Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pittsburgh, Seattle Announce Interest In Google's Fiber Trial

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ooh-ooh-pick-me-pick-me dept.

Networking 144

An anonymous reader contributes a link to a press release from the mayor of Pittsburgh that says the city has announced, along with Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh, that it intends to respond to Google's 1Gbps FTTH (Fiber to the Home) request for information. Seattle's mayor, too, wants in on the action, and more cities will surely pile on.

cancel ×

144 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ac announces interest in first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130650)

rob malda announces interest in eating out my asshole (I'm 12)

Pittsburgh Tuxes (1, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130666)

Pittsburgh Tuxes will certainly welcome this service, provided that the modem won't be a winmodem.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (2, Informative)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130860)

The east half of Seattle (Redmond and neighboring) can get Verizon FiOS, but over here in Ballard and other parts on the West side there's nothing faster than Comcast. *Someone* building out infrastructure would be nice.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (3, Interesting)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131524)

I think you mean the east side and north end of Puget Sound but yeah. Last I heard, Qwest refused to do a fiber rollout and threatened lawsuits if the city did their own. When they finally started offering faster tiers they called it "fiber-like" speeds. Now, in a higher-end neighborhood in Seattle, the fastest DSL available is 1.5M/768k and even then it's rarely that fast.

Qwest upper management is a bunch of asshats that cares only about milking every last dollar they can out of their infrastructure.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132232)

Now, in a higher-end neighborhood in Seattle, the fastest DSL available is 1.5M/768k and even then it's rarely that fast.

For someone claiming to not be a third world country, you do wonderful impressions. Here in Norway about 10% of the households have fiber now and it's growing rapidly, I think the most optimistic claim I saw was 35% by 2015. About 80% have broadband, with an average download speed of 5.7 Mbit/s and a median speed of 3.4 Mbit/s. That's in a country that is more sparesly populated than the US and where Seattle is bigger than our biggest city.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132876)

Those coming late to high speed actually have an advantage - there is not the existing infrastructure to still pay off, nor the first adopter costs rolled in. It is also easiest to deal with midsize cities than big cities for this sort of thing - it is better to have density, but not dense enough that anywhere you dig, you hit pipes/wires (see New York). Norway may have less density, but it has pockets of high density. The US seems to favor sprawl rather than villages.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133288)

And, this kind of thing makes me want to cry. The "greatest nation on earth" has come to mean "the easiest place in the world to build a monopoly with which to rape the consumer".

You would think that since Al Gore invented the interwebz, he would have more interest in seeing it properly developed in his home country. But, no, he's off diddling the world with his global warming nonsense instead.

Does anyone stop to think that if the government required the telcos to build that last mile to every home in America, the unemployment rates would go down some? It takes warm bodies to do the grunt work - many of which are drawing unemployment right now.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132920)

Jesus. The average speed in the Bangkok suburbs is now up to 1.5Mb [youtube.com] (Your page won't show this unless you're in my area), and I've got 12Mb to my condo. I can't believe that Seatlle, being IT business-centered and all, can't do better than what you've described.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133206)

Washington is a weird state. They recognized the value of fiber infrastrucure early because they had DOE projects (notably Hanford) that were well served by operators who were confident the nuclear fuel wouldn't kill them. That meant high bandwidth low latency connections to different points.

And then there's I-5. Washington has this international path that threads from California to Canada. I was there when they buried the fiber optic cables under I5 - they're bundles as thick as your leg. Seattle does not lack bandwidth - and they have their own peering point.

They're not even new to this - Grays Harbor county on the coast and Grant county in the center had programs that resulted in 100-1000gbps service (for many years now!) to the customers before Comcast and AT&T shut down expansion of the projects. They have the bandwidth, but they can't afford the lawyers. It's sick when that prevents progress. Maybe Google can help us here.

We had a law to allow Public Utility Districts to resell bandwidth to ISPs and build out fiber networks from the proceeds, but Comcast and QWest killed it.

Bring on the Google! I'm sure they know how to do this in a way that does not prevent progres!

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (2, Insightful)

PaulMeigh (1277544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132120)

Please do not refer to Redmond as the east half of Seattle. They are Redmond. We are Seattle. Redmond sucks. Seattle doesn't. and so on..

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (5, Informative)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132164)

The Seattle Metro Area is well covered by Clearwire 4G WiMax. It will beat the pants off of anything DSL does. And for you, it's buying local (Kirkland) and helping to keep local geeks like me employed. And the back bone of the system; I can't say much but (NDA) but trust me, FAT PIPE.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132878)

Yeah Clearwire. I love Clearwire. I especially love the 250ms pings. Inconsistent bandwidth and largely unreliable uptime which seems to cut out every time a plane flies over--which in seattle means just about every plane landing at SeaTac it seams.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132900)

Are you talking 3G or WiMax? WiMax RTT is rather spiffy.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133040)

Have you actually tried Clearwire? I haven't tried them in the last year or so but every single person I know that's tried Clearwire (about 4 or 5) quit. It's better than 3G where it's available but it's not better than DSL.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133160)

I leave Monday to St. Louis to commission the Clear WiMax data center there. The Clear system is being built out at a fantastic rate. Don't confuse the 3G with the 4G WiMax. Unthrottled the WiMax USB dongle will pull 14Mb/s down, and that in a car doing 60MPH. And to stay with the subject line, Pittsburgh should be up sometime this summer. I understand that there are some 21,000 radio sites to turn-up this year. It will keep me very busy.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (2, Informative)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133218)

Again though. Have you ever actually tried USING the service? With 10 users in a prime location it probably works great. My second hand experience with Wimax is that it's better than 3G but significantly worse than crappy DSL.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

IronChef (164482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133068)

Kirkland, represent!

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133172)

And not just any Kirkland, Carillon Point.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (1)

mikestew (1483105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133084)

I'm a loss to think of a single person I know who has tried Clearwire and stuck with it. Horrible latency and uptime, with bandwidth that often didn't beat DSL at all, and the half dozen or so folks I know that tried it went back to whatever provider they hated so much before.

I want Clearwire to succeed as an alternative to the half-assed providers offered in Puget Sound (Verizon FioS excepted, but I'm sure they'll find a way to piss me off, too), but Clearwire's customers haven't exactly been offering ringing endorsements.

Re:Pittsburgh Tuxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132792)

I'm all for this as long as it is King County wide. Given that I live in a rural part of King County that would allow me to get off Comcast's damn network!

Please?

Pretty please?

They w (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130672)

Troy in upstate NY announced the same on Thursday. http://troyrecord.com/articles/2010/02/12/news/doc4b74e2cd9e36e314599627.txt

I bet they'll receive tens of thousands of applications in the coming weeks.

tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (5, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130992)

I bet they'll receive tens of thousands of applications in the coming weeks.

And guess what comes next? A reverse-competitive bidding process, whereby various cities write off their taxes on both the profits and the capital equipment, waive requirements like community access programs, and more- just to get google to give them fiber-to-the-home, something that has no proven public benefit. Which is idiotic- I don't want my tax dollars used to fund capital expenditures for corporations!

Anyone else a little more than slightly freaked out by this move? Google now encompasses search, email, instant messaging, calendaring, social networking, blogging (both content production and reading), cellular and telephone services, online payment, and now actual last-mile services? What's left?

Why does it feel like in 10 years we'll be calling it The Gnet, not the Internet?

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (3, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131094)

And guess what comes after that? Total zombification. That's right, the inevitable result of good internet access from Google and your astutely-prophecized inevitable tax writeoffs will be cuts in our regulatory systems that will introduce zombifying chemicals in ordinary tapwater, leaving entire cities of people clawing each other in search of brains to devour. Oh, if only we hadn't squandered that tax money! If only our mayors had been able to resist the lure of faster internet! This is the end!

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (3, Interesting)

log0n (18224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131112)

Not particularly freaked no.. they haven't been evil thus far. Belief in online privacy is naive and I trust Google far more than I do Verizon, Comcast, etc etc.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (4, Interesting)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131160)

Oh, come on. It's not like Google has anything close to a monopoly on any of those services. I understand people (rightly!) getting upset over privacy issues with using Google services but acting like Google is taking over the internet is just silly. They don't own the backbones and they don't even create much content. They mostly stick with ways to find and view content and they are not even close to being the only way to find or view that content online (excluding maybe Google Books).

ISPs/telecoms in the high-speed internet business, for the most part, have regional monopoly or duopolies in the US. I also believe a lot of their intrastructure was promoted in some way by government tax benefits or funding. With that said what's the problem with Google testing the waters to see if they could potentially become a competitor without getting bulldozed from incumbents? Do you really think anytime in the near future Google is going to be able to drive out multiple entrenched companies that are, lets face it, much larger monetarily?

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131566)

ISPs/telecoms in the high-speed internet business, for the most part, have regional monopoly or duopolies in the US. I also believe a lot of their intrastructure was promoted in some way by government tax benefits or funding.

A lot of businesses won't build [infrastructure] unless they get some government tax benefits or funding.

Example: I don't recall the last time I heard about a stadium or convention center getting built without [city] putting up taxpayer dollars or passing a law to give them a tax break.

I only use those two because they're the easiest for most people to google since the process usually receives endless local news coverage. Factories are also waaaay up on the tax break & subsidy food chain.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (3, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131718)

"They don't own the backbones"

Have you been paying attention to how much dark fiber Google owns? They're probably BUILDING THEIR OWN BACKBONES. I most certainly would if I bought up that vast amount of unlit fiber.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131952)

They are going to light up that dark fiber with high power lasers and fry all the fiber transceivers in the country.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132504)

That's the thing. Google is becoming the man in the middle.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132936)

If by "man in the middle," you mean "common carrier, then yeah, that's what they're doing. They're going to provide access to this fiber to competitors in order to increase competition.

Google's long-term goal is to make high-speed Internet access ubiquitous so that Google can make more money on ads. As far as I can tell, Google doesn't want to own any market except Internet advertising.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131300)

We will just continue to call it Google, like we do now... The internet you speak of hasn't existed for a while now.

But seriously, City taxes on profits and capital equipment? Those would have to exist before they could be written off. And how exactly is Google's offering to put in gigabit fiber to the home using your tax dollars to fund capital expenditures for corporations?

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131640)

When "free market" (not that it's actually free... but hey, at least there's "competition") has failed repeatedly for decades, a competent monopoly with a proven track record is more than welcome.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (2, Insightful)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131650)

And guess what comes next? A reverse-competitive bidding process, whereby various cities write off their taxes on both the profits and the capital equipment, waive requirements like community access programs, and more- just to get google to give them fiber-to-the-home, something that has no proven public benefit. Which is idiotic- I don't want my tax dollars used to fund capital expenditures for corporations!

Anyone else a little more than slightly freaked out by this move? Google now encompasses search, email, instant messaging, calendaring, social networking, blogging (both content production and reading), cellular and telephone services, online payment, and now actual last-mile services? What's left?

Why does it feel like in 10 years we'll be calling it The Gnet, not the Internet?

*hands a tinfoil hat to SuperBanana*

That's called diversification and is a sound business strategy. I think Google's just doing good business by having a finger in lots of pies.

As an IT consultant for many small businesses in Seattle, I can say a service like this is sorely needed. There is simply too little choice at far too high a price right now. This is the third pipe we've needed for quite some time in order to break the back of the current broadband oligarchy. This is clearly in the public interest.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131748)

It's more vertical integration than diversification.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (2, Insightful)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131996)

You worry about Google taking your data when with current regulations all ISP's take your info just the same without any more benefit to you. Google has proven one thing, information is valuable, you think all the ISP's with privacy laws being as they are wouldn't sell some logs for cash? We have passed the point where privacy is anticipated and that is the fault of the public but at least with google you know it's going to happen, then again they have the same thing but better service. It is up to everyone to want privacy on the Internet but for now you reap what you sow, you let them say your privacy is not a concern and the largest ROI goes to the largest ISP(they collect the most stats) so new ones don't get much backing. We've got ourselves into the lesser of evils mind set and don't act on the idea we the public decide what happens, this leads to things like this. Google is buying up fiber because they are worried current ISP's will charge per "service" (video, VOIP, audio, etc) and screw them over on a very large scale, so it's worth it i guess. Google's service will likely be the best because it's in their best interest to be the best and on the plus side they have the money and the know-how to make it happen.

As far as "Gnet" is concerned Google has the position now to make people switch and no one wants to be left out (ISP's or consumers) of Google's search. Wires can be bought, sold, dug up, and laid down the only thing that will change that is our opinion ;)

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132654)

What the hell are you talking about?

FTTH has an immense public benefit. With competitive fiber infrastructure, you don't need to rip up the streets for a hundred years, and anything anybody wants to provide over it, they can. Compared to the closed-off coax, and slightly less closed-off copper telephone wire, this is an immense improvement. Or do you not see the benefit in crazy fast, reasonably priced data? Half of what people do in their homes is data, from internet to phone to TV. It's all the same stuff, and if you can deal with vast quantities of it...

This alone justifies all sorts of tax credits. But then think of business! Pittsburgh is already highly-connected, but gigabit connections are datacenter-grade stuff. Basically nobody has it. What kinds of businesses could benefit from affordable, crazy-fast internet? If I wanted to open a small architectural firm that needed to transfer gigabytes of files, I'd be doing it in one of these cities.

Yes, the privacy considerations are significant. I won't argue that, though I don't think snooping on this is Google's intent. I think they figure the more people can access their new and novel services, the better - and the best way to do that is to make FTTH happen themselves. IOW, the goal is not to scan the traffic. Their best bet would be to spin off this FTTH stuff as a separate company.

Look. Us geeks need to be the ones calling out Google on privacy stuff, mostly because nobody else seems interested and we can't let the world forget. But I simply can't see how this can be anything but highly beneficial for any city Google touches.

Re:tax dollars for corporate capital expenditures (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133210)

The US as a whole; when it comes to internet access, is a 2nd or even 3rd world country. The stranglehold of AT&T and the like, has stunted the infrastructure development, both for tethered Internet access, as well as for mobile telecommunications (there are a lot of things broken in the US mobile phone policies and networks). For once, you have the opportunity to leapfrog over your Internet dark ages - I say don't waste it.

Re:They w (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132230)

Seriously, though, who wouldn't want Google to roll out fiber in their city? Even if they already have Verizon FIOS, why wouldn't you want competition?

I'm in NYC and can't get decent Internet to save my life. There don't seem to be many places in the country where the Internet doesn't stink, and Google's talking about 1Gbps? Of course they're going to get a lot of applications.

After Comcast, (1, Interesting)

perlhacker14 (1056902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130698)

After the overpriced and only moderately reliable service from them, I can only hope that this will be better, if it is implemented. The speeds sound nice, at least.

Re:After Comcast, (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131140)

Wait for Comcast to sue Google just as they sued the cities, just because they intended to build their own net. (For what? Deprivation from their monopoly? I don’t know.)

They will sue Google at least long enough, to stall things, until they got something ready and bribed their way into the city taking their offer instead.

Man, I hope I’m wrong. It hurts my heart to see a fellow geek without at least 10 Mb/s downstream. :/

Re:After Comcast, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131242)

Comcast currently offers 50mbit downstream, and is planning to roll out 100(possibly 100/100) under the xfinity name.

Re:After Comcast, (2, Funny)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131734)

"Wait for Comcast to sue Google"

Ha! Hahahahahahaha!

Google would bury Comcast with their entire team of Ph.D lawyers, whereas Comcast's vast majority barely have their Master's.

Thanks for the laugh!

Re:After Comcast, (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132636)

Um, unless I'm missing something to be a lawyer you generally have to have a JD. That's JD as in Juris Doctor, and it's something that you generally need to practice law. There are a few exceptions like here in WA where you can do something akin to apprenticing as a path to being a fully fledged attorney.

Re:After Comcast, (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132940)

You're not missing anything. The parent post is a vain attempt at humor. Or a troll.

Re:After Comcast, (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133338)

You did not get it. It’s not about burying etc. It’s about it taking time. It does not matter if Google would win the lawsuit in the end. Because by then the whole deal would already be closed.

Re:After Comcast, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31133440)

Or in other words: A lawsuit DDOS.

*raises hand* (4, Funny)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130730)

Google, I too am interested in your fiber trial. Please consider my house in Wisconsin for fiber service.

Love,

Andy.

Re:*raises hand* (1)

nebopolis (953349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130830)

I'll throw in my vote for madison as well. My web dev teacher is passing out fliers to all the students!

Re:*raises hand* (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133112)

*waves antennae* Me too in my Ant Farm!

Madison jumped on too (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130784)

Madison, WI also announced a few days ago that they wanted to jump onto a trial as well. Given the density, the tech love around the area, and the fact that there is already a small Google office in town, I think there's a decent chance.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt_and_politics/city_hall/article_05071f04-1819-11df-bbef-001cc4c002e0.html

No offense-- really (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130856)

but WTF for?

why is there an office there? is it for-- i dunno, to be closer to the source on cheese futures?

Re:No offense-- really (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130948)

First, if you're going to be a smart ass, try using the correct words in your sentence. Otherwise you just give away the fact that you're an idiot right up front. Second, why say "no offense" when offence (note correct spelling) is exactly what you intended? Now everyone knows you're an idiot and a two faced liar.

Re:No offense-- really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131122)

FYI, Madison is in Wisconsin, which is a state in the United States. In American English, it is spelled 'offense'.

Re:No offense-- really (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131248)

FYI, the rules of language don't change depending on the nationality of the thing you're talking about.

Re:No offense-- really (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131698)

No they change according to the language the author is writing in, in this case given the location American English would be a good assumption.

Or in the language of the publication the writing is placed in, in this case slashdot which is American and hence American English is correct again.

Re:No offense-- really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132158)

University of Wisconsin is considered a top Computer Science department, and is actually considered the best place in the world for database and computer architecture research. Cray Supercomputer has been in Wisconsin since it was founded.

Burlington, Vermont (2, Informative)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130834)

Several citizens from Burlington, Vermont have contacted Google about this for our city. Someone on the City Council has asked the mayor to approach Google, as well. We actually already have a municipal fiber-optic network, Burlington Telecom. However, they are currently experiencing financial troubles and the City is considering bringing in an outside investor or partner. Google, if you want to come here we've already got the fiber in the ground. Let's talk ;)

Re:Burlington, Vermont (5, Informative)

vermontmcintyre (1744920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131272)

I am on the Burlington Telecom Advisory Committee and we have been discussing this amongst ourselves as well. The timing on this is advantageous and important because of the issues Bradley mentioned above. The city in general is focused on this issue, so Google has an excellent chance to make a powerful and positive impact by its mere presence here in Burlington.

Re:Burlington, Vermont (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131898)

I think Google's purpose is to roll out fiber to NEW locations that have none. Not dump money into a money losing situation so it can rubber-stamp it's name onto an existing project that should be able to take care of itself if managed correctly. Just my two cents though. Oh, and I'm from Las Vegas so I have a good feeling fiber won't be coming near this city annnnytime soon so no self-serving interest here. Hell I'm just happy Cox can keep my connection up half the time! DSL is a fat no way (100ft too far like everyone else in Vegas I know!)? And Clear's WiMax is a joke (OOooo 100ms minimum ping times because they can't route packets yay!). If THREE different companies in my area can't provide halfway decent service I'm doubting Google could pull off much better. I'm not bitter at all ^^

Duluth, MN - Technology with a happy face! (1)

micromegas (536234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130838)

Oh yes, you'll be seeing Duluth, MN in that list. Minnesota nice is even nicer with fiber-to-home. Does anyone know anything about the specifications of the proposed service?

Baltimore, MD (1)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130928)

1) Diverse community
2) Major bio-tech center
and most important:
3) Make D.C. jealous

Re:Baltimore, MD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131172)

DC wouldn't care, because at least it isn't baltimore.

Seattle, WA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132996)

1) Much much much cooler than Baltimore

Would you move to the winning city? (1)

voidstin (51561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130942)

If Seattle or Baltimore wins, I'd think about it. Seems like whoever wins will get a giant influx of nerds.

Re:Would you move to the winning city? (3, Funny)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131064)

What, not Pittsburgh?

Re:Would you move to the winning city? (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131250)

Seattle is committing hundreds of miles of in-place fiber, and access to hundreds of thousands of utility poles. If they reach out to the community for contributions of resources and subscription commitments they may not need Google to pull this off. And Seattle has a world-class Peering point [wikipedia.org] shared by All these people [seattleix.net] .

Re:Would you move to the winning city? (2, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131842)

Seattle already has 400 optic fibers between every municipal court, police station, sub station, jail and holding area. It's a pretty substantial network, and all the leg work has already been done to get it across I-5 (that's the major hurdle). Go google "Jerry Hedstrom" in the mid 1990s Network World archives. Seattle probably has more dark fiber strung across (under) highways than any other city in the nation.

Re:Would you move to the winning city? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132658)

Seattle's been adding quite a bit more lately in the downtown core as there isn't enough available dark fiber to keep up with demand. It's quite possible that there's a lot of it strung elsewhere that's not in use, but at least in downtown Seattle there isn't really any that isn't in use at the moment.

Re:Would you move to the winning city? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131758)

Seattle has plenty of nerds already.

Fast Tor Nodes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130946)

Good, I hope we see plenty of FAST google fibre Tor nodes!

Re:Fast Tor Nodes (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131712)

It would probably only take one to double your trollin AC...

Fiber to the HOME trial (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31130958)

Key word there is HOME, not business, not municipality. I also offer to be a trial at my home. FreeNet would just scream.

Municipal fiber? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31130972)

Does this count as municipal fiber, the kind that ISPs love to filibuster with absurd lawsuits?

Re:Municipal fiber? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131158)

They seem to like to filibuster small rollouts where a community could connect to *any* larger provider eg rail, power, another telco, and bypass the local monopoly/cartel.
Efforts like that could spread to other tech minded cash strapped US communities.
Google peers with the big corps and is NSA backed, so saying no to google is harder.
Would Google be a brand on the bill using local backhaul?
Or factory fresh optical door to door roll out that cuts out the local cash stream.

Seattle's Mayor? (1)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131120)

How does do you say "f*ck you Micro$oft" if you're Seattle's mayor?

"Google! Please help!"

Re:Seattle's Mayor? (2, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131658)

It would be a "fuck you" if Microsoft was offering ISP services.

As it is, I'm sure that most Microsoft employees in Seattle area would actually be quite happy with an affordable 100Mbps fiber connection to their homes, Google or not. From company's perspective, too, that would mean improved ability for employees to work from home (which isn't a rare occasion).

Re:Seattle's Mayor? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131730)

How does do you say "f*ck you Micro$oft" if you're Seattle's mayor?

I think Mayor McGinn is fine with this only as long as Google doesn't try to dig any tunnels.

(Waiting for all the non-Seattleites to mod me to oblivion...)

Re:Seattle's Mayor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132942)

I think Mayor McGinn is fine with this only as long as Google doesn't try to dig any tunnels.

(Waiting for all the non-Seattleites to mod me to oblivion...)

lol dont forget we also voted in a huge majority against the tunnel, not that Nickles and dimes gave a shit about that.

Re:Seattle's Mayor? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133258)

Well if Microsoft is pissed then they should move back from "Nevada" where "They make and sell their software" and start paying taxes.

It's a common misconception that Microsoft is a Washington based company. I know all of the employees, offices and work being done in Seattle would seem to imply that they're based in Seattle but in reality they're a P.O. Box in Nevada.

Here in Chattanooga, TN... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131168)

We've got our EPB FI service already, telephone, television and internet, so to Google I say...meh, you're too late.

Thank you once again Electric Power Board. It's so nice to have you.

And fuck you Comcast for suing over it.

fibre please (1)

HNS-I (1119771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131184)

This reminded me of a phonecall i had with a customer when i worked at an company which was isp and network operator. The guy was furious. He had moved to a newly built house and he didn't have a physical phoneline, only optic fibre. I was speechless for few second because I just couldn't comprehend this man's anger. All i could say was: "But... but you have fibre." The situation makes me laugh now. Anyway it turned out that there was no service for that net on his location. When the day comes that I have fibre coming into my home, I think I will cry of joy. It has been my dream for years now, somewhat silly maybe.

Re:fibre please (1)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133496)

When we bought a cabin in the mountains of Telemark (in Norway) 4 years ago, the local (very small: total population is the community is just 2500) power company by default gave us fiber along with the electric power cable:

http://telefiber.no/ [telefiber.no]

3 years later I had two competitors both offering fiber to my home in Oslo, currently I'm paying about $80/month (strong NOK/weak dollar) for 30/30 Mbit at home:

http://www.vikenfiber.no/ [vikenfiber.no]

Over those 4 years we've had one network outage at the cabin, lasting a day or two, and two outages at home.

The second crash (all fiber cables pulled down by an overheight lorry) lasted 8 days, so I'm getting the service free for a couple of months in compensation.

Terje

kicking ISP's in the ass (1)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131296)

Hopefully this will be similar to the wireless spectrum auction. It will just kick a few of the cheap and lazy isp's in to overdrive. Google spends a 100 million, and we get a billion worth of fiber out of fear that Google will beat them to the market. Hopefully.

