Google Fiber coming to Austin(kvue.com)
kvue.com
Google Fiber coming to Austin
http://www.kvue.com/home/Google-Fiber-coming-to-Austin-201695291.html
7 comments
Do you have any details about the google fiber router and bridge mode? I've been trying to find any details that walk through the router's configuration UI without much luck. Looks like it always NATs connections and the best you can do is port-forward.
Stanford nearly shut down Google when it was still operating out of the campus network.
It's not unusual to be in legal gray zones when you're in the humble beginnings of a startup (in the parents' garage, say).
They have to say things like "no running servers" and "no commercial use" because of the lawyers, but I doubt Google's own employees would let the Fiber team live it down if they found out a legitimate startup had been disconnected for a frivolous violation of their ToS.
It's not unusual to be in legal gray zones when you're in the humble beginnings of a startup (in the parents' garage, say).
They have to say things like "no running servers" and "no commercial use" because of the lawyers, but I doubt Google's own employees would let the Fiber team live it down if they found out a legitimate startup had been disconnected for a frivolous violation of their ToS.
They don't mean running servers out of your basement. At least I hope they don't, that'd be stupid. They mean the opportunities that accompany residential gigabit access.
" is harping on all the benefits this will bring startups"
Google giveth, Google taketh when they want to. Don't be the sucker to base your start-up on the idea that a 1 GB pipe is going to be there and or at $80 /month.
Google is just trying to pressure TW, Verizon, Comcast etc to increase the speed (Youtube, G Play and all)
Google giveth, Google taketh when they want to. Don't be the sucker to base your start-up on the idea that a 1 GB pipe is going to be there and or at $80 /month.
Google is just trying to pressure TW, Verizon, Comcast etc to increase the speed (Youtube, G Play and all)
Austin really is a great place to be a techie.
Submitting resumes last week was a surprisingly optimistic experience. In addition to several referrals from friends, I'm qualified for development work at diverse companies, from games to chemicals to media to nuptials.
Submitting resumes last week was a surprisingly optimistic experience. In addition to several referrals from friends, I'm qualified for development work at diverse companies, from games to chemicals to media to nuptials.
I've been living in Austin for roughly 2 years now. Great city to live, and is one of the friendlier cities in Texas.
I'm looking forward to ditching Time Warner Cable Internet once Google Fiber goes live in Austin :).
I'm looking forward to ditching Time Warner Cable Internet once Google Fiber goes live in Austin :).
I've been here for three years and my only regret is not getting here a bit sooner.
I just completed a 3 month accelerator program based in Austin. It is great place to be.My co-founder is definitely returning to Austin once he wraps up his stuff from Orlando. I am also seriously thinking of moving to Austin but am unable to makeup my mind between Austin and Bay area/SFO.
Would you recommend it over the bay? I've lived and worked here all my life and getting a bit bored.
