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!

Google Announces Plans, Pricing For Kansas City Fiber Network

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the ok-but-austin-soon-ok? dept.

Google 263

Kiyyik writes "Google just announced the details behind their inaugural fiber optic service in Kansas City. They're doing a set of packages including $120/month for tv plus internet, $75/month for internet alone, and regular 'conventional' internet for a one time $300 fee. Rollouts are starting in the central areas and will work their way out on a demand basis: at least ten percent of a neighborhood must sign up for the service before Google will come in and start hanging fiber." Update: 07/26 22:04 GMT by T : Nick Kolakowski points out at GeekNet's Slash Cloud that this Google will probably hinge future developments on how well the Kansas City push works.

cancel ×

263 comments

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

For some reason (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781371)

I thought the whole point of the competition (that had cities hysterically renaming themselves "Google") was that residents were going to get broadband service for free, or at least at a sharp discount compared to what the robber barron Baby Bells and CATV operators were offering.

Re:For some reason (4, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40781449)

From the article:

...And people who want much slower but conventional broadband can get it for free if they pay a $300 connection fee.

You only pay if you want gigabit speeds. And it's the same price as a 50/25 FiOS connection, so that seems pretty fair to me. Of course, even my 50/25 FiOS is far faster than what most servers seem able to deliver, so it's unlikely to make much difference unless you're planning to host a reasonably heavy server...

Re:For some reason (3, Insightful)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#40781729)

it's unlikely to make much difference unless you're planning to host a reasonably heavy server

For bandwidth, yes, but there's a big advantage in having such a surplus: you don't have to do aggressive QOS to prevent latency spikes and loss. Wanna game while someone else watches Netflix? No problem.

Re:For some reason (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#40781881)

Exactly, but not just limited to gaming.

With more and more content being aimed at internet delivery, 75 bucks a month is not unreasonable for a small business that needs a lot of feeds, (bars) or families that do a lot on line. Small web service companies can develop and host for their customers. I can see a lot of people going in for this even at home, but especially for small business that does anything on line.

Re:For some reason (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781957)

You like so many others are confusing QoS with traffic shaping. QoS is good - done right. If done improperly, its bad. Traffic shaping, on the other hand, is generally what causes complaints - frequently baselessly.

QoS, for example, ensures my SSH packets are delivered on a timely basis and that it doesn't wund up waiting behind the packets of my neighbor's torrents. In theory, my neighbor still gets his bandwidth, but his packet latency will be slightly higher; which is still perfectly acceptable for that type of traffic. That's a good thing. QoS is all about QUALITY of transport. Traffic shaping, on the other hand, is all about restricting some for the benefit of others. That's different.

Re:For some reason (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40782495)

QoS, for example, ensures my SSH packets are delivered on a timely basis and that it doesn't wund up waiting behind the packets of my neighbor's torrents. In theory, my neighbor still gets his bandwidth, but his packet latency will be slightly higher; which is still perfectly acceptable for that type of traffic.

This is a valid correction, but the GP's point holds regardless. Given sufficient bandwidth, QoS is as unnecessary as traffic shaping. Your SSH packet -- or, more importantly, my VOIP packet -- may end up waiting behind the neighbor's torrent packet, but since his 1500-byte torrent packet only blocks ours for 15 microseconds, who cares?

Re:For some reason (2)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#40782761)

No, I mean QoS, as in prioritizing which packets get to go first to fulfill certain delivery guarantees. Traffic shaping is a QoS technique - without help from your ISP you have to manage the receive buffer with RED or similar.

Re:For some reason (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40782257)

I've done WoW and netflix on a 6mbps connection and still had room for a slow torrent...my 50/25 seems pretty much impossible to saturate at this point.

EVIL-TOS: Not allowed to host any type of server! (5, Informative)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#40782503)

"so it's unlikely to make much difference unless you're planning to host a reasonably heavy server..."

Good Luck With That-

-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com] [google.com]

Re:For some reason (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40781483)

Nope, the point was to get gigabit internet out there, for a sharp discount compared to non-existent gigabit connection from other companies (and also cheaper than their 50 mbps plans)

Re:For some reason (3, Insightful)

Mitsoid (837831) | about 2 years ago | (#40781869)

Would your grandmother/parents/other non-techie friends pay $9/month for internet if it was a 3 year agreement paid up front from a fairly reputable (as in not likely going under) company?

My grandfather paid $15/month for dial up, I'll wager Google is giving these $300 customers more then 56Kbps even if they throttle them..
I pay over $50 a month for FiOS and I don't even get over 30 Mbps.. If i wanted gigabit speeds I could not even request it from FiOS... and their plans hit $300/month without hitting *half* this service... I'd say the pricing is great

I think right now servers & computers will be the bottleneck... Unless you're writing your download to a SSD or RAID array... you barely can handle a 1 Gbps write (quick math, 1Gbps = ~125MB/s)

Re:For some reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781981)

You'd think with your UID you'd be old enough to know that a "RAID array" makes no god damn sense except in the literal sense of the word.

Re:For some reason (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40782137)

You could argue that a RAID 10 is a "RAID array" - it's an array of two arrays. It's also typically faster than a loan disk so it makes a tiny bit of sense for his example.

Re:For some reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782229)

You'd think with your UID you'd be old enough to know that a "RAID array" makes no god damn sense except in the literal sense of the word.

You must not have realized that he was talking about a multidimensional array. An array of arrays. Think of it like disks[arraynum][disknum]. He's referring to an array containing several Redundant Arrays of Independent Disks.

Re:For some reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782403)

Refer to the last eight words of my post. I already made that joke.

Re:For some reason (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#40782669)

'Sup dog, heard you like arrays. I put an array in your array, so you could have some arrays while you array!

Re:For some reason (5, Funny)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 years ago | (#40782389)

You'd think someone who's so adamant about RAID terminology wouldn't be complaining about redundancy.

Re:For some reason (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 2 years ago | (#40782281)

I think right now servers & computers will be the bottleneck... Unless you're writing your download to a SSD or RAID array... you barely can handle a 1 Gbps write (quick math, 1Gbps = ~125MB/s)

Haven't benchmarked a system recently, have you? SATA 1 is capable of up to 1.5GBit/s, SATA 2 3GBit/s, and SATA 3 6GBit/s. There *are* drives out there which can sustain this.. some consumer class SATA3 SSD's can sustain 550 MB/s write speed.

Quite aside from that, modern computers are being built with signficantly more RAM than earlier systems, too. My desktop was under $1000 and it's got 16GB of memory. Who cares what speed the hard drive is when you can download a large file to memory and commit it to the disk later? While I'm sure that files downloaded off the Internet will continue to get larger, there's very little on the 'net right now which would tax a system with a decent amount of memory. (though I happen to have an ADATA S510, which is a fairly cheap SSD but still has no problem keeping up with a 125MB/s write speed).

Re:For some reason (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 2 years ago | (#40782623)

The person you quoted made it clear they were not talking about SSDs.

Re:For some reason (1)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | about 2 years ago | (#40782697)

SATA bus speeds don't really mean anything about actual disk performance, but I can tell you a current generation 3 TB 7200 RPM SATA drive can exceed well over 150 MB/s sequential writes, and I see one for $150 on Newegg right now. I've even see a 2.5 inch 1TB drive hit 125 MB/s. Really the only trouble I see is how fast I could fill up 3 TB on a gigabit link :)

Re:For some reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782053)

I thought the whole point of the competition (that had cities hysterically renaming themselves "Google") was that residents were going to get broadband service for free, or at least at a sharp discount compared to what the robber barron Baby Bells and CATV operators were offering.

No, that's not what was said. From the Google official blog in February of 2010, "We plan to offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html

Unusual Pricing (1)

in10se (472253) | about 2 years ago | (#40781379)

Those prices seem unusually high, although depending on what "conventional" internet is, a one time fee of $300 for broadband internet access sounds tempting.

Re:Unusual Pricing (5, Funny)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about 2 years ago | (#40781455)

You can't put a price on faster porn.

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

ogar572 (531320) | about 2 years ago | (#40781991)

You cant argue against that.

Re:Unusual Pricing (4, Insightful)

twohands (2443766) | about 2 years ago | (#40781461)

well, Verizon charges, what, $200 per month for 300 Mb/s FiOS? I'd say what Google's offering is a pretty good deal.

Re:Unusual Pricing (5, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#40781465)

Those prices could be competitive, depending on what's being offered. $120 for TV+internet - if it's comparable to Direct TV I'd hop all over it.

What I really want is a good competitor to bring some pain to the existing providers who overcharge, underserve, and have no incentive to lower prices. And that includes content makers like Viacom. I hope Google succeeds.

Re:Unusual Pricing (3, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 2 years ago | (#40781885)

No, it's not comparable to DirecTV. Most of your DirecTV bill goes to the content providers, not DirecTV.

So with this being only $50 for the TV part you'll get fewer channels. It won't be DirecTV's selection, but it might still be worth $50. Heck I know a lot of people who would rather have fewer channels and only pay $50.

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40782141)

>>>with this being only $50 for the TV part you'll get fewer channels. It won't be DirecTV's selection

Maybe... maybe not. Dish TV gives hundreds of channels for only $35/month so can't really assume there will be less selection for GoogleTV at $50.

Hundreds; Yeah, right. (1)

PetiePooo (606423) | about 2 years ago | (#40782373)

Dish TV gives hundreds of channels for only $35/month...

Half of the channels Dish gives you for that price are ones that they should be paying you for. There's a whole swath of channels along the likes of QVC, HSN, etc. I'd pay a little more not to have to sift through them while I'm looking for actual content...

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

lobosrul (1001813) | about 2 years ago | (#40782337)

No, it's not comparable to DirecTV. Most of your DirecTV bill goes to the content providers, not DirecTV.

Does it really? http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/ [allthingsd.com] I totaled every channel in the left column at about $19, the other 3 can't be more than $10 altogether. Once you get HD service for a couple of TV's and your promo pricing expires your looking at around $90 with D*. Of course that price list is an average of what cable/DBS services pay. But if anything Directv pays less. If google is just looking to break even on TV cost as a bonus to their fiber service they could very easily offer a large number of channels for $50/month.

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781477)

High?! For gigabit? I pay $112/mo for Comcast to give me 20mbps down and 1mbps up. I'd take $37 less/mo for ten times more speed.

Re:Unusual Pricing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781479)

Those prices seem unusually high...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Unusual Pricing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781495)

$75 --> 7.5 cents/Megabit

Comcast: $50 for 30Mb I believe? --> $1.77/Megabit

Re:Unusual Pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781891)

$50 per month will get you 0Mb at Comcast, not 30Mb. I was paying $75/month for 12Mb (or was it 6Mb - I forget).

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

BurfCurse (937117) | about 2 years ago | (#40782285)

Agreed, I'm paying $70 + tax for 20 MB, internet only.

Re:Unusual Pricing (3, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40782205)

I'm paying $45/mo for 10/2mbit from Time Warner - that comes to about $4.50/mbit for download speeds. Factor in that the upload speed is even crappier...

Re:Unusual Pricing (5, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 2 years ago | (#40781517)

Where exactly have you seen prices for 1Gbps Internet access that make $70/month seem high?

Re:Unusual Pricing (4, Funny)

Whatanut (203397) | about 2 years ago | (#40781907)

Well, sure. $70/month isn't bad at all. But $75!? Come on! That's an outrage!

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

prestonmichaelh (773400) | about 2 years ago | (#40781567)

Those prices seem unusually high, although depending on what "conventional" internet is, a one time fee of $300 for broadband internet access sounds tempting.

Where do you live? My choices where I live are Verizon Fios or local Cable co. I have Verizon's cheapest Internet only plan, it is 15/5 and is $55 a month. Their next plan up is 25/10 and is $75 a month. The local cable co is basically the same pricing, but aren't quite as fast. Gigabit for $70 sounds like a good deal to me. I would even take the 5/1 for free

Re:Unusual Pricing (2)

intrico (100334) | about 2 years ago | (#40781587)

*You* seem high, if you really think that those prices seem high for the speeds that they are offering, compared to existing service offerings here in the USA.

Re:Unusual Pricing (1)

gparent (1242548) | about 2 years ago | (#40782009)

Where the fuck do you live, Japan?

Re:Unusual Pricing (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782633)

The one time fee internet looks like it's 5Mbits down/1Mbit up.

https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/

I'm going to... (4, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#40781407)

Kansas City, Kansas City here I come.
They got some crazy strands of fiber there and I'm a gonna get me some!

Re:I'm going to... (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | about 2 years ago | (#40781971)

We almost got that here. But our leaders turned down a 20 million RUSS grant that would have given this given this to a sizable rural area.

Would be nice for family guys (3)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40781421)

If there were a half dozen people in my house, all plugged in, it might be worth it. But I'm paying 1/3 as much and even with all three computers streaming radio and TV and torrents, it's still plenty fast for me.

Not enough to get me to move to KC.

Re:Would be nice for family guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781497)

Lucky you, I would take this option any day. We pay ~$60 for ~60GB from the "main" telecoms in canada

Re:Would be nice for family guys (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#40781767)

The $75/month will get you a 50/10Mb connection over here with no caps or such soonish depending on where in what city you're in. 200/30 will run you $140.

Re:Would be nice for family guys (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#40782299)

$75/mo gets me 50/25 in RI (FiOS)...and it actually tests higher, at 56/28

Hope it lights a fire... (4, Interesting)

MetricT (128876) | about 2 years ago | (#40781475)

under either incumbant ISP's or our politicians. Lack of widespread broadband isn't a technical problem. It's purely political.

I posted this on Slashdot months ago:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2497294&cid=37860766 [slashdot.org]

Since it's election season, I posed a question about broadband availability to the 10 candidates for our local state representative. Only 3 responded, and... Outside of Google lighting a fire, my parents are literally going to die of old age before they get broadband.

http://www.mathewbinkley.org/?p=392 [mathewbinkley.org]

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40781699)

>>>No cable. Their house doesn't have cable coax.
>>>No cell. The valley effectively blocks all signals.
>>>No satellite. They don't have line-of-sight

Instead of expecting others solve your problem,
you should solve the problem yourself.

Your parents CHOSE to live in a rural area...... presumably because they like it there. Well with choices come consequences and tradeoffs. They get a beautiful area to live, but no highspeed. Oh well. When *I* wanted internet I moved away from the Amish country & closer to Baltimore and got it. Therefore if I were them I would move out of the valley to a hill that can receive free TV, satellite, cellular service. Or better yet: Into the city where there's plenty of services for elders (like almost-free bus & train transport).

In the meantime there's always dialup. It costs me $7/month through isp.netscape.com and works with websites, streaming radio, and even youtube (download first, then watch). They can use that if they voluntarily choose to remain where they are.

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40782273)

I come from a rural area... people that wanted cable actual moved to the hills on either side of the valley where it was even more rural (and almost impossible to leave for half the winter), but they got satellite signal damnit. They also went through quite a few dishes thanks to lightning.

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40781827)

Oh and in your other post you said we are 35th in speeds. False. According to speedtest.net the U.S. and E.U. as equal in speeds (~12 Mbit/s average). They are tied for 3rd place behind Korea and Japan, but ahead of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Australia, India, and China.

In other words both the Americans and Europeans are first-world civilizations with first-world rankings (near the top).

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (1)

Admiral_Grinder (830562) | about 2 years ago | (#40782041)

I don't think that speedtest.net is a reliable source for that information. First, only the people paying for the fast speeds are the ones using it to verify, and second, how does the same person rerunning tests affect the statistics?

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40782287)

>>>First, only the people paying for the fast speeds are the ones using it to verify,

I used it on both my slow-speed 56k dialup and 750k DSL so your presumption is false. And rerunning the test simply stores additional data for each person. Anyway I have yet to find a more-reliable source than speedtest, since it measures actual connections from billions of tests. No other organization has done that.

   

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (2)

LordNimon (85072) | about 2 years ago | (#40782617)

I used it on both my slow-speed 56k dialup and 750k DSL so your presumption is false.

The plural of anecdote is not data. It makes sense that disproportionally fewer people with slow Internet connections use speedtest.net. Just because you, a single person, do not conform to that profile, that does not mean that the common-sense argument is invalid.

Re:Hope it lights a fire... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782527)

I live in Europe, and I can say it's because the Europe went down in ratings, not the others went up.

My ISP, the largest in my town, and in 40% major towns in the country was bought by an American company that cut up rates, nationally and internationally while raising prices.

Hanging Fiber? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781481)

They're not burying the cables? Is wind not a problem out there? I thought they had tornadoes...

Re:Hanging Fiber? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40781765)

They do. But a tornado bad enough to knock out the fiber will knock out the power long before (and the phone lines, since they are being run on the same poles). The power is, for residential customers, the bigger issue (not much point in gigabit Internet if your computer, modem, and WiFi are all down as well).

More importantly, hanging is a lot cheaper than burying.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781775)

Pfft, its Google. They will just post massive text ads taking them to porn sites. Tornadoes sure do love a sucking.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40781843)

They're not burying the cables? Is wind not a problem out there? I thought they had tornadoes...

Not so much in the city, especially downtown KC. You do get a fair amount of straightline winds coming out of Kansas, but again, the large footprint of KC suburbs help defray the winds significantly before they hit the city proper.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (1)

Admiral_Grinder (830562) | about 2 years ago | (#40782087)

Sure, but tornadoes have this nasty habit of taking out your subscribers houses along with your poles.

No only if they would string up temp lines in the after math while they dig a new trench, but then the housing contractors will just dig it back up

Re:Hanging Fiber? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#40782343)

No only if they would string up temp lines in the after math while they dig a new trench, but then the housing contractors will just dig it back up

Don't worry, The trench guys will get 'em back when they nick someone's buried gas line and blow up a house or apartment building. They'll be using the same bad utility maps as the builders, after all.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#40782319)

Cities tend to deter tornadoes - all the buildings shape the wind. Also, burying is many times more expensive than stringing it - you can replace it a number of times before you approach the cost of burying it once.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (2)

Stephenmg (265369) | about 2 years ago | (#40782733)

Not true, the odds are a lot lower because cities tend to take up a lot less space then farm land and small towns.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (5, Informative)

Spectre (1685) | about 2 years ago | (#40782715)

They're not burying the cables? Is wind not a problem out there? I thought they had tornadoes...

Kansas City resident here ... and a fairly old one to boot.

Tornadoes happen, but each tornado affects a relatively small area. I was a tornado spotter in my youth (yes, we actually train volunteers to do this in "Tornado Alley"), and I've only seen three tornadoes in my life, despite actively looking for them when conditions are favorable to their formation. This is why there are plenty of 100+ year old homes in the area ... the likelihood of a tornado hitting a specific location in any given year is very low.

Kansas City itself is somewhat protected by the "urban heat bubble" effect - the Kansas City metropolitan area is a bit more prone to heat lightning, but less prone to tornadoes than the more rural surrounding areas.

As for just plain old wind ... lines on poles and the poles themselves easily handle the fairly routine wind gusts of up to 35mph. Storms might have 45mph winds, which usually is also fine. On rare occasions wind speeds are higher than that, like last week's storms to the north of Kansas City that had 90mph winds ... those storms will knock out wire-on-pole services to neighborhoods, but having your internet service disrupted for a few days isn't much of a problem since more than likely your power would be out as well for the same period of time.

Re:Hanging Fiber? (1)

Stephenmg (265369) | about 2 years ago | (#40782779)

Its a lot cheaper and quicker to repair a break in areal fiber then buried cables. Easier to find the break and no holes to dig. City of Kansas City has cut our fiber twice in one summer.

I'd still stick with DSL (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40781511)

$15/month is a lot smaller than $75/month. Maybe that's why we haven't seen more fiber installations... people not willing to pay the cost. Sooooo how did Google get permission to install fiber w/o getting sued by KC's local monopolies (Verizon and Comcast)??

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781711)

Google had to go shopping for upstream providers to prep for running fiber to KC... I imagine Google could by the same method kill them in the area if they wanted to. So, Verizon and Comcast are the weak ones in that respect.

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#40781761)

Depends on what that $300 "Conventional" Broadband Internet gets you. If it's like the lowest tier of DSL your $15/month you're looking at what? 180 per year vs 300 for Life. I just wish I knew what "Conventional" Broadband Internet would get me.

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40782025)

Yeah $300 flat rate would be better. I've had high-speed for 4 years now so google's plan would have cost me ~$6/month. I suspect this plan is a loss-leader for google, similar to how Xbox worked for Microsoft. It's a way to establish themselves in a new market.

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (2)

Adaeniel (1315637) | about 2 years ago | (#40782135)

The lowest tier with the google fiber connection is 5D/1U. It's in tiny print when you click on the plan.

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40782253)

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40782291)

Sorry. Forgot the scale Google is introducing here. 5Mbps down, 1Mbps up. Plenty respectable for $300 for 7 years.

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782657)

$15/mo really means $30/mo with "Fees"

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | about 2 years ago | (#40781935)

Sooooo how did Google get permission to install fiber w/o getting sued by KC's local monopolies (Verizon and Comcast)??

I'm not sure. Is the tactic of "sue your competitors out of the market" limited strictly to mobile devices and software patents?

Re:I'd still stick with DSL (2)

ReverendLoki (663861) | about 2 years ago | (#40782803)

It's mostly Time Warner they are competing with here.. hey, and guess who's channels are missing from the initial line up of offerings?

Consider the cheapest option, though... $300 upfront (or $25/month for 1 year - hey, free financing!) for 7 years of 5down/1up. That comes out to $3/month for better than DSL speeds (at least last I checked, which has been a while...)

Tor discussion forums! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781543)

We need an official Tor discussion forum.

        I didn't see this issue mentioned in Roger's *latest* notes post, so for now, mature adults should visit and post at one or both of these unofficial tor discussion forums, these tinyurl's will take you to:

        ** HackBB:
        http://www.tinyurl.com/hackbbonion [tinyurl.com]

        ** Onion Forum 2.0
        http://www.tinyurl.com/onionforum2 [tinyurl.com]

        Each tinyurl link will take you to a hidden service discussion forum. Tor is required to visit these links, even though they appear to be on the open web, they will lead you to .onion sites.

        I know the Tor developers can do better, but how many years are we to wait?

        Caution: some topics may be disturbing. You should be eighteen years or older. I recommend you disable images in your browser when viewing these two forums[1] and only enabling them if you are posting a message, but still be careful! Disable javascript and cookies, too.

        If you prefer to visit the hidden services directly, bypassing the tinyurl service:

        HackBB: (directly)
        http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/ [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion]

        Onion Forum 2.0: (directly)
        http://65bgvta7yos3sce5.onion/ [65bgvta7yos3sce5.onion]

        The tinyurl links are provided as a simple means of memorizing the hidden services via a link shortening service (tinyurl.com).

        [1]: Because any content can be posted! Think 4chan, for example. onionforum2 doesn't appear to be heavily moderated so be aware and take precautions.

Needs more service/pricing tiers (4, Interesting)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#40781815)

So 5/1 is free for at least 7 years (with a $300 connection fee), or pay $70/month for 1000/1000.

What if I need more than 5 Mbps down but less than 1000 and I don't want to pay $70/month? Even 50/10 would be awesome!

Re:Needs more service/pricing tiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782507)

That's 5/5 free.

How is this really helping the world? (4, Insightful)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#40781831)

$75/mo just for internet seems steep for most people. And very few who really need 1G can't afford it. It's not like the relatively piddle amount of money it's saving them is going to induce a massive wave of job creation.

Now if it were 100Mb for $25 that would be more news worthy in my opinion.

Re:How is this really helping the world? (1)

Thundaaa Struk (1375331) | about 2 years ago | (#40781961)

On the bright side, my zombie computer will be able to communicate with it's C&C server in China much quicker!!

Re:How is this really helping the world? (5, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#40782185)

What it's doing for the world is introducing a competitor to the ISP oligopoly that actually has the muscle to not be stomped on. When people start seeing how cheap it actually is to provide broadband (after all, the $300 is to cover the infrastructure installation - after that it's FREE), it might light a fire under AT&T, Comcast, etc. to actually start playing by the rules of capitalism again.

Re:How is this really helping the world? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#40782505)

Having worked in a NOC before, I can tell you that it's not free at any point. Things break... a lot. Fiber makes things a lot more reliable. But they still break. What happens when a fire truck knocks down your fiber trunk? You're going to charge the City $500k for the repair? So then they have to lay off a few firemen... and now you have a public relations nightmare? No way... so you just suck it up and pay for it yourself.

You know how many Fiber trunks we lost because some un-insured drunk drove their car into a pole, the car caught fire and torched the pole, the fiber and the power line? You think they had insurance? Or even if they did, that they had enough to cover that kind of bill?

I applaud Googles attempt here, but they can't charge nothing, it's just not going to work.

Re:How is this really helping the world? (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40782637)

I applaud Googles attempt here, but they can't charge nothing, it's just not going to work.

As long as they can get enough customers buying the Gb or the Gb+TV, those will fund keeping the bits flowing. With the infrastructure in place, the cost to provide 5 Mb connections to the rest is basically nil.

Re:How is this really helping the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782589)

Umm, if you NEED 1G you damn well can afford it.

Re:How is this really helping the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782735)

$75/mo just for internet seems steep for most people. And very few who really need 1G can't afford it. It's not like the relatively piddle amount of money it's saving them is going to induce a massive wave of job creation.

Now if it were 100Mb for $25 that would be more news worthy in my opinion.

It's 5 Mbit down, 5Mbit up for free, with a $300 installation fee. The $75 is if you want gigabit.

Why not wholesale it as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40781921)

Gcpud.org/zipp

Local county pud has been stringing fiber to the home past decade. (Back of house is a smart bridge). From there cat 5 or whatever to back of your computer.

The gcpud simply whole sales bandwidth for carriers. Problem is some carriers still think 25gb is more than enough for a whole month data transfer. Google could wholesale to other companies that use the base service like tv, voice and such.

I do like the one time connect fee for basic internet, but I also know they are mostlikely monitoring/loging that traffic

I see google's advantage of a better head end and path to the net portal.

piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782147)

So what practical advantage will there be to 1Gbps? Crazy fast bittorrent? 15mbps fast enough for even the highest quality streaming data. It seems like if people can download a movie in less than a minute, piracy will go up significantly. MPAA can't like this.

Re:piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782435)

15mbps fast enough for even the highest quality streaming data.

LOL, i've got 15mbit uverse and SD-quality streaming sites stutter if steam decides to update while I'm watching. There will always be a need for more bandwidth.

Also, netflix alone uses more bandwidth than bittorrent in general.

holy crap is that expensive by EUROstandards ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#40782255)

what happened to the US?

Re:holy crap is that expensive by EUROstandards .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782687)

The corporations have bought the government and they setup monopolies or work together if there is 'competition'.

Re:holy crap is that expensive by EUROstandards .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782783)

Depends where you live in EUROpe.

The 6 months I spend in Belgium was among the worst of my life for internet usage because of data caps. In a house with 9 people you blow through any limit in the first 10 days and spend the rest of the month of 56K speeds. My mother-in-law's (German) DSL can barely handle Skype. I don't know what either was paying for their service, but considering the way most Europeans on Slashdot talk about Europe not only as a singular uniform entity as though Bulgaria and France are identical but it always seems to be the one who are doing the best (Swedes talking about how Europeans have free Gbps fiber at every street corner paid for with rainbows) who comment and never the ones lagging behind.

I want this now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782295)

Bring this to Antioch, IL and I am in for the $120 a month.

Not allowed to host any type of server- EPIC FAIL (2)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#40782441)

-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

Re:Not allowed to host any type of server- EPIC FA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782529)

Nice to know that net neutrality is alive and well...

Pretty please, OKC next!! (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#40782569)

Oklahoma city next pretty please!

And actually I think it's a good strategy to start out here in places like OKC and KC. Just a mile or two outside both cities and you can't get anything but dialup, and the cable comapnies (cox in okc) have been loathe to invest in the infrastructure cause it would take too long to get a return.

they ignore the fact that once they dig the wires once, its cheaper the time around cause they can just fish new wire through existing conduit and not dig all new lines.. .. of course that too is thinking too far ahead for them. they'd probably use just barely big enugh conduit the first time cause its cheaper in the short term, thus needing all new bigger ones down the road.

so please google, even if you don't come here next, at least do it right the first time and dont play this same "only short term matters" game.

More on the TV side? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#40782659)

Like what are the pricing and packaging?

Box costs / fees?

They seem to have a 8 tuner main box and that should be fine for most home use but for some Business use they may need to have more let's say down the road they get NFL ticket that by it self + rezone can take up all 8. Even with just NBA LP and NHL CI can take up 8 or more. Hotels 8 is way to small.

Will they use the pre compressed comcast HITS® (Headend In The Sky) system or feed in channel on there own like dish and direct do?

Will they offer the indemad PPV evnets and sports or do it on there own? Att-U-verse has more HD slots for NBA LP. Directv has more HD feeds for MLB EI, NHL CI and NBA LP. Dish, Att-U-verse and directv have 2 or more HD events slots indemad only has 1. If Google does it on there own will they have CBC HD, and all Rogers feeds + leaf's tv + TSN , TSN 2, TSN JETS and TSN HABS? for NHL CI?

Will they have all BIG TEN HD alt / game feeds? Directv does.

Will you all the same in market sports that you get on directv as they get the St. Louis Blues and Royals with all plus feeds?

IPv6 (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 years ago | (#40782691)

I did not see any mention of it will it be supported from day one?

What BANDWIDTH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782751)

I read through the linked article, and it doesn't even GIVE ME THE BANDWIDTH NUMBER ... incredible.

With free google snooping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40782815)

I assume that this, especially at the free/$300 one time tier, will come with the same snooping/indexing that all of Google's other services offer. Why would I want to pay Google so that they can have access to all of my internet traffic, instead of just the part I do using Google properties?

Don't forget, at Google, you are the product.

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>