software for
people living in South African townships, people in these areas get along just
fine with feature-phones. Feature-phones are easy to use. They allow people to
check Facebook, email, and chat. This covers 99% of their needs so they have
little motivation to purchase a computer, figure out how to use it, and then
pay the money (which they do not have) for monthly internet.

There is hope however. People here love smartphones only they cannot afford
them. If Google wants to provide internet and computer access to people in
low-income areas, then I suggest they create an Android phone that costs less
than $50 and can be used on a pre-paid voice and data plan. After this I
suggest they create an affordable tablet.

Also, it is surprising how few people have the technical capacity to
understand the amazing ness of Google Fiber. When it was released I shared it
with my friend who studies medicine at Yale. My friend did not even understand
or care about the difference between a 1Gb/s internet connection and a 1Mb/s.
He thought the internet was fast enough as it is.

------
hobonumber1
Can someone explain why Fibre isn't being released in Silicon Valley first,
where they would almost certainly find buyers? If its a case of scaling it up,
they could release it community by community, couldn't they?

~~~
prostoalex
A bunch of Bay Area cities applied, judging from this map
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/next-steps-for-our-
ex...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/next-steps-for-our-experimental-
fiber.html) but maybe releasing it in Bay Area first would provide a distorted
impression that everybody is bananas about fiber access and willing to pay
through the roof to get it.

~~~
jseliger
California also has a notoriously difficult regulatory climate. It might be
easier to start the process somewhere else, where permitting and other
requirements are favorable.

------
wisty
If Google are smart but evil they'll discriminate a lot, then force the
government to sweeten the deal (which isn't crazy, given it's arguably the
government's responsibility to provide infrastructure to the poor).

~~~
harpastum
Discriminate? They are giving people the opportunity to sign up for their
service, and bringing connectivity to those that want it.

I don't see why Google should be forced to support users that don't want to
pay for their service, unless it was part of their original deal with Kansas
City (which I expect it wasn't).

~~~
curiouscats
Discriminate doesn't mean being bad. People get confused with English having
several definitions of discriminate some being bad socially (like
discriminating against people because of their ethnicity). If Google choses to
discriminate based on neighborhood interest that is a sound economic decision.

The tricky political issue (in this particular instance) is if there is a
correlation between the neighborhoods choosing to participate and ethnicity
and Google ends up running fiber to a bunch of white neighborhoods and not to
a bunch of African American neighborhoods.

If the rich white neighborhoods all decided it wasn't worth it no one would
care if Google didn't run fiber to them. Most social scientists would say the
issue of poor not having access is a concern that society should care about.
But if there isn't an ethnicity component I doubt it has any political "heat."

If I was Google and the poor neighborhoods were too underrepresented I would
likely create a some system to make it easier for at least some lower income
areas to get fiber. This is all a bigger game plan for Google - not really an
attempt to get rich off KC. I, and I believe Google, thinks fiber to everyone
is good. It might be Google can't afford to do that given the real economic
conditions. Even in that case hook some up, provided data for the government
to decide if it is a social need worth funding (if it doesn't end up working
without government help).

Google wants to find a solution that shows what they did in KC can be done
across the country. If it is just for the rich 15% that doesn't help Google
much. They want to find a solution that works to get fiber, at reasonable
prices, with net neutrality to a huge portions of the USA (certainly above
70%).

If they need to tweak their starting plan I am pretty sure they will do so.
They are pretty smart most of the time though, they do behave idiotically at
times. Like how horrible their help systems are still (they can't organize
even just the information they create to help people use software they write
even today).

------
hastur
I can hear this guy talking. But is he saying anything?

