Print 62 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Feb 18 at 2:36 PM

  (Source: 9to5google)
Its current service has speeds of 1 gigabit per second

Google has been rolling out its ultra-quick Google Fiber service in certain U.S. cities over the last couple of years, but the tech giant is already working on much faster internet offerings.
According to USA Today, Google already has internet speeds of 10 gigabits per second in the works, which could show its face in as little as three years. 
"That's where the world is going. It's going to happen," said Patrick Pichette, Google's Chief Financial Officer. "Why wouldn't we make it available in three years? That's what we're working on. There's no need to wait."
Currently, Google Fiber has data transfer speeds of 1 gigabit per second. It went live in Kansas City in 2012, starting off with 700Mbps downloads and 600Mbps uploads. 
In April of last year, it was reported that Google Fiber would expand to Utah and Texas

The idea is to make internet connections fast enough so that they can run critical applications more smoothly, leading to more software as a service users.
Other U.S. companies, such as AT&T, have introduced similar services. In December, the carrier launched its U-verse all-fiber Internet network with GigaPower in Austin, Texas. It delivers initial speeds of 300 megabits-per-second.
AT&T plans to continue the rollout to new areas of Austin in 2014, and will even increase its speed up to 1 gigabit per second by mid-2014.
While Google's 10 gigabits per second would certainly blow AT&T out of the water, U.K. researchers achieved data transmission speeds of 10 gigabits per second last year using "li-fi", which uses light for wireless Internet connectivity.

Source: USA Today

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By fic2 on 2/14/2014 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be happy (for now) with 100M. Just come to Denver!!!!

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 1:05:09 PM , Rating: 3
I'd be happy with *any* broadband connection. Hell, if you could reliably give me a 1 meg service I'd be stoked.

Living as I am on cellular wifi, if I hit 100k on most days I'm happy.

RE: happy
By inighthawki on 2/14/2014 1:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man that sounds like it sucks. Where do you live?

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 1:37:39 PM , Rating: 1
In a metropolitan area of about 4 million people. 10 minutes from being in the middle of our town of about 20,000 people, and about 30 minutes from being downtown in our state capital.

According to the FCC, about a third of Americans have no access to broadband. CenturyLink actually lied to us when we moved here a couple years ago...telling us that DSL was available here, but 2 weeks later deciding we were too far from the central office.

RE: happy
By quiksilvr on 2/14/2014 2:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
What about Satellite internet? Sure the ping sucks and there are data caps but they aren't too expensive. Try looking at Dish (, Exede ( and Hughes net (

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 2:13:12 PM , Rating: 1
Firstly, I used to live on satellite internet. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. The best thing I can say about it is it's better than dial-up...maybe.

Amongst various problems with it is horribly small data caps, like 10Gb per month, the physics involved (horribly high latency - meaning it's literally impossible to play online games), and *very* high cost compared to actual broadband offerings.

Also, the FCC currently defines "broadband" as offering consistent 6mbps download speeds or higher. Satellite doesn't do that. And of course, due to physics again, it's very easily interrupted by weather too.

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2

There's the FCC report I mentioned too.

RE: happy
By inighthawki on 2/14/2014 2:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. Interesting stuff.

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
According to the FCC, about a third of Americans have no access to broadband.

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but the FCC is blatantly manipulating the facts. A third!? Not even close.

RE: happy
By p05esto on 2/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: happy
By fic2 on 2/14/2014 5:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you persistent in posting this nonsense especially since several people corrected you in the Verizon article:

By tayb on 2/14/2014 12:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
What? Less than 20% of Americans live in rural locations. The actual number appears to be closer to 15%. So I'm not sure what in the world you are talking about.

RE: happy
By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2014 5:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you ask me they should develop two way super antennas for people living in rural areas. Its the perfect use of wireless.

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/15/2014 8:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
There an extent. There's 2 problems with that though...

1. Those antennas tend to be, if you're a few miles away from the nearest cell tower, but there's nothing that would obstruct the view from your antenna to the tower, you're golden. But if there's rolling terrain, or trees, or buildings, or whatever in between your antenna and the tower, it won't work.

2. Cellular wifi as a rule comes with horribly deficient data 10Gb. Which is close to worthless if you do much of anything online (or want to do much of anything online). You'd have to get the cellular carriers to get rid of their caps first. Or at the very least make the vaguely feasible, like a couple hundred gigs a month with a reasonable plan for overages.