Re:kicking ISP's in the ass (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131760)

billion worth of fiber out of fear that Google will beat them to the market

Yes but the problem is it will all be connected to the net via an old 486sx box running redhat 5 and ipchains unless google offers service in the area. Translation - 'speeds up to 1Gbps'. Translation of Translation - '1.5Mb/256Kb' 99.99999% of the time.

Re:kicking ISP's in the ass (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133482)

There are already billions being spent every year on new fiber. The job of making it available everywhere (or even a good chunk of everywhere) is a big one... years, maybe even a decade, away. Even places that have it, don't seem to compete well against good old DSL.. I wonder how many here even know the areas near them that have it.

The reply I received (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131480)

On expressing interest to my elected representatives. "We already have internet in this state. We don't need any more."

Re:The reply I received (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131720)

Why are you expressing interest to a state level representative about a city level thing? Or is said politician on a power trip?

Re:The reply I received (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131814)

You got a rely that wasn't a form letter? Wow! where the hell do you live?

Re:The reply I received (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131828)

Tell him that all those big trucks are not, in fact, the internet.

Re:The reply I received (1)

DeadRat4life (1638391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132848)

did he also tell you the internet is not a big truck?

Did someone say Fiber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131738)

I love Fiber in my diet too! Count me in!

I didn't read TFA did I miss something?

Australia please - we will pay you Google (1)

itsthebin (725864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132196)

I want Google to come to Australia and Engineer , Configure and Commission our NBN ( National Broadband Network )- there should be at least 40 billion AUD left in the kitty.

right now all that is happening is our luddite communications minister is handing out 500K a year non-tech jobs to his equally luddite mates.

Target Populations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132330)

The RFI documents from Google are pretty clear; they are looking for communities between 50k and 500k in population. Not sure what Seattle and Pittsburg are getting so excited about.

Publicity Stunt (1)

VDizzle (995599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132346)

What a joke this whole announcement was. Google is proclaiming that they can just dive right in and do it better than the incumbent players. 1Gbps to every house? What then, 10Gbps to every block and a $100k juniper T Series router to every neighborhood?? You still run in to aggregation bottlenecks. There is no way to make this profitable. This is just a ploy to manipulate the FCC into forcing the hand of the telco and cable companies who actually are trying to run a profitable business.

Re:Publicity Stunt (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132676)

The reason they can do it is that the people currently doing it are doing a terrible job. The point of this is that it's good for Google to have people wired with fast connections. They're in the business of selling ad space and other internet services which improve greatly with higher bandwidth connections. There's also the corporate benevolence angle which tends to help as they try to keep growing as large as possible. A positive corporate image can do wonders for keeping people from demanding anti-trust investigations and such.

If they do a halfway decent job in one city it should scare the regional monopoly players enough that they start upgrading and lowering prices to try and keep Google off their turf.

Re:Publicity Stunt (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133056)

Except that telcos routinely get money from municipalities for "modernization." The telcos then complain about increased costs while milking the customers for as much money as can be gotten away with.

Maybe Google is trying to "force the hand" of monopolies so that the customer doesn't have to suffer.

Too big? (1)

tulmad (25666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132498)

Did the miss the section of the site that says Google is looking for communities between 50,000 and 500,000 people? I'm pretty sure Pittsburgh and Seattle might be a bit larger than that.

Re:Too big? (2, Informative)

billy8988 (1049032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31132862)

Pittsburgh's population is only around 300k. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh).

Re:Too big? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31133248)

Seattle is about 600k. The greater Seattle area is a lot more but we're just talking about city residents.

Also the recently elected Seattle Mayor made a campaign promise of pushing for a municipal fiber network. So Seattle could offer to negotiate some sort of deal which shares the costs with Google if they expand their scope. If hypothetically everything went perfectly and Google hit its maximum goal exclusively inside of Seattle then the city could follow up and fill out the last 100k for much less.

Regardless of Google's actions the city of Seattle is moving to roll out fiber this would just possibly make the effort easier.

Very glad i voted McGinn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31132868)

So far he hasnt disapointed, and its only been about a month. My life pretty much consits of computers, bikes and cannabis. He has come out for legalization, hes getting us better internet, now all he has to do is make it so i dont feel like im going to die everytime i ride across the ballard bridge and ill be a happy camper.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>