https://fiber.google.com/plans/residenti....

At $0/month explain how this benefits them? Are they looking at it from a standpoint that they wont have to pay for the bandwidth of people using youtube and google if it runs on their own last mile?

Wow...that's quite an offer!

Completely unavailable in my area, but I am hopeful that it becomes available soon.

I just pre-registered.

Would be awesome if it wasn't only in Kansas City.

> At $0/month explain how this benefits them?

Wait till Google is slipstreaming ads into your TV and other content.

7 years 1gb to your home. zero dollars. gotta be a catch somewhere because even if they are planning serving you ads, once you black hole the dns in the router then what ?

edit: looks like the 1Gb is 70/mo and the free is 5/1. still 1Gb is stupid fast.

Shut up and take my money!

free: Up to 5Mbps download, 1Mbps upload speed
$70/m: on a year contract, 1Gbps up and down
$120/m: on a two year contract, 1Gbps up and down + TV.

I hope they're able to expand this and force the current crop of ISPs to actually compete.

i think i pay ~50 for a 20/4 dsl. 20 bucks more for 1 Gb DL, err.. no brainer.

i cant imagine what a 1Gb connection would enable. id need more harddrives to store all the pr0n !

Quote:

At $0/month explain how this benefits them? Are they looking at it from a standpoint that they wont have to pay for the bandwidth of people using youtube and google if it runs on their own last mile?

At the end of the day, they want you using their cloud so you will view their advertising, and purchase music, videos and books from them. To get to a state where cloud is legitimately useful (ie like an extended server, rather than just a streaming service) they need extremely fast and reliable access available.

This seems like both a pilot in terms of determining costs/benefits of fibre deployment, but also a kick in the arse for ISPs to up their game.

According to the website, they will only be rolling out fiber to areas of Kansas City with high enough signups. Presumably, the $0/month (+$300 or $25/month setup fee) is also to help them reach those minimin levels in more areas.

Really can 1gb even be used? Won't there be a bottleneck somewhere else on the net? Well maybe individual servers might not be able to serve you at that high of a bandwidth, but it would allow you to maintain several high speed connections.

From random servers, no you're not gonna get gb download speeds. From big sites that lots of people pull lots of content from? You'll be surprised.

Especially since you're gonna be running off what amounts to google's backbone.

You see those little boxes that come along with the service? I'd wonder if they'd put enough storage in them to take something like akamia's edge to the extreme. Local edge caching of youtube and google play content. You just end up pulling from the guy 3 houses down @ 1gb..

The catch is you have to get 800 people in your neighborhood to agree to sign up. So if you live in the area by KU Med Center in Kansas City KS, you can have access (for a price). The other neighborhood is a middle to upperclass area in Kansas City Mo.

5/1?

****, their free service would be a downgrade for us.

We're on a 8/2 hookup now...but for $70/mo gigabit up/down smokes our ISPs best speed and cost.

Reminds me of Rockefeller who gave away free oil lamps...

It's one gigabit 0.125 Gb.

At that 1gb/sec speed, the bottleneck is wireless router. If you have 5 devices in home/offcie concurrently and continuously hitting your router, you may *not* see much difference with 1gbps from 20d/3u speed. Yes with TV streaming, it will make a difference.

Nice, Markus

I picture this somehow being an entrance into some different type of larger internet.

They want their own fiber network, everywhere, yesterday.

Comcast better watch the **** out.

Google will just destroy its investors'/owners' capital. Just like every other tech company that gives away 'free' stuff. Remember -- there's always *someone* paying. Google's been around for a decade now and has yet to provide a return to its shareholders despite being a fairly mature business, supposedely with a bunch of ad revenue.

However, apparently Google has hundreds of thousands of servers sitting on racks in warehouses. If Google could construct fibre optic networks to link up large numbers of customer-owned machines, they might actually be able to get the customers to provide them with all the compute horsepower they need, in exchange for subsidized Internet access. Most of us probably would accept letting Google use our relatively powerful computers -- in their idle time -- and paying the bills for 24/7 operation -- in exchange for a very fast and subsidized Internet connection. At least I would. Users who decide not to run Google's (encrypted) virtual machine = pay full freight.

Pits, building out the infrastructure of the country is not wasting the shareholder $$$, especially not if it brings internet access to previously non connected individuals. Free Google fiber will only be available in areas where they are already building out, and the "free" tier actually requires a $300 up front payment. The free tier is like the few GB free on dropbox. Sure its fine but when you actually start using it heavily... the upgrade to the paid monthly account is very easy to justify. Upgrading from 5Mbps to 1Gbps down and up, uncapped, for $70 would be the easiest decision I've made. My sister pays that much for the 5/1.

Djloche, just how does Google, a company with zero experience in telecom, make a business case for these investments, when the outfits (ie: the LECs) who are sitting on the infrastructure can't?

This infrastructure isn't cheap. All-in costs of $5-$10k per household passed aren't unheard of. The active Gig-E, rather than GPON (ie: passive splitters, little field electronics) nature of Google's implementation is likely to drive the up-front cost closer to the high end of the range.

As much as we'd all like to adopt the approach of singing a song, and seeing infrastructure materialize -- if it can't pay for itself, and provide a ROE to Google similar to that of its other investments/operations, then its destroying Google's shareholder capital. A demonstration project here and there is quite different than offering such on a widespread basis.

Quote:

At that 1gb/sec speed, the bottleneck is wireless router. If you have 5 devices in home/offcie concurrently and continuously hitting your router, you may *not* see much difference with 1gbps from 20d/3u speed. Yes with TV streaming, it will make a difference.

Cue 802.11ac on the 5GHz bands, and faster SoC's in the wireless gateways. Actually with IPV6, the need for a 'router' is basically just for the firewall and some DHCP (ie: you don't need NAT). Firewall services and DHCP can be provided by the ISP itself, end-user-configurable through a web interface, rather trivially.

Easy.

They are using their position and cash to undersell all info, cable and internet providers.

Then, as Jfedak says:
"Wait till Google is slipstreaming ads into your TV and other content."

...or monitoring every single byte you d/l or u/l or watch and data mining every single thing you look at on your pc, tv, smartphone or any other future device.

Google Home:
Where they automate your appliances.