And actually, there's still a 3rd issue - even if you fixed the 2 issues above, it really still wouldn't qualify as "broadband" to the FCC - which defines broadband as reliably having download speeds of at least 6Mb. While I personally would be thrilled to have a *fraction* of 6Mb, it wouldn't qualify as "broadband" even then.

RE: happy
By inighthawki on 2/16/2014 2:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe this is just due to the location you're in being rural and maybe far away from the towers, but 4G should be able to achieve 6Mbps. Is is it more of the "reliable" part that is an issue? :P

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/16/2014 10:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
There's a T-Mobile tower not far from us...we can get 4G on that. At first we started off trying to live on a T-Mo wifi device - but T-Mo only gives up to 10Gb per month...after which they "throttle" you.

The first 10Gb *never* approached 6Mbps. That's just an asinine number. At best I'd get downloads coming at maybe 300k. Which, really, I couldn't complain about.

But obviously 10Gb is pretty close to worthless these days...which meant that we spent most of a month "throttled." Which often meant we got about 10k-30k speeds. And no, I'm not kidding.

A while ago we switched to a EVDO service that runs on the Sprint 3G network. On the plus side, it's least in theory. 50Gb per month for sure is no problem with this service. On the downside, it's only 3G to start with...and worse for us the Sprint tower is considerably farther away, and the service is *very* variable from day to day.

As I noted elsewhere, there's a point-to-point wifi service that's put up it's antennas on the water tower in a tiny town a couple miles from us...the issue there being that we can't get line-of-sight to them, which is required. I'm just about 99% sure I'm going to spent a few thousand dollars this spring putting up maybe an 80' ham radio tower so that we can get line-of-sight to those antennas...and then we can get real, actual broadband on that service. Up to 30mbps download speeds, unlimited bandwidth, and about half the cost of what we're paying now for the EVDO thing. It's just going to cost us a few thousand dollars to get there. And we're ridiculously fortunate that such a service is within range anyway.

RE: happy
By atechfan on 2/15/2014 6:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
I read the report that Motoman linked to. Nowhere does it say that these 1/3 can't get high speed internet. It states the percentage of households that have certain speed. In the footnotes, it specifically says that if the speed available is higher, the chart reports the speed the customer had purchased, not the speed they could have purchased.

RE: happy
By bupkus on 2/16/2014 4:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, with the steady and continued transfer of population from rural to urban areas this problem will solve itself. :p

RE: happy
By Chadder007 on 2/14/2014 4:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you Love the push to "the Cloud" for everything.

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 6:42:27 PM , Rating: 1
The "cloud" is a joke. If you're one of the 1 in 3 Americans without access to broadband, anything that streams is a hoax - like Netflix for example. Or anything that needs big downloads - like BS. Cloud storage and/or backup services like Carbonite? Please...utter morony.

Imagine that you'd like to take up gaming without broadband - which is to say, you've got maybe cellular wifi or satellite. Actually, scratch satellite - the latency is so bad it's a non-starter for gaming. OK then...cellular. You have a 10Gb/month cap on your cellular wifi contract. You decide you want to play, oh, Age of Conan for example. Or STO or DDO or LOL or whatever else...they're all pretty much the same for this purpose.

The download to install the game is 30Gb. So, this month you can download 1/3 of the game, after which you have no more internet access at all (or, if you're lucky, you're only "throttled" - which I can personally testify frequently means you get 10k download speeds). Next month you can download another 3rd of the game, and then have no internet. In the third month, you can download the final third of the game and actually install it...but you can't actually play it, because you have no bandwidth left. In the 4th month, you get all excited to play the game...only to discover that there's a few Gb of patches to download...since your version is basically 3 months old at this point...

Etc. Etc. Etc. You get the idea. The "online world" for a third of America is *nothing* like what it is for the other 2/3.

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: happy
By SlyNine on 2/14/2014 8:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
What utter nonsense. Not everyone can afford to move simply to get better internet.

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 11:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of "afford to." Virtually everyone who lives in the country does so because they *can* afford to. Poor people live in the city.

Anyway, if anyone would like to come up with a plan to move our 50-acre horse farm to downtown, I'm all ears. Otherwise, the horrifically brain-damaged people who say dumbas$ sh1t like "just move to the city" need to kindly remove themselves from the gene pool. Although in their case...probably more of a mud puddle.

RE: happy
By Cypherdude1 on 2/15/2014 7:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
Because sooner or later everything is going to the cloud, and that "one third" can just go eat sand.
Beware of the "cloud." Unless you're using military grade encryption NOT from American companies, everything is accessible.

