backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by melgross.. on Apr 29 at 6:40 PM

Along with fiber, select cities could also find Google-supported Wi-Fi access

Google wants to send a clear message to U.S. internet users and rivals: the internet war is continuing, and Google wants to be on top.  Cities that are already receiving Google’s gigabit-speed internet service will also be able to benefit from widespread Wi-Fi, according to recent reports.
 
“We’d love to be able to bring outdoor Wi-Fi access to all of our Fiber cities, although we don’t have any specific plans to announce right now,” Google spokespeople reportedly said.
 
Google Fiber is currently available in Kansas City and Provo, Utah, with plans on the tablet to bring the service to Austin, TexasAn additional 34 cities have until May 1 to reply, providing information about city addresses, building types, and to turn over geospatial data files that provide access to city infrastructure.
 
After receiving the documents, Google will conduct thorough studies to determine how feasible fiber and Wi-Fi support can be introduced.
 
There is a growing battle in the United States to try and roll out fiber internet access to subscribers, and Google hopes to put as much pressure on traditional Internet service providers as possible.  AT&T has plans to ramp up gigabit-per-second fiber to 21 cities in the U.S., with other companies also trying to join in on the fun.

Source: Computer World



Comments     Threshold


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

Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/26/2014 2:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know what Google means by gigabit fiber. Consumer Reports, in the new May issue, has an article about the Internet, cable, etc. in that they have a small side piece called:

How fast is Google fiver?

In it they go to a home that has just gotten Google gigabit fiber. The computer network is wired with gigabit Ethernet, so we're not talking WiFi. Google promised them 200Mbps. That's 200Mbps for gigabit fiber, mind you. So right there, Google is promising just 20% of what they publicize they are selling.

But when measured by Speedtest, they were just getting 50Mbps.

Now, I don't know about anyone else here, but if this is anywhere near typical, I believe it's outrageous. How can they promise 200Mbps for what they advertise as gigabit service? And then, why is it 50Mbps?

If Comcast did this, there would be outrage, but not here, apparently, even CU said that the 50Mbps seems to be enough. That's not normal for them to say that.

I find that delivering just 5% of what is being advertised and promoted is fraud, pure and simple. I just began FIOS, and my service, 150/65, delivers a bit more than promised, and that's the way it should be.




RE: Gigabit—or not?
By atechfan on 4/26/2014 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
I never read that. Interesting to know. So huge Google has been touting their fiber services forever, and so far they have managed to roll it out in only 2 cities, and only at a small fraction of the speed they promised? And that is with all the dark fiber they bought dirt cheap over a decade ago?

Doesn't look like the ISPs have anything to worry about.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/26/2014 3:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I just don't understand it. I'd like to have people who do have their service post as to what they are actually getting. While $70 a month is great for real gigabit service, it's not great for 50Mbps.

And I'd like to understand why they said that these people would be getting 200Mbps service in the first place. How many people are they telling that to, and why haven't we heard of it before?


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By heffeque on 4/27/2014 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
In Spain you can get 200/200 Mbps with no bandwidth caps + cellphone with unlimited national calls + 1 GB for 60 €/month, and tests indicate that it actually gives what it advertises.
.
I didn't know that Google Fiber in the US was actually worse than a fiber company in a country that's going through a tough economic crisis :-/


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By syslog2000 on 4/28/2014 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Spain is a fraction of the US' size. Much cheaper to connect up a small, (relatively) densely populated area than the US.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/28/2014 8:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
FIOS has no bandwidth caps either. My cellphone has unlimited voice and SMS, though we mostly use messaging which is unlimited as well. Free calls to all of the USA and Canada.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/26/2014 3:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I just don't understand it. I'd like to have people who do have their service post as to what they are actually getting. While $70 a month is great for real gigabit service, it's not great for 50Mbps.

And I'd like to understand why they said that these people would be getting 200Mbps service in the first place. How many people are they telling that to, and why haven't we heard of it before?


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By ComputerJuice on 4/26/2014 6:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
In my city $70 for 50meg is an AWESOME price considering Google has no bandwidth caps. We have only one company that provides that theoretical speed: Comcast. It tests at about 25-30meg in reality with a bandwith cap of 200gig (add $50 if you go over). All for the "introductory price" $159.99 per month. After a year it becomes $209.95 +taxes = $228 per month. Bundled with cable and phone the price comes down to $125, but to get it down you spend another $110 to get that (aka $235 +taxes). And that is at Comcasts current rates (which we all know can rise per month). The only alternatives we have is mobile (verizon, att, tmobile) or Century Link with a top speed of 10mbs (tests at 7mbs).


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/27/2014 12:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's a 250GB limit and they aren't really enforcing it right now.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By Avatar28 on 4/27/2014 4:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Also pretty sure it's not $50 for going over. It's more like $10/50 GB over.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/28/2014 8:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
FIOS in NYC, at least is better than that, at least if your getting more than just Internet. I'm not sure what that alons off hand. But for triple play, with the ultimate cable service which includes all of HBO and Showtime, plus some other movie channel, I forget which, plus a number of premium other channels including sports, with 75/35 service (real 75/35 service, it's $129 a month. I opted for 150/35 for an extra $50.

Their service is what they advertise. Shouldn't they all be? No excuse?


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By Camikazi on 4/27/2014 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 3
I saw that article but also noticed that it said the technicians had to visit their house 3 times after they installed to fix problems so it might be they still have a problem. Also there are many people who have posted on blogs saying they are getting the 1Gbps speed that Google claims, actually I haven't found any except the one you are talking about that get such low speeds. Everyone else posting says they get from 700-940Mbps on Google fiber so I think that person just has a wiring or installation problem somewhere.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By atechfan on 4/27/2014 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to look around more. Consumer Reports is hardly a source I trust.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By melgross on 4/29/2014 6:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
I trust it more than random posters here. They are very good at most things, not so good with some others. I've yet to see a comparison of cable providers that includes Google.


RE: Gigabit—or not?
By Namey on 4/28/2014 1:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Speedtest will show the fastest server side upload speed. This translates to the fastest download speed you can get. Quite likely, the server was throttled on its end, to 50 Mbps.


Why do I...
By villageidiotintern on 4/25/2014 6:50:55 PM , Rating: 5
...sense that Comcast intends to lobby for buggy whip legislation in Congress to fend off disruptive innovation?




RE: Why do I...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/14, Rating: 0
RE: Why do I...
By M'n'M on 4/25/2014 11:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What chance does Comcast have?

Hopefully none in Hell. Then again Comcast has ties to the "content providers", where Google is weak. People will pay for the pipes to push data through but it's the pre-made content that makes the $$s.

With Google as an ISP, will I have a chance to get gMail_secure ? Where my e-mail isn't scanned by anyone (short of a specific court order) ? Hmmm ....


RE: Why do I...
By RjBass on 4/26/2014 2:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
How is Google weak with the content providers? They are only missing two channels that I want, AMC and Globo. Otherwise they have everything needed and not nearly as much crap.

https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/channel...


RE: Why do I...
By melgross on 4/26/2014 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
Your crap is what other people want to watch, and their crap is what you want to watch. If providers got rid of "all the crap", there would hardly be anything left. I stopped watching sports several years ago, for example, to me, all the sports channels are "crap" that I can do without. But I don't want them to not carry them because other people watch them.

I'm always amazed at how some people think that what they don't want is crap, and that it isn't needed, without thinking, or caring, that it's important to others


RE: Why do I...
By Motoman on 4/26/2014 7:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
But there are vast numbers of channels you're forced to subsidize when you buy cable/satellite service who would have no chance at all of surviving on their own if they weren't forced upon unwilling subscribers.

Those are crap. And there's a lot more of them than there are channels that actually could survive on their own.


RE: Why do I...
By melgross on 4/29/2014 6:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's just your opinion. You don't know which channels that may be. But a lot of those channels are premium, and are being paid for. In addition, except for the public service channels, there are many that pay to get carried. It evens out. With others, part of the subscription for the individual channel is shared with the carrier.

I'd rather have people get to see what they want than to have people remove those channels. I don't think that anyone should be able to determine what someone else can see, even of it does cost them a few extra bucks.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki