Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

mikecp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#31

Post by tbundy »

malandrew wrote: post #13

This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost. Kansas City is essentially giving Google free reign to perfect their rollout and…

I've got to agree with you an many others in the comments. The thing that "doesn't sit right" is that Google is looking at alternative ways to benefit their company while benefiting the community. There's always going to be a risk of monopoly. In Australia, the fiber roll-out is government owned and funded, replacing a former government telco monopoly with a current government telco monopoly. If the price is right and there's still competition, I think we should be vigilant but happy.

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#32

Post by bryanlarsen »

I'm fairly sure that Google is paying a lot less than $1250 per customer.

1) it costs a lot less to wire a whole neighbourhood than to wire a single house

2) kansas city was chosen because they could run the fiber on telephone poles rather than digging trenches (and they're not paying anything for access to those poles)

Google has stated that the $300 cost they're charging is the cost of wiring up a home, and I believe thats what they think it will cost. There probably will be overages and complications they don't have in their model, but I think that $300 is fairly close.

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#33

Post by walterkim »

I get synchronous 200mbps from Webpass for $450 a year. They don't provide content or services on top of that, which means they don't have incentives to analyze my data, nor will they attain perverse infrastructural advantages over other online services. It is the proverbial "dumb pipe" many here wish they had. And I'm very happy with that.

I don't want a world where Google runs my internet connection any more than I want a world where Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Amazon or Facebook does.

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#34

Post by KevinEldon »

malandrew wrote: post #13

This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost. Kansas City is essentially giving Google free reign to perfect their rollout and…

I agree, and I think Google could have more in mind then just replacing television providers (no small feat). They can start to eliminate television channels. Why must NBC, CBS, or ESPN exist? If Google did "adwords" for television they just allow producers to release a show and then Google injects per-user targeted ads. Google's choice of a tablet as a remote hints at more interactive TV, not just big 30-second commercials, but opportunities to buy, learn, tag, etc. while you're watching a show. It gives producers more control over their content and an opportunity to look at different ways to fund the show's production. Forget 30 minutes show slots... do 48, or 10, or whatever makes sense.

Sure, it probably means more ads, but it could mean more innovative, targeted, and available content too.

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#35

Post by mingramjr »

r00fus wrote: post #23
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #11

What are the prices of competitors in the US? Here in New-Brunswick Canada, prices are: 80Mbps down & 30Mbps up: $69.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $100.95 /mo. 50Mbps down & 30Mbps up: $29.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $83.95 /mo. 20Mbps down & 15Mbps up: $29.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $68.95 /mo. Seems to be not that far from Google's prices.

Comcast, near where I live (in MB/s, all prices are in addtion to a $7/mo modem rental ) 3/.768 - $40/mo 20/4 - $30/mo 6 month promotional (incl. cable box rental), $42-62 afterwards (varies) 30/6 - $73/mo 50/10 - $119/mo 105/20 - $199/mo Comcast seriously needs competition, and I unfortunately don't live in an sonic.net area. I can't wait for Google to disrupt the hell out of this situation.

Comcast advertises their speeds in Mb/s

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#36

Post by [deleted] »

dfc wrote: post #18
tagawa wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxpayers paying for a commercial service whether they use it or not sounds like one. Special privileges and fast-tracking is another.

You think "taxpayers paying for a commercial service whether they use it or not" sounds like a problem. Other people think this sounds like economic development.

[deleted]

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#37

Post by jrockway »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #11

What are the prices of competitors in the US? Here in New-Brunswick Canada, prices are: 80Mbps down & 30Mbps up: $69.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $100.95 /mo. 50Mbps down & 30Mbps up: $29.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $83.95 /mo. 20Mbps down & 15Mbps up: $29.95 /mo. for first 3 months then $68.95 /mo. Seems to be not that far from Google's prices.

Except Google is 1000Mbps down and 1000Mbps up :)

Re: Something About Google Fiber Doesn't Sit Right with Me

#39

Post by jarek »

zzleeper wrote: post #29
james4k wrote: post #12

Google Fiber is supposedly about 10 times faster than that. Presumably, the bandwidth test server was being maxed out. His comparison based on the 91 Mbps result makes current ISPs look better than they should. > For comparison, where with Comcast I can download a 1080p Breaking Bad episode (1.86 GB) in about a half hour, Google Fiber would get it done in under 3 minutes. On Google Fiber, that Breaking Bad episode wo…

Is it possible the WiFi, or a crappy laptop's hdd, are the culprits for the bottleneck?

I've definitely had speedtest.net results constrained by wifi and a slow laptop that couldn't run the flash control that well.
Post reply on HN