Be aware, you can still use PGP 6.5.8, even in Windows 7/8. Do not use the newest PGP because it was taken over by Symantec and they never released their source code. If old PGP doesn't suite your needs, there's German software encryption company SecurStar:

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 8:57:13 AM , Rating: 1
Motoman the town I live in has FAR less people than the 4 million you quoted for your area, yet I have a 50 megabit cable line. And I could have even more if I wanted to pay more.

In fact when I moved here not too long ago, the biggest attraction we had WAS a horse farm lol.

This city vs country argument you've couched isn't even close to being an accurate portrait of the broadband landscape of this nation. And how an intelligent person as yourself honestly believes a third of our population has no access to broadband...come on.

Anytime this comes up, you seem to be unable to see past your own situation. Fine, but I have to draw the line at your anti-cloud rhetoric. It's tiring Luddite stuff.

RE: happy
By ritualm on 2/14/2014 8:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm amongst the "one third" that absolutely requires an alternative to streaming and cloud services - and I live in an area where I can simply stream and do everything through the cloud.

There is no such thing as 100% availability unless it's a NASA/ISS space mission. Having everything in the cloud is the same as putting all your eggs in one basket. Five-9 reliability means the service can still go down at the most inopportune of times.

People like you can pound sand when the network goes down.

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 9:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'm amongst the "one third" that absolutely requires an alternative to streaming and cloud services

There are alternatives and there always will be. However I'm just stating an OBVIOUS fact based on a long-time trend. More and more of our daily lives and activities will be on "the cloud". What's so offensive about that exactly?

Soon we won't even have to install games and apps. They'll all be streamed from the cloud. You can already play games off the cloud, there's a few services who do this, and it's actually pretty damn impressive how good it works.

There is no such thing as 100% availability

Please, spare me. The same can be said of electricity and running water. We rely on those big time, don't we?

As far as I'm concerned, broadband is just as essential. Because we can't live without it :P

People like you can pound sand when the network goes down.

LOL oh trust me, I do! The second an outage (very rare) happens, I'm on my phone to my ISP freaking out.

Of course the great thing about cellular networks is even if my cable line goes out, I can do pretty much whatever I need to on my smartphone.

We live in an ever-connecting world, and I don't see why we should get left behind because some horse farming bumpkins somewhere don't want to get with the times!

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 9:18:27 AM , Rating: 2

By games I mean graphically intensive 3D games, not Facebook games etc etc

RE: happy
By ritualm on 2/15/2014 2:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
There are alternatives and there always will be. However I'm just stating an OBVIOUS fact based on a long-time trend. More and more of our daily lives and activities will be on "the cloud". What's so offensive about that exactly?

Soon we won't even have to install games and apps. They'll all be streamed from the cloud. You can already play games off the cloud, there's a few services who do this, and it's actually pretty damn impressive how good it works.

In other words, you're perfectly okay to lease, not own. Lose your connection? Can't access all the stuff on the cloud until it returns! If the company decides to kill cloud-hosted games or apps, you lose access to them forever.

Your insistence that anyone who refuses to embrace the cloud as "horse farming bumpkins" is every bit as offensive.

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 5:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
And Steam could close their doors tomorrow and you could lose your purchases. That doesn't seem to scare anyone away though.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, this is just how things are today. Welcome to the 21st century.

RE: happy
By atechfan on 2/16/2014 8:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how streaming games from the cloud will ever be better than playing them locally. The only usage case I can see for it is playing more demanding games on a tablet, and even then, I would rather stream from my own PC to the tablets than rely on a streaming service.

You have even listed the Xbox One's cloud features as a weakness, so don't be defending cloud gaming now.

RE: happy
By bupkus on 2/16/2014 5:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
and that "one third" can just go eat sand.
I believe the expression is pound sand, but I get your point.
However, being one person who reacts very badly to MSG and other excitotoxins, I may need to take your advice.

RE: happy
By SlyNine on 2/14/2014 8:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like ISDN would be an upgrade. I have an old ISDN router if that would help lol. maybe get rid of the cap at least. I used ISDN in 2005 (same situation as yours).

Or perhaps you could look in to fixed wireless. They often hit areas such as yours. I live 10 miles out of Cheyenne wy. Thank god we finally got DSL.

RE: happy
By Motoman on 2/14/2014 11:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
There is a point-to-point wireless service in a dinky little town about 2 miles from us. The issue being that the terrain rolls a bit too much, and even from the top of our house we can't see the tower the antennas are on (and line-of-sight is needed).

I'm almost convinced that I'm going to spend a few thousand dollars this spring to put up an 80' ham radio tower to get line-of-sight to those antennas.

RE: happy
By atechfan on 2/15/2014 6:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are making up the 1/3 number. Maybe 1/3 don't bother to get it, but I highly doubt that 1/3 CAN'T get it.

RE: happy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 9:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's not even believable that such a huge number of Americans have NO access to broadband. Choose not to, yes. CAN'T get? No.

RE: happy
By ltfields on 2/14/2014 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, PLEASE PLEASE come to Denver!

RE: happy
By kmmatney on 2/14/2014 5:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but before Denver start off in Centennial, Colorado.

RE: happy
By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2014 5:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just come to Denver

Google just put gigabit fiber about 6 miles from my house and didn't cover my area. GDMF'nSh**Fu**!!!!!!!!!

By BRB29 on 2/14/2014 3:04:50 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously, I'm not worried about anything more than 100Mbps right now. 10Gbps is more than my devices can handle. Hell, the SSD on my Macbook Pro pegged out at 650MB/s. That's only like 5 Gbps.

Please spread the 1Gbps connection across the country so the rest of us don't get robbed by Comcast, Time Warner, etc... with their unreliable connections and low speed.

I thought I was blessed when I moved into an area with VZ Fios offering me cable TV + 50mbps internet for $80 a month. I have to say most of my friends does not have as much luck.

By inighthawki on 2/14/2014 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 4
so the rest of us don't get robbed by Comcast, Time Warner, etc...

Get ready for more expensive, less reliable, and lower speeds from "ComWarner" :)

By fic2 on 2/14/2014 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was TimeCast. Maybe ConWarner.

By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2014 5:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I might have to switch to the local DSL company.

By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2014 5:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit that my comcast internet service has been pretty solid though.

By kmmatney on 2/14/2014 5:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
I had Comcast's "extreme" 50mb service for a while, but a glitch unknowingly knocked my speeds down to 25mb. To be honest I really couldn't tell the difference - all the servers I download from are already slower than that. We need more more far-reaching service, not faster speeds.

By jimbojimbo on 2/14/2014 5:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
During the evenings my supposed 20mbps Comcast goes down to around 2mbps. Even 10mbps consistently would make me happy. My Netflix is so blurry!

10gbps would be awesome but.............
By RjBass on 2/14/2014 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Kansas City MO and still don't have access to the 1gbps Google Fiber yet. It's nice they want to increase the speeds to 10gbps, but they should really get the service to all the residents of the city they promised it to first. I currently use Time Warner who just got bought out by Comcast. My internet services are about to go from crappy to just downright non existent. I have been chomping a the bits waiting for Google Fiber but there are still no signs that my area of the city will get it for at least another two years.

By kmmatney on 2/14/2014 5:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow - that really sucks. I would hate to be that close...and yet so far.

RE: 10gbps would be awesome but.............
By KCjoker on 2/14/2014 6:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
I also live in a KC, Missouri suburb and I'm just outside of the area Google Fiber is available to. There's been quite a few issues with it in this area that doesn't seem to make news. Obviously with a new technology there will be some hiccups but there have been a lot of broken promises in the deal. If people think Google is a company that will be different than Comcast, Microsoft, etc...think again they're no different at all.

RE: 10gbps would be awesome but.............
By g35fan on 2/15/2014 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sucks to hear they're having issues. You should however consider yourself lucky for even having the option of going with someone other than TWC or Comcast. I'm getting ready to drop my cable tv completely and just use TWC internet. Maybe after enough customers drop cable TV and the market shifts in 5-10yrs things will be better.

And whatever happened to that Google high altitude internet beaming balloon? Google, please hook one of those to Terminal Tower in Cleveland. We need it. I really do think free or municipal wifi in larger cities that are hurting economically could help turn things around in those areas. As of Jan 13' the average cost of high speed internet was $50/month. Paying $56/month + modem (about to buy my own) for 20mbps here.

RE: 10gbps would be awesome but.............
By sorry dog on 2/15/2014 4:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
the modem rentals are complete gravy for providers... $7 a month for a piece of equipment that cost $70 and will probably last 7 years on average. Not in the business anymore but I kept a collection of modems to sell for $20 to customers that I felt sorry for... still got 10 or so laying around if docsis 2 is ok for ya.

By Jeffk464 on 2/15/2014 5:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
I bought my cable modem for $50 on amazon, works like a champ.

