×

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 Invite Hints Fiber Project Expanding To Austin

timothy posted 1 year,18 days | from the beat-the-heat-stay-indoors-with-fiber dept.

Google 72

New submitter paulbsch writes "With its technology-centric culture, the Silicon Hills of Austin, TX could have been the perfect city for the first iteration of Google Fiber. Austinites will just have to settle with being only the second city to get the ultra high speed service." Right now, this is well-founded supposition, rather than confirmed fact, based on an invitation from Google to a joint event this Tuesday which promises an announcement which will "have a positive impact on Austinites and the future of the city." Another possibility, as PC Magazine points out, is that Google will announce a new Austin office.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

72 comments

Headkine (2)

rossdee (243626) | 1 year,18 days | (#43377851)

So Google are inviting hints now?
Or is it a hints fiber project?

Can we have headlines we can understand please

Suspicion (2)

puddingebola (2036796) | 1 year,18 days | (#43377881)

I think Google may announce that the weed on 6th street is exceptional, but the cover charges at the bars are ridiculous.

Re:Suspicion (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43377887)

Cover charges at bars in Austin are virtually non existent.

I like the places with cover charges... (2)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43377929)

as it keeps the riff-raff out. i don't party with peasants.

Re:I like the places with cover charges... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378279)

Which is why we don't. Hanging out around your kind seems, well, dull...

Re:I like the places with cover charges... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378321)

lol ... you'll never know what it's like ... that's the best part.

Re:I like the places with cover charges... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43379651)

Seems to be you're just a wannabe. Rich riff-raff is not that different from poor riff-raff.

If you want to keep people out you party at private clubs. Or throw a private party at one of your own properties.

$70/mo for TV ... (1, Interesting)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43377901)

you guys get ripped off in the states. even the 300USD fee or "free" internet is kinda pricey. in frankfurt, i pay €30/mo for 50/1 service and 30 720p channels. the 50/1 service is only €19/mo with telephone for free. those prices also contain the 20% sales tax.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (3, Interesting)

devforhire (2658537) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378027)

You can get comparable prices in the US for similar service (except we can't seem to break 25megs down.) They are just not advertised and you need to specifically ask and work with a customer service person to get your bill down that low. The problem in the US is the public, not the businesses. Most people are content to pay the huge prices to the telecom companies because they generally do not know any better or different. Many people in the US also have been duped into think they "need" more than 30 TV channels. We prefer several hundred channels of nothing to watch to 30.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378063)

actually, the biggest problem in the US is utility monopolies. See mobile phone service providers, internet service providers, energy service providers, water service providers, garbage collection providers, TV service providers, etc ...

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43379261)

actually the mobile phone service providers and internet service providers (i.e. cable companies) are the same thing as they are all partnered with each other.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

TheLink (130905) | 1 year,18 days | (#43379865)

actually, the biggest problem in the US is utility monopolies.

I disagree. The problem with utilities is poor regulation. But biggest problem is most people not knowing what the real problems are (so the politicians will never get pressured to fix them- and instead give the voters what the voters believe is more important).

It'll just be more expensive to have 4 different water service providers pulling their own pipes to the same area. There are some things that conventional capitalism and free markets don't do better. You don't really need that much innovation to provide utility services. It is also not that difficult to set up reasonable performance metrics and targets.

When your regulators are just making things better for the utilities rather than the people, the solution is not more utilities. The solution is to sack the regulator and put in a new one.

Companies would be happy to squeeze the customers even more without regulators - they no longer have to influence/bribe regulators to change/remove unwanted rules.

Many of these things IMO don't even have to be privately own and run for a big profits or even run for profit. A shopping mall or a factory as an entire economic entity doesn't make the bulk of its money from utility charges or transportation (elevators/escalators). The big bucks come from elsewhere - rental, buying and selling of higher margin goods.

So similarly where a City (e.g. Austin, TX ) really makes its money is likely to be elsewhere rather than charging its inhabitants for water/internet/energy or public transportation. Not saying the services have to be free - just saying that the focus and priority should be different. It is not so important that the water utility makes enough profit as the City actually has clean water all the time, at reasonable costs.

But if your utility is a public listed corporation the priorities change. They'd aim to make profit even if the City suffers a bit more as a result. It's like outsourcing - they don't care about the long term prospects of the City as long as they can argue that they've met the targets. And if there are no targets except profit...

Sports costs are the big driver of prices also big (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378131)

Sports costs are the big driver of prices also big packs of channels as well where you have to have shit like MTV to get comedy central.

Google fiber does not even have HBO or MAX.

Re:Sports costs are the big driver of prices also (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378173)

like I said, it's a monopoly. personally, i skip all TV expect the very basic package (€17/mo with 25 channels including international news) and just download TV shows as seasons so I can bypass the commercials. in some countries I've lived in, they show the block of adverts with a clock in the bottom corner so I know how I have to take a leak while the block of commercials is playing ... that was quite nice.

Re:Sports costs are the big driver of prices also (1)

repetty (260322) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378919)

Google fiber does not even have HBO or MAX.

This is SO FUCKING PERFECT!!!

--Richard
(a non-HBO/non-MAX-watching geek in Austin)

Re:Sports costs are the big driver of prices also (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43380581)

It really does need HBO. Game Of Thrones is a major hit for the Network.

Re:Sports costs are the big driver of prices also (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382453)

We have the game of thrones every morning....

Mom, Dad, three kids, and two toilets.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (3, Insightful)

kqs (1038910) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378299)

So you are saying that:
      * cheap plans exist
      * companies hide the existence of these plans
      * people don't know about these plans and have no way to find out about these plans, and for some reason don't ask for these plans

And from this you decide that the people are the problem, not the companies? Sure, that makes perfect sense. In related news, it's my younger brother's fault that he keeps hitting himself.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378439)

technically, you guys keep voting pro-corporate officials who won't reform corporate law into office, which does kinda make it a problem of the people.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

devforhire (2658537) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378991)

Yes, you are responsible for doing the research on what you buy. If you do not like that, move back in with mom and dad.

tl/dr; version

The company behavior is ultimately driven by the people. If the company can make more profit selling $300 plans with more than people need vs. a simple $40 plan with just what you need they generally will and must. The fact that they just hide these plans (legally) is immaterial as they are not hard to find (I asked how to get barebone service and they told me.) You are also free to shop around and choose the best value/fit for you. The fact that they have been offering such expensive plans for so long underscore the public acceptance of it.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382003)

Okay. Let's pretend you're not lying.

Give a specific example of a cheap plan someone can go negotiate. Name the location, company, etc.. Then someone else can test it.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43381211)

Who has allowed companies to behave this way? Voters, yes, but even more so, buyers.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

buddyglass (925859) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378473)

What kind of subsidies does the provider receive? That should probably be priced in.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378579)

none ... it's a international company and the difference is due to open market competition. last time I checked, I had 19 options for prepaid SIM cards, which keeps the market quite competitively priced. i'm still shocked that some people tout what T-mobile offers as a prepaid SIM (technically it may be true, but holy crap are the terms awful.) i just picked up a dual SIM phone (Nokia 206) though and i'll pick up a prepaid t-mobile SIM next time I'm in the states just to have a US number for my idiotic friends that can't handle a +49 or 0049 prefix :(

Where are you getting TV for $70/mo in the US? (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | 1 year,18 days | (#43379813)

By the time I'm done with taxes, fees, and the price hike after 3 months it's $95. I guess I can pay $50/mo for over the air if I want.

Re:Where are you getting TV for $70/mo in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382221)

$50/month for 120 channels or $65/month for 200 channels from Dish (before fees and not counting the 1st year promotion of $25/month and $35/month). The OP was talking about 30 HD channels, I'm sure you can get similarly smaller packages from cable companies, too. Any of the basic packages will probably get you that. The problem's always the one or two channels you may actually care to watch that are only available on higher tiers.

I've of two minds about that. On one hand, a-la cart pricing would be nice. On the other hand, if your tastes tend to run to the less popular (read: you don't care about sports or broadcast stations) then a-la cart might lead to the death of the programming you prefer to watch. Otoh, maybe it would force discovery channel to cut back to one or two chanels only that are actually about science stuff... then again I recall a quote about crap shows like ancient aliens paying for actual science shows and whatnot, so whatcha gonna do.

Re:$70/mo for TV ... (1)

ttucker (2884057) | 1 year,18 days | (#43380749)

you guys get ripped off in the states. even the 300USD fee or "free" internet is kinda pricey. in frankfurt, i pay €30/mo for 50/1 service and 30 720p channels. the 50/1 service is only €19/mo with telephone for free. those prices also contain the 20% sales tax.

The 50mbps down sounds interesting, but 1mbps up is total crap for such a large downlink.

Re: $70/mo for TV ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43381281)

I pay $75 in the US for 150/20 but the speed tests are 185/45. You want to talk about getting ripped off let's compare housing. I paid $300k for a brand new 4000 sq ft house. What's that, the price of a tiny apartment where you live? So I get fast Internet, big house, cheap gas, cheap food, cheap taxes.

Re: $70/mo for TV ... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | 1 year,17 days | (#43382939)

I get great location and public transport. You get a McMansion in the countryside ... lol ... probably in the Mid-West ... lol^2

Smack the Incumbents! (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,18 days | (#43377997)

After years enduring the tender mercies of AT&T and Time Warner Cable, broadband consumers in Austin are feeling reamed. I expect competition will result in improved offerings and lower prices from the existing duopoly, as it has wherever municipal or other alternatives are available.

I recently investigated upgrading my speed and just getting basic pricing information is difficult (AT&T) to impossible (Time Warner). So how much will it cost after the promotional period? "We can't tell you that, sir." Are you fucking kidding me?

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378231)

Time Warner has been in "whatever the market will bear" mode on pricing. You MUST call in and threaten to switch in order to get a better rate, or else they just keep raising prices. It will take anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours of waiting on hold, but it can be done.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

trampel (464001) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378675)

Exactly.

Our neighborhood terminated a negotiated deal with TWC last year, and people calling TWC for a quote received different offers. I head two different prices for the same package on subsequent calls.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,16 days | (#43391829)

Exactly, anyone who doesn't negotiate a price with Time Warner is a sap. I've got a friend who was paying $50/month more than me for LESS service before I clued him in on the fact that you can (and should) negotiate with them. And, yes, they will put up a fight. At first they'll try to deny they have any deals available, then they'll try to give you the shitty ones that keep you paying the same and just toss in some minor extras, then (usually somewhere around the 20-30 minute mark), they'll actually start offering you the *real* prices.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

Necroman (61604) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378895)

It is good to point out the Austin has Grande Communications, which actually has pretty good service for the price. The problem is they have limited coverage.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

repetty (260322) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378939)

It is good to point out the Austin has Grande Communications, which actually has pretty good service for the price. The problem is they have limited coverage.

Grande coverage is so limited that no one I know has it -- not a single person. Maybe someone in Round Rock gets Grande but I know only a couple people out there and they use TW.

No, effectively Austin has just two large ISPs providing service and controlling the market: TimeWarner and ATT. They both pretty much suck.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | 1 year,18 days | (#43379069)

Until google fiber hits my area of the Kansas city metro area (this includes the suburb city's like Lenexa, overland park, and Olathe). It's either at&t(which i have) or Comcast(which i dropped because they kept dropping my connection every 5 minutes between 6am and 11pm.) I am in the same boat. But it could be worse. There are area's of the country where your choice is one of the following. at&t, comcast, twc, or verizon dsl.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43381395)

I know one person with Grande. Unfortunately it's not available in my area, leaving me with SuddenLink and AT&T.

I'd love to see Google Fiber here, but I don't expect it to happen thanks to the state franchise laws. It's not impossible -- if any company has the money to deal with the whole state, it's Google -- but it isn't likely. Although it might be worth it; between Austin, Dallas and Houston alone, they'd have a huge market.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | 1 year,17 days | (#43382569)

My neighborhood HOA in Round Rock has the TWC signs out in the front and still keeps saying (not in any place that is written down) that it's illegal to have satellite dishes on your roof, Of course I do, and I dare them to make me take it down.

None the less, there is no way to get good internet. It's suck with AT&T or suck with TWC. Hoping that Google fiber in "Austin" includes Round Rock somehow.

Re:Smack the Incumbents! (1)

AJodock (1901718) | 1 year,16 days | (#43391547)

If they are telling you that you cannot have a satellite dish they are lying...

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule [fcc.gov]

As long as your dish is less than 39.37" in diameter you are good to go, even if you are a renter they can't stop you if you have a porch/deck to put it on.

And those of us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378047)

out on the northwest side of Lake Travis will still be stuck with dial-up, satellite, or cellular. :(

Will they have CSN Houston? that few systems have? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378115)

Will they have CSN Houston? that few systems have? due to the Astros playing hardball over pre sub pricing.

Poor city choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378209)

Why would you expand your project to a city that won't exist soon [slate.com] ?

Re:Poor city choice - I couldn't agree more (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378357)

If Kim Jong Un doesn't like their music, I can't imagine he would spare it because of its internet service.

Given Kim's itchy trigger finger, Google really needs to reconsider. Instead of Austin, they should have their second high speed internet effort here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast as the effect would be revolutionary and bring us from the stone age into the 21st century. Just think what bring Mississippi out of the stone age could do. They could rightfully and proudly boast, "If we can bring Mississippi out of the stone age, just think of what we can do for you!"

Beside, just think, being able to watch as global warming produces the next Katrina live in ultra-high def at 100 Gigabits per second would give advertisers the perfect opportunity to capture hundreds of millions of eyeballs. They would make billions.

Re:Poor city choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382879)

Clearly Best Leader Un can see the future and has planned to give us hope of better internet by forcing Google to change locations with atomic hell fire.

ALL HAIL KIM JONG UN!

Did TWC see this coming? (2)

slashgordo. (2772763) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378509)

I live in Austin, and about a year ago I switched from AT&T DSL to TWC with a decent promo rate of (with taxes & modem lease) $56.66/month for 30 Mbps down / 5 Mbps up. I was expecting the promo rate to expire and my bill to increase by $25, but the other day, TWC sent me a nice letter stating that they are extending my promo rate for 3 months. That really surprised me. No negotiations or threats to switch or bitching. Maybe they heard that Google Fiber is coming to town, and are trying to take preventative measures. The thought of going from 30 Mbps to 1 Gbps for $70+taxes/month has be excited. Come on in, Google. We've been waiting for you.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378587)

You should have seen Charter drop prices from $75/m to $30/m within 3 days of another ISP announcing fiber. Too bad the naked 30Mb was only for new customers and for me to get the deal, I would have to bundle in a ton of extra channels and phone and a 2 year contract with a $300 cancellation fee.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (1)

repetty (260322) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378987)

You should have seen Charter drop prices from $75/m to $30/m within 3 days of another ISP announcing fiber. Too bad the naked 30Mb was only for new customers and for me to get the deal, I would have to bundle in a ton of extra channels and phone and a 2 year contract with a $300 cancellation fee.

Wonderful story, and EXACTLY why I avoid long-term contracts with all of the energy that I can muster. Long-term contracts are great for service providers but very bad for customers, regardless of the "discounts" that they are promising you get. Once you are in a contract, you are their bitch.

I want my service providers (not just ISPs but providers of all stripes) to wake up every morning, wondering what they will to do to keep my business -- I want to be a new, potential customer every day.

--Richard

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (2)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378729)

With 30/5 service available, I'm not sure why Google is even bothering. Around here the best we can get is 7m/896k service and I'd gladly pay for something faster but that's the best that Centurylink can do. And that's just under double what was available 13 years ago when I got my first broadband service.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378845)

I have the 30/5 plan from TWC here in Austin, and I'm fairly certain it's not top tier. There's a 50/?? plan as well. I don't remember what the upstream on that was. It was, however, a lot more money when I last inquired.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (1)

XanC (644172) | 1 year,18 days | (#43378937)

I think it's 50/5. I'm on the 30/5 and I can't WAIT to get 1Gbit both ways!

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (1)

slashgordo. (2772763) | 1 year,18 days | (#43379529)

Correct, 50 Mbps down (don't know up speed, but at least 5 Mbps up) is TWC's top service in Austin at the moment, but they weren't offering any promos with it, so I went for the 30 Mbps service with the promo offer for about half the cost of their 50 Mbps package. 50 Mbps for over $100/month vs 1 Gbps for $70/month is a no brainer. Even if you have to pay a $300 installation fee, you'll make that up in less than a year.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43380031)

That's sort of the point, with connection speeds that fast, what's the point of Google getting in there? There's plenty of other cities where the max speed is only a fraction of that.

Re:Did TWC see this coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43380259)

TWC saw it coming ~2008-2010 when they were doing the 2 year price lock guarantee promotions (i.e. long-term contract).

fp fuck3fr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43378769)

may be hurtin6 the

I will move for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43379003)

I'm up north of Austin, in Georgetown. The only choices up here are Verizon DSL at 1.5m/700k, or Suddenlink's faster but incredibly intermittent cable internet.

If Google comes to Austin, when my lease is up I will move to wherever they're servicing.

Today i leasrned: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43379015)

Google hates oklahoma

Businesses will be happy (1)

CaptBubba (696284) | 1 year,18 days | (#43380039)

While some are rightly pointing out that residential service in Austin is actually pretty quick by US standards (max speeds of 50/5 for ~$115 per month) the real benefactors of this will be business clients. Time Warner Cable charges out the nose and any other orifice they can find if you are not at a residential address. 7/0.768 is priced at $100 per month with a dynamic IP with a 1 year contract!

Also many are accusing Time Warner of not playing nice when it comes to peering and network neutrality, so that could be affecting Google's decision as well. Not to mention that Austin has a name for being high tech now so the publicity is good and uptake will likely be great.

Re:Businesses will be happy (2)

jdogalt (961241) | 1 year,18 days | (#43380215)

the real benefactors of this will be business clients. Time Warner Cable charges out the nose and any other orifice they can find if you are not at a residential address ... Also many are accusing Time Warner of not playing nice when it comes to peering and network neutrality

Note well that GoogleFiber also is well entrenched into the EVIL "business class" service tactics. Never mind that users at home VPN-ing into work, or trading their visual attention (aimed at google ads) for advanced computing services (gmail, ghangouts, et al) are clearly engaged in "business". I tend to believe that Google Fiber's current published FAQ that has business clients "contact us for details", instead of transparently publishing consistent data rates and prices, is in clear violation of the transparency prong of FCC-10-201/NetworkNeutrality. I also believe that their current terms of use barring any residential user from hosting any kind of server is a clear violation of the blocking prong of NetworkNeutrality (though somewhat in inverse of the way network neutrality is most commonly thought. I.e. blocking of services by residential ISPs can happen in both ways, the residential client blocked from the remote server, or the remote client blocked from the residential server. cuz like, ya know, the internet was like, designed to be symmetrical where every node could behave as both client *and* server.... So in the end Google gets to have its cake and eat it too hypocritically with network neutrality. Sigh.... I'm less than entirely hopeful that my current complaint (2000F) about this with the FCC (ref#12-C000422224-1) will come to anything when it finally emerges from the "enforcement review" procedural step it is in. But who knows...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891 [slashdot.org]

keeping tabs on fiber (1)

ruiner5000 (241452) | 1 year,18 days | (#43380465)

I have gone from Texas.net dial up, to Grande Enterprise class fiber, and been an early adopter the entire way. I certainly hope to get this for my business on Guadalupe, or my home in Allandale near 2222 and Shoal Creek. My sister can get Grande South of 2222 a 5 minute slow walk from my house. 7 years later they have not jumped 2222. South of 2222 you can get it Central, and I currently have Grande at my business Game Republik at 40th and Guadalupe in Hyde Park. I can also get Uverse there, but not at my home. I'll be tracking news of this as it happens in the same manner I have covered AMD since 98. I also worked at an ISP back in the late 90s, and got turned down by Time Warner to work in tech support upon graduation probably because I told the interviewer how bad their support was. Please if you have any Google fiber news in Austin send it my way. I in particular want a good roll out map. http://googlefiberatx.com/

Re:keeping tabs on fiber (2)

bored (40072) | 1 year,17 days | (#43381973)

My sister can get Grande South of 2222 a 5 minute slow walk from my house. 7 years later they have not jumped 2222

Cause its part of the franchise agreements with the city. There isn't a single place in town where you can choose between TW or Grande, its one or the other. Basically, TW is in all the locations that were considered desirable and high penetration 25 years ago. Grande has the scraps TW didn't want.

WTF? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,18 days | (#43380811)

First Verizon fiber, now Google? What's so damn special about Texas that is gets first launches of fiber networks?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382239)

Tech companies? Seriously, as far as IT jobs go, Texas is the best place outside of California to go.

MAE-Central2? (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | 1 year,17 days | (#43381013)

I wonder how this will eventually change the topology of the net. Is Google implementing a new Tier-1 network down the center of the US?

Pure speculation, as I have zero idea what their backend in these cities look like. But I'm hoping by tossing it out, I'll have either confirmation or a fast assessment that it isn't likely.

Google has lots of dark fiber (2)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,17 days | (#43381449)

They started buying it up in 2005 or before, when all the long distance telecoms were going belly up and they could get it for pennies on the dollar of the installation cost. They have also been buying Peering points [time.com] . This is not just in the US, but globally. In 2010 they were rumored to have more network than all but two global ISPs [theregister.co.uk] , and there is reason to believe that estimate was way low.

The point of these purchases was to get out ahead of a deep pocket competitor (guess who) who might try and lock them out of the Internet, drive up their transport costs or otherwise "cut off their air supply". It was defensive insurance, but they use it to keep their network costs down, investing in hardware technologies in-house to the point where nobody moves bits cheaper than Google. They have been wondering what to do with the excess for a long time, since bandwidth of this fiber has increased at a logarithmic rate due to progress in signalling technology and is now many hundreds or thousands of times Google's own considerable needs.

Re:Google has lots of dark fiber (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | 1 year,16 days | (#43393241)

Now that this is a fairly old Slashdot post, I'll toss in a quick thank you for the information.

The final step (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43381287)

Toward Austin becoming its own state. It is now too cool to exist in Texas.

Re:The final step (0)

bored (40072) | 1 year,17 days | (#43382049)

Its not that Austin is particularly cool, its just that Texas really SUCKS. So, its sort of a reality distortion field. Not helped at all, that Austin is busy trying to be the next Houston.

Gob snots of people moving here for the last 25+ years, and zero dollars being spent on anything outside of corporate incentives. So, the roads/flights/public transportation sucks, the parks are small and crowded, there aren't any museums, or sports teams. And for a city that calls itself the live music capital its basically a 3rd rate location for US tour stops. Its has all the inconvenience of a city of 100k, with 1.2 million people bidding up the cost of everything, strip malling and single family homing every square inch in a 50 mile radius.

Re:The final step (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,17 days | (#43382465)

I agree. I've been to Austin and that was my general impression as well. I guess I didn't find the right kool-aid.

Re:The final step (2)

ruiner5000 (241452) | 1 year,17 days | (#43385099)

Wow, you guys have serious envy there don't you? And bored, maybe you should do some research the next time you post. You are clueless.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...