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!

90 Percent of Eligible Kansas City Neighborhoods Sign Up For Google Fiber

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Google 241

puddingebola writes in with a story about how popular Google Fiber is in Kansas City. "The company wrote in a blog post yesterday that at least 180 out of 202 'fiberhoods' have already qualified for the super-high-speed Internet service. Google says that it's still processing verification requests, and should be able to hand over the final list later this week. Since bringing fiber to homes can be expensive, Google is charging each home that hopes to hook up to the service a one-time $300 construction fee."

cancel ×

241 comments

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

And... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287813)

...the fibre will be nailed to a wooden post for the next 150 years, like always in backwards America.

Re:And... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288009)

Digging is ok in most parts of the country. But lets pick a 'big city' New York. Do you have any idea how much infrastructure is under those roads already? Oh which is used and which isnt? Not so simple a task anymore is it?

How about Texas. Nice open wide spaces. Did you know there are many areas where digging involves explosives? Dig down 1-2 (sometimes more shallow) ft and you are in bedrock.

Ok lets pick the one Google picked. Kansas city. They probably can dig. So long as they do not mind the occasional boulder. The soil is fairly soft (being so close to a major river). So they probably will dig.

Or we can make wild sweeping statements like 'always in backwards America'. Those guys putting in those wires sure are stupid aren't they? Putting in wire needs to be tailored for each region. The Americas has a wildly diverse soil, rock, hilly areas. That is putting aside any sort of 'traditional way it is done in the area' and laws.

Re:And... (0, Redundant)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41288161)

In a place like New York, you shouldn't have to dig. Shouldn't there be plenty of space and pullcords in the existing conduits?

Hell, tie the fibre to the copper and yank the copper out.

Re:And... (3, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41288753)

People and businesses will not be please if they lose internet for more than a few hours. I am going to guess that yanking the backbone lines of copper out and replacing it with fiber is going to take a significant amount of time.

Re:And... (4, Informative)

cfulton (543949) | about 2 years ago | (#41288319)

They are going to use the existing power poles here in KC. It was one of the original stumbling blocks. The city is letting them use the infrastructure for less than they charge existing cable and telephone companies.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288121)

Let me guess.. you're from New York...

Re:And... (2)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about 2 years ago | (#41288159)

I don't care how it gets to me. I just wish they offered it NORTH OF THE RIVER! It doesn't make sense to not offer it north of the MO where there is a major tech company in the area who employs nerds who are all drooling over this.

Re:And... (3, Insightful)

Kiyyik (954108) | about 2 years ago | (#41288291)

I know what you mean. I'm south side, and *just* outside of the service area. I swear, I can smell the bandwidth from there. Hopefully they'll come around the other side of 71.

obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287817)

I for one welcome our new gigabit overlords.

Google can shove that fiber right up its shiny met (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287873)

al ass! It won't work people it will make bleed out your eyes and genitalia. I know because I work for a cable company.

I don't get fiber (3, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41287889)

Fiber was a big dream of perfection like 5 years ago. Now I get a 10x1Mb connection for like $30 with Time Warner and it pings at about 19ms. I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointless. Both my roommate and I can watch netflix in HD at the same time with bandwidth to spare. Even Nvidia driver download finish in like 2 minutes. I do website design quite a bit so a faster upload would be really, really nice but that doesn't apply to a whole lot of other customers out there. Giant Steam game downloads apply to a certain percentage but not even that often for hardware gamers. Is the only reason for fiber (in home personal use) p2p downloading? Because I don't see what else would be driving it other than flashy marketing meets stupid people.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287953)

Where do you live? What you're reporting absolutely does not seem to be the norm for most people in the US. For instance, here Time Warner is more like $50, and it tops out at about 4 Mb down in my testing.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41288631)

An area with around 150,000 somewhat wealthy people in Wisconsin. I think they have enough customers to run a pretty nice infrastructure at a nice price. it was 3 megabits like 7 years ago but they kept upping it. In real bandwidth tests at our old house, new house, then my new apartment, all test at exactly what they state I get too. You should move to Wisconsin lol. By the way, they now have in my area Turbo (22-28 Mb) and wideband (50+ Mb) and that's over copper with a fiber backbone so why do we need fiber for homes again? I even tested random addresses and they all qualified for wideband because it's not as location-sensitive as DSL.

Re:I don't get fiber (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287973)

Because 640kb of ram ought to be enough for anybody right?

Re:I don't get fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287987)

Fiber may not be relevant for most of the population at this very minute, but let's look ahead 5, 10, even 20 years to future needs, and consider how important it is to get a high-speed communications infrastructure built *now*. If you want further proof, look back 5, 10, 20 years, and consider just how much bandwidth and data transfer needs have increased dramatically since then: the same thing will happen going forward, and will keep happening.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

Mr. Kinky (2726685) | about 2 years ago | (#41287989)

10x 1Mb wat?

Re:I don't get fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288043)

10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up, so a 10 x 1 Mbps connection

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288455)

The usual separator there is the slash.

Re:I don't get fiber (4, Informative)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 2 years ago | (#41287991)

ohh wow.
I live in an area that gets fios, 150mbit down/ 65 up.
Sure torrents are faster. Usenet is even faster, but everything is just so much quicker. Those downloads you wait 2 minutes for? Try like 5 seconds on my end. There's really no wait time for things. I have a openvpn set up between my home and a remote location and copying things to my backup site is much quicker and faster. I can even open videos on the other site and watch them real time without having to download them. I don't really get the concept of "ohh this is enough, i don't need any more". There's always a use for more bandwidth and speed. Plus it drives the prices down due to competition. Maybe the fastest speed isn't worth the price, but you'd better bet the competition will take note and offer better deals.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288085)

but you'd better bet the competition will take note and offer better deals.

What is this "competition" that you speak of?

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#41288189)

It's all a matter of perspective. Being used to slooow speeds makes people not need more. It's simple habit. On the other hand, I pay the equivalent of 10 dollars a month for 100 mbit/s optical fiber transfer speed, at least metropolitan. Of course, downloading from external sources slows the transfer down to cca 20 mbit/s but I admit I mostly use metropolitan for heavy transfers. I sometimes transfer gigabytes of data (mostly pictures) to friends or family within the metropolitan network and it's blazing fast.

Re:I don't get fiber (5, Insightful)

Crasoose (1621969) | about 2 years ago | (#41287995)

You're a total geek and you can't figure out what to do with a better upload speed than 1Mbps? Turn in your geek card, your time has come.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41288665)

What exactly? Host a website? No static IP and I have a multi-host. Host a gaming server? All my games have better company servers. Host a Linux distro image? Why? Why would I pay more money just to do that? So nothing particularly legal comes to mind. There's not 1 single thing I can think of that fits "Oh man, if only I had a faster connection, I could..." And in case you missed it, via copper coax, Time Warner offers a 50Mb connection in my area. Why do we need fiber for home users again? Time Warner has a fiber backbone. I don't need them cutting holes in my walls to put fiber in when I can get 50Mb over a coax cable lol.

Re:I don't get fiber (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288797)

Geeks don't actually need valid economical reasons for any of this. Turn in your geek card already..

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

TCM (130219) | about 2 years ago | (#41288829)

"Total geek" my ass. Nobody uses a "10x1" notation.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41288017)

I have 25/25 and am considering going faster.

10x1mb seems slow, why would you not want to go faster?

Do you never access data from your home computers while somewhere else?

Here is what drives it:
Skype and other HD video chat, Steam and Desura and the like, Hosting your own data by yourself, legal p2p, illegal p2p, and the whole host of things that will be created to take advantage of it.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41288707)

Skype operates at their maximum allowed free account bandwidth already on my connection as far as I can tell. Steam I download a game for about 1 every 3 months tops. I don't leave my computer running while I'm gone because my room gets too hot and you know, the electrical bill and hard drive wear and tear. Anything I need to access while away is on a synced thumb drive. Keep in mind, I'm an IT manager and computer repair business owner. 99% of other people have even less need for high bandwidth than me and even I don't really need it. In case you missed my other post, Time Warner also offers 50 megabit connections for home users via copper on its premium service. Kinda tears fiber apart lol.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41288851)

Tears fiber apart?

I can get 150/150 on FIOS if I want to pay for it. That kills cable.

You sound like you are getting old, being a manager and all, you don't use as much data as younger folks like myself. I bet far more than 1% uses more data than you. Why sync a thumb drive when I can pull the data right off one of the machines at my house? With 25Mb up and 4G all around town, that is nice and fast.

I do run one computer 24x7 it is hidden away and no one can see or hear it. The $5 a month in electricity is well worth it. I do turn if off if I am going on vacation for more than a couple days or out of the country.

Re:I don't get fiber (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#41288071)

Live content requires more bandwidth, the Olympics coverage from NBC was running about 7Mbps and it was barely adequate, double the bandwidth likely would have resulted in a significantly better picture. Add to that the fact that an average household can have 4 streams going and you could easily get to 60Mbps of just video streams, and that's for today's technology. Google is mostly looking at what next generation uses may spring up when bandwidth becomes ubiquitous, think of it as a private version of Internet 2.

Re:I don't get fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288119)

It's all about future-proofing and simplifying the infrastructure. You're talking about 2x HIGHLY COMPRESSED HD video streams. Frankly, the quality of that feed is marginal. 10Mb is not even close to enough for 1080p @ Bluray bandwidths.

10x1 or even 30x10 is fast enough "right now", but will single-conductor cable be able to deliver 1Gb speeds? 10Gb? 100Gb? 10 years from now we will want/need more bandwidth, not less.

Also cable modems are band-aids for an existing infrastructure; You're switching from Fiber (most likely) to Coax to Ethernet. Sticking with Fiber-Fiber-Ethernet would be much simpler and possibly cheaper to implement and maintain.

One more big item (for me anyway): Lightning. Fiber optic simply cannot pass electricity. I have a lot of lightning suppression at my house (amateur radio) and I haven't had a single radio die due to lightning...but I've been through 5x routers, 2x TV's, 2x receiver, 3x Game consoles because the cable and/or telephone company can't seem to figure out grounding properly.

Re:I don't get fiber (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#41288133)

I wish I had it, 'cause I get it. I'm on 4M/768k DSL service - it's the fastest I can get without getting worked over by (historically unreliable, but faster) Comcast cable - those are my only two terrestrial options. I'm effectively locked out of all of the cloud services because my upstream is so slow. Even with 1Mb, your upstream makes it difficult to backup to a cloud service. I have ~250GB-300GB of data, closer to 450GB of data if you include audio, but that's months of upload time. I've done it once, then the service - LiveDrive - went down for 3 weeks and lost about 3/4 of my data. It affected how I worked, but I always keep up to date off-line copies so I didn't lose anything. Still, the thought of saturating my connections for months (and degrading VoIP and slowing down everything else we do) has kept me from getting on to other services.

Having 100/100 symmetrical (or faster) internet is nice because you're no longer waiting for data. Even at 10Mb, you're spending minutes waiting for downloads. That sounds funny for those of us who remember 300baud (or slower) modems, but there's no reason why waiting should be a given for internet. For a given price, I would rather have a 500GB cap/quota and Gb internet speed than a 4Mb line (which can download 1.2TB/mo).

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#41288171)

The question isn't whether what you have now is enough to do what you're already doing. Obviously, it's sufficient even if it could be better. The question is, what aren't you doing that you would be doing if you had a 50x50 connection? What aren't you doing that you would be doing if everyone had a 50x50 connection?

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 2 years ago | (#41288213)

I've just moved house in London, and the new place can't get cable broadband, only ADSL. We've gone from 60Mbit/s down, 3Mbit/s up, to 13Mbit/s down, something (1?) up. (There was an option of 100 down, 5 up at the old place, but it was twice the price, so we didn't bother with it.)

It's not the end of the world, and the other things about the new place (location, cost etc) make up for it. But it's going to be more annoying -- I'm going to have to go back to checking if my flatmate is gaming before starting a large download, and uploading photographs is going to take 3 times longer.

This company: https://hyperoptic.com/web/guest/home [hyperoptic.com] is doing fibre-to-the-building in the UK, but they're just starting out and don't seem to have many buildings yet. I'll sign up as soon as they do!

Re:I don't get fiber (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41288321)

Consider, streaming down 2 live HDTV mpeg streams. You're already past your max down. Now, try to have a video conference connection (even just between 2 parties) now your over your upstream capability as well.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of potential uses that never see the light of day because they're obviously impractical while people are limited to 10x1 Mbps.

For example, might it be nice if you could VPN in to work and mount the corporate fileserver directly onto your PC? That's not going to be a lot of fun at 10x1. It's annoyingly slow at 10x10 if your work with significant amounts of data.

Meanwhile, many people will just be fed up with an ISP that knows there's nowhere else for them to go.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

cfulton (543949) | about 2 years ago | (#41288367)

A total geek, but you don't see the day when fiber to the house could be necessary. A day might be coming when several 3D Billion Pixel movie streams are coming into the residential environment. Capacity will almost always be used by something.

Re:I don't get fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288477)

56k was a big dream of perfection like 5 years ago. Now I get a 28.8k connection for like $30 with CompuServe and it pings at about 100ms. I'm a total geek and even I think going any faster would be pointless.

-- Quote from you, or someone easily interchangeable with you, from around 15-20 years ago.

Or do I need to go back to how my old 1200 baud Commodore modem changed everything over the old 300 baud? I'm certain some of the REAL old-timers said the same thing back when wide-scale long-range networking over phone lines was REALLY in its infancy. They could probably tell you alllllll about how available bandwidth changes the way people think, and they'd probably have better stories than my zippy quick 300 baud modem.

Maybe we could also go back to how much smaller the US became in a big damn hurry when the Pony Express was running. Send a letter from the original colonies out to the west coast in under a week?!? Of what use is THAT? Come now, I maintain correspondence with my cousins, searching for their riches out in the gold mines, and I daresay any means of communication faster than the months it takes independent couriers to dispatch a missive to the mining towns would be preposterous and unnecessary!

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41288579)

I think the most significant thing here is is 1 Gb Upstream . The Internet's underlying technology is fundamentally peer-to-peer, but the subsequent evolution of the Internet has been firmly rooted in the assumption of clients and servers. I feel the Internet is getting too centralized. With 1 Gb upstream, you could serve a popular website or other service from your home (granted, not youtube.. but don't worry you won't be that successful :)

Now you will say, "nobody wants to do that." Ok, but why? There's no inherent reason hosting your own email server or website has to be a pain, if there were user-friendly software and hardware to do it.

Re:I don't get fiber (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41288639)

Oh crap, I just noticed a complaint below about server hosting not allowed. Now I think it is pointless.

As a point of reference, I've hosted my own ssh/website/email on my Comcast account for over 10 years without any trouble. And since they have a bandwidth cap, I figure that should settle the issue... so long as I'm within the limit why would they complain?

Re:I don't get fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288773)

2 minutes for a Nvidia driver download? lol. The point is to NOT be slow.

Google Fiber makes your Internet much more Regular (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287927)

Nuff said.... You don't want the real graphic details do you?

EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (5, Interesting)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41287935)

(my support email to google fiber-)

Hello,

I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your
current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of
any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201
which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel
services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence
connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have
communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a
more official channel. Please tell me if I've misunderstood the concept
of "Net Neutrality" or your Terms of Service. All I want is to host a
linux lamp server. I.e. web pages and files served with apache via IPv6
to other IPv6 clients on the internet. And probably I'd want to host a
quake3 server as well as other entrepreneurial servers I conceive of and
deploy due to the abundance of helpful free and open source server
software available to me.

A length debate on the subject (57 posts, 15 authors) was recently held
on the discussion forum for the Kansas Unix and Linux User's Association
(ironicly hosted on google groups rather than someone's server at home
running linux+mailman). I encourage an official response clarifying the
situation from Google.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/kulua-l/LxsOtdglNM0 [google.com]

Thanks for any feedback, Regards,

-dmc
Douglas McClendon
da...@cloudsession.com

(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.

--- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"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"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com]
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]

--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288041)

You're an idiot. Every ISP has the ToS like this. Looking at that "debate" you linked makes you look like an even bigger fool. No wonder you're unemployed and trolling the internet.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288091)

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. Indeed, pretty much every isp on the planet does have terms like that. Then they pretty much don't enforce them unless you do something obvious and stupid, like try to run the next thepiratebay. I've run a personal ssh server, a couple bots for a game, and a public (but not highly-trafficked) http server on my verizon home connection for most of a year, which I'm technically not allowed to do any of according to their rules, but screw them.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41288435)

The world would be a slightly better place if people could run a proper PUBLIC server off of a home connection. The two primary reasons to restrict servers is that the bandwidth is vastly oversold and they're trying to cripple your ability to actually use the upstream or because a service provider would rather bill you $1000/month for a T.

I'm not sure why Google is doing it unless they are mostly deploying the fiber to balance their outbound traffic.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288723)

Get a VPS somewhere and host your crap there. Small servers don't really matter, but why would you think its a good idea to run a server at home? Put something in a data center, colo, vps, dedicated, whatever. They have the power and network infrastructure that you DONT have at home and would be stupid to do at home. Your home is NOT a data center, get over it. Home internet connections are "last mile", that means they are at the very ends of small streets on the information highway. For $20/mo you can host a server with the same amount of more bandwidth than comcast residential connection will afford you.

Your home is not a data center, get over yourself.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#41288125)

Oh, I'm sure they'll offer a "business class" of service for those needing to work from home. You'll pay a lot more, but at least you will have unrestricted (as long as it's legal. No hacking allowed, etc.) access and bandwidth to use. Generally that's the case with all business class offerings.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288139)

I understand the whole 'business class' thing. I'm trying however to make a legal point that the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201(aka net neutrality), can logicly be seen as criminilizing such differentiation of service through network level (or I would argue, evil-tos level) blocking. The whole 'neutral' aspect of 'network neutrality'.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41288485)

Oh, I'm sure they'll offer a "business class" of service for those needing to work from home. You'll pay a lot more, but at least you will have unrestricted (as long as it's legal. No hacking allowed, etc.) access and bandwidth to use. Generally that's the case with all business class offerings.

What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288817)

"What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?"

If you hack/crack any system you don't have permission to, I'd presume yes, else I'd presume no. I think when you hack a shell to a server you own, there is no substantive difference as far as being banned from a network than if you had logged in with ssh normally. Of course, if your method results in some side-effect traffic going to any system other than one you own or have rights to 'crack', then yeah, I hope you get banned from the network immediately. $0.02...

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41288155)

You have to pay more for commercial level services, silly-billy.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (2)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288195)

FCC-10-201, paragraph 13, last sentence. It sure sounds to me as though _all end users_ are allowed to create content, applications, services, and devices with their 'neutral' fixed broadband internet service links.

"Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users
and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to
create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges—
including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy
and civic life.19"

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41288309)

I think the idea of preventing "services" is laughable. There are too many remote access "services" and the like that they really can't stamp down on lest they start a shit storm.

I mean, is Teamviewer a "service"? Is LogMeIn a "service"? SSH... maybe. HTTP definitely, but even a personal web service is iffy.

I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288689)

"I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town."

I'd like to believe that basic automatic network management features of the relevant hardware, or at worst, more intelligent custom software written by google, can trivially enforce sharing of network resources in an application and service agnostic way. The only way you should be able to bring down any segment of the network would be through some serious blatantly criminal level hacking. Or accidentally helping Google to discover a bug they fix the next day.

That is why I'm fighting the language of the terms of service here, rather than just caring about what happens at the network level.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288357)

Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.

Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.

I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288449)

MOD PARENT UP (until determined to be a made-up story instead of factually accurate)

Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#41288453)

Just define things like they do with "X servers." The end with the screen/keyboard is the server.

Want to run Apache? It's merely a client for the I/O services a browser offers, etc.

Client/server is an artificial, and arbitrary, distinction - ignore it.

Homeowners... don't forget that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288581)

...those cheap WiFi security cameras, that you put up under around your house, under the eaves, front porch, back patio awning, etc., and have configured via port-forwarding thru your WiFi router to email motion-triggered picts to your smartphone and also allow you to watch them live from your smartphone.... well, they're all servers too.

Larry Page Agrees (partly) with me? (2, Informative)

jdogalt (961241) | about 2 years ago | (#41288585)

This was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Sounds plausible enough that I'll post it again to help its visibility-

Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.

Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.

I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.

One cool thing (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#41287943)

If the residents pay the $300 install fee they get 10Mbps speed for 10 years without paying any further fee. For many of the poorer neighborhoods this was the only way to get enough households to participate to justify the buildout.

Another cool thing (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41288135)

Google gets a comprehensive record of online activity for thousands of individuals living in Kansas City. There's got to be a big benefit in that.

To Google, anyway.

Google Fiber will certainly be useful for people - and if it were available to me, I'd most likely sign up - but let's not ignore the fact there is a tangible benefit to Google as well.

Re:Another cool thing (1)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#41288249)

That's fine, though I would posit that every ISP has access to the same information, and with the advent of switched digital video the cable companies have that and detailed access to what television stations people are watching (why are we relying on a handful of Nielson households for viewership data?)

Re:Another cool thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288649)

(why are we relying on a handful of Nielson households for viewership data?)

Because lots of people still get their TV over the air. Remember the hubbub with the digital switch?

Re:Another cool thing (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41288277)

I'm OK with that. Expecting such things to be done altruistically is cute, but not realistic.

Re:One cool thing (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41288679)

Do they have to pay that all at once?

Seems like google could have made a little extra scratch by letting them pay it off monthly for $40 for a year and probably gotten more folks singing up. $300 is a large chunk of change for some folks.

$300 is a lot of money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41287947)

I take it that it will boost home values? Maybe? I dunno. I do love fiber speeds. Perhaps for $400 you can ask for single mode instead multimode? ROFL!

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 years ago | (#41288095)

$300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (4, Funny)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41288265)

$300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day.

250 cents / 31 days = less than a penny a day ...
another victim of the public education system.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1)

raymansean (1115689) | about 2 years ago | (#41288415)

$300 for 10Mbps for 10 years is $2.5/mo. That's less than a penny a day. Please deposit 12,000,000 of those pennies into my bank account, I will gladly pay you $120,000 USD upon verification from my bank ;-).

In all seriousness, google is charging their "customer" $300 for this service for 10Yrs, and they are then charging their true customer for the ability to know all the online activity of the "customer." It is like Google is reading right from the cable companies play book.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41288531)

$2.50 == 250c
250 cents \ 31 days != $0.1

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41288551)

gerrr slashdot killed my less than sign.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41288101)

$300 is a lot of money? Are you kidding me? Dude, I work a white collar job at like $65k/year. I have a mortgage to pay on an 1800sqft house. $300 isn't a lot of money. They get broadband for 10 years with no fee, that's like $2.50/mo

I spent $350 outright on my Galaxy Nexus so I didn't buy any $50 contract phone for 24 months with a +$20 bill ($480 + $50 = $530 for the phone, no I spent $350). I have a watch that costs more than my mortgage payment. I pay my mortgage and my car payment every month and I still save up an extra 3 mortgage payments and a car payment (I'll have that house paid off shortly).

I mean seriously, the most basic welfare and unemployment necessity [amazon.com] costs more than $300 and requires paying more than a $100 monthly fee to use, and burns like $50/mo in electricity.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288207)

Shit was so cash.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (3, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#41288279)

If you make $65k/year, in some parts of the city, you'd probably be a one percenter. I know people who are on disability, I don't know what they "make", but it's not even remotely near 65K. I also know people with low end jobs that don't approach 65K. What seems reasonable, or even cheap to the average slashdotter, might be quite high for many people.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288845)

The 300 dollars has an option for a payment plan over the course of a year.

If you're replacing an existing internet connection, 25 bucks a month will likely save you money. I know I just have internet through TWKC (Time Warner Kansas City) and I pay around 50 bucks a month.

If you go with the faster internet service (at 70 a month) they waive the 300 dollar installation charge.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288381)

Sadly if I lived in the area I wouldn't be able to afford it without some kind of payment plan being offered so I could pay it off over a year.

That is a crap ton of money at once to someone who is unemployed or heavily underemployed like myself. $30-$50 a month for a connection is one thing, but $300 represents about 3/5 of my monthly earnings.

Also, FWIW, the only places I've seen big oversized supertelevisons like that are in big oversized superdwellings like yours. People I know generally want hardware they can actually fit in their living space. On a similar note, I have rent to pay to a 300sq ft apartment ($425). And my phone cost $20--about $15 more than my watch.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (1)

michrech (468134) | about 2 years ago | (#41288857)

$425 a month rent for 300sq/ft?! My mortgage is $454 (I pay an extra $40 on top directly toward the principle, so the total payment I make is $494 per month) for a 1080sq/ft house with roughly 1/3 acre of land... Plus, I wouldn't call 1800sq/ft an 'oversized superdwelling' considering the far larger homes available in my area (a town of 17.5k people), though I could see where adding 1500sq/ft to what you're living in now could make that seem absolutely huge... :)

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (2)

skine (1524819) | about 2 years ago | (#41288677)

Poor you with your white collar job and reasonable salary.

Re:$300 is a lot of money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288821)

You're rich. You don't know you're rich. We get it. You might want to do a little research on how "$65k/year" fits into the world's income levels.

The $300 is important (2)

joelwhitehouse (2571813) | about 2 years ago | (#41288001)

Google can afford to lose $300 per customer in a limited market like KC. But most customers won't just throw away $300 on something they don't plan to use. By collecting $300 per customer, Google is ensuring that their users are motivated to use their service.

Re:The $300 is important (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41288365)

At $300 install Google is probably already losing money. Hopefully the cable tv option will be popular.

Not a bad deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288057)

Where I live just to get wireless signal set up (at little better than dial-up speeds) it cost a $150 installation fee for the antenna. $300 for fiber level speeds would seem like a gift from God in this part of the country.

Fiber in Québec city (1)

gfilion (80497) | about 2 years ago | (#41288157)

I live in Québec city and we're the lucky ones: Bell Canada decided to start their Fiber to the home program (Bell Fibe) in our town!

I paid 50$ for the install, the tech spend 4 hours installing the fiber in my apartment and told me that it once took him 8 hours to do the install in an old house.

Now I have 50/50 Internet (50 Mbps downlink, 50 Mbps uplink with a 250 GB/month cap) for 63$ per month and I'm really enjoying it!

Granted, it's part of a bitter turf war with the cable provider (Videotron) but that's another example of competition being good for the consumers!

Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (1)

CQDX (2720013) | about 2 years ago | (#41288233)

Why KC and not near Google's home? I live only about 10 miles form Google HQ and my neighborhood can only get AT&T Uverse over copper. It's ok but you would think we'd have at least one fiber provider by now.

Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41288335)

If it succeeds in SF, you know it will work wherever there is an affluent and educated populace. If it succeeds in KC, you know it will work anywhere.

Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288457)

^ This

If you can get the crackheads on Prospect and Troost to pony up $300 for something that doesn't spin, doesn't go on a car, and doesn't have a remote control, then convincing anyone else in a better neighborhood should be a cakewalk.

Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41288351)

Didn't Google already give you free Wifi?

Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (1)

CQDX (2720013) | about 2 years ago | (#41288553)

Unless they rolled out something very recently, their wi-fi is only in Mountain view, about 10 square miles or so. I don't live near there. And it's not high speed like fiber.

Re:Well that sucks for us in the SF/SJ area (2)

ReverendLoki (663861) | about 2 years ago | (#41288593)

The demographics of the KC Metro reflect aspects of a lot of other cities. We have our affluent and tech savvy neighborhoods, our economically depressed areas, a bit of everything. We also have city governments who are being very flexible in this, and making it easier for Google to roll out their test bed. Plus, the metro is dominated by two of the biggest service providers effected by this experiment - Time Warner Cable in the city proper, and Comcast in outlying metro areas. Remember, part of the purpose of this is to show that this sort of rollout is viable, which can serve as evidence in their own net neutrality efforts (mainly, against end service providers trying to charge content providers for access to their users).

There was a trial in palo alto. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288635)

I suspect you should talk to your city fathers if you have a problem with the situation.

Come to my City!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288255)

I would pay 300$ to get off the DSL/Cable Duopololy....

Resident of KC here (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41288327)

I've never seen so many people get so excited about something they don't really understand... actually, yes I have - presidential elections!

But seriously, it's actually relieving to see so many people, even those in the "bad" neighborhoods in KC, actually going out of their way to preregister. It gives me new hope that people might actually be capable of some foresight every now and then.

Of course, then there's that annoying nameless voice on the radio here singing the praises of Google Fiber and urging people to preregister now for "speeds of up to a gigabyte"[sic]... That annoys me every time I hear it. I know it's not Google putting those ads out because they'd actually get it right.

What a difference a few days makes (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41288333)

I just read this Wired article a few days ago:
Google Fiber Splits Along Kansas City's Digital Divide
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide/ [wired.com]

Basically, the signup for Google Fiber was split along the line dividing historically white and black neighborhoods.

But Liimatta [who runs a Kansas City nonprofit that works to bring broadband access to low-income residents] says the pre-registration process itself set a high bar for those already on the wrong side of the digital divide. To pre-register, residents needed to be willing to pony up $10. They also needed a credit or debit card, a Google Wallet account, and a Gmail account, which are harder to come by if you never had internet access in the first place. "Many don't even have bank accounts," Liimatta says. "That's why there are so many check-cashing places out there."

The fact that they managed to get these neighborhoods qualified in 3 days says a lot about the lengths Google went to.
The Wired article talks about Google sending out teams to knock on doors and expedite signups for families that don't have internet already.

Re:What a difference a few days makes (1)

ReverendLoki (663861) | about 2 years ago | (#41288655)

I believe a lot of that was the result of educating residents on what this whole thing means. I've had to explain exactly what some of the advantages were myself to a half dozen people or so I thought would have picked up on it themselves.

That, and the primary means for signing up was via the web, and I believe that for a lot of these households, fiber is going to be their first broadband connection to the Internet. I think there was a phone number you could use as well, but it wasn't very well published; even I couldn't tell you what it was.

Re:What a difference a few days makes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288737)

I live in a 'not so ritzy' area of Kansas City KS. and I can agree with that as stated.

The more affluent areas were up and registered within a few days, the poorer areas took significantly longer. One evening, people were canvassing the neighborhood to make sure residents were aware and had signed up . I signed up the first day that I could.

Re:What a difference a few days makes (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#41288853)

I live in a 'not so ritzy' area of Kansas City KS. and I can agree with that as stated.

The more affluent areas were up and registered within a few days, the poorer areas took significantly longer. One evening, people were canvassing the neighborhood to make sure residents were aware and had signed up . I signed up the first day that I could.

Same here, except I'm in KCMO. My area was fairly slow in signing up, but one thing that helped was that some of the neighborhood organizers were pushing for it.

#irc.trool7alk.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288645)

I don't see why they're doing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288673)

Are they really doing this to record everyone's data? All data. Not trolling, but i don't see why they want to be an ISP unless that is what they're doing.

Wonder why? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41288795)

After so many years of getting screwed by AT&T,COMCAST,TIME Warner and others. The people of kansas city can't wait to get google's service, at a much lower cost.

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>