By RjBass on 2/17/2014 2:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
My main problem is that I actually live in KCMO proper. I am a teacher at two different schools. Both schools have been holding out on switching from their slow (but free) internet connections because they are both waiting on Google Fiber which is also supposed to be free for schools. Where I live and where the schools are, are both north of the river. Google invested over $20 million into North KC's fiber network to upgrade it and take over as the main operators of their network in order to use it as the bridge to get the link across the river. They have laid the backbone fiber cables on N. Oak, the main dead center street running from the river to the heart of the Northland, but branching out from there is going oh so slow. Unfortunately I am on the east side of the Northland and from the little we have heard, we will be lucky to get turned on before 2016.

Google gives us no information about where they are currently laying the network, so really we have no idea except from hearsay and speculation. The only reason I know they began laying the fiber on N. Oak is because a friend of mine lives over there and asked some guys what they were putting down and they told him Google Fiber.

Google is spreading out, making deals and signing up new cities and suburbs in the KC metro area, even laying down the fiber network backbone in some of those area's but they haven't fulfilled their first promise yet of covering KCK and KCMO. Why do they spread their people out and begin working in area's they signed after KCK and KCMO when they don't even have their first two area's covered yet? It makes no sense and feels like we are getting screwed.

10Gb/s internal networks are needed
By The Von Matrices on 2/14/2014 4:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
Before we talk about 10Gb/s external connections, we first need 10 Gb/s internal networks to become ubiquitous. $800 8-port switches and $300 network cards are still way too expensive.

RE: 10Gb/s internal networks are needed
By rcxb on 2/15/2014 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need 10Gb/sec to each system. You only need a 10+port switch, with one 10GbE uplink.

From there you can have dual or quad 1GbE NICs in each system, bonded to give you the aggregate 2Gb or 4Gb/sec to each system. You only need a 10GbE NIC (and a switch with multiple 10GbE ports) if you insist on letting each machine max-out the entire link. Otherwise, just think of this as Google eliminating the uplink bottleneck for every house with more than just one internet-connected device...

RE: 10Gb/s internal networks are needed
By lagomorpha on 2/17/2014 7:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
Otherwise, just think of this as Google eliminating the uplink bottleneck for every house with more than just one internet-connected device...

Presumably you'd also want a router that can do NAT at 10Gb/s. My TP-LINK can only manage 120Mb/s, a lot of home grade routers can only manage 30Mb/s in NAT. A TP-LINK TL-ER6120 can do 350Mb/s in NAT for $214. Cisco has routers that are faster than that but if you want a NAT router that can do more than 1Gb/s you're going to have to spend serious money.

RE: 10Gb/s internal networks are needed
By rcxb on 2/17/2014 10:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
Presumably you'd also want a router that can do NAT at 10Gb/s.

Google fiber installations already come with "network box" that does NAT and WiFi.

By lagomorpha on 2/18/2014 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
At 1-10Gb/s? How?

Not so fast...
By Guspaz on 2/14/2014 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Google Fibre is a G-PON system, meaning all the houses on a node share a ~2.5 Gbps connection. The topology is very similar to cable internet. From this ~2.5 Gbps pool, Google allows any individual user to consume 1 Gbps.

If Google wanted to move to 10 Gbps per customer, they'd have to replace all their head-end hardware as well as the equipment deployed to customers. The problem is that the successor to the G-PON that Google uses is 10G-PON, and that only enables slightly under 10 Gbps shared amongst users. So selling a 10 gigabit service where you've got many houses sharing the same 10 gigabit connection is iffy...

RE: Not so fast...
By createcoms on 2/15/2014 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yikes, so you're telling me they oversubscribe a PON with more than two 1Gbps allocations? Exactly how many are sitting across a given splitter?

Denver Love
By toffty on 2/14/2014 1:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
+1 to Denver!

By PAPutzback on 2/14/2014 4:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
This won't matter to me until they offer service in Fishers, Indiana.

Sorry to be the pessimist...
By sorry dog on 2/15/2014 6:18:44 PM , Rating: 1
I hate the be the glass half empty guy, and giga anything internet sounds great and all, but I can see a lot of downside to this.

Mainly this being a grander Google strategy to move most all things computing to the cloud and make you completely reliant on Google...which should lead to many a cool product, but will all downsides to using a remote are amplified.

...and at the end of the day the techy holdouts that want all our stuff local on hard drives that we can touch will be forced to comply or go without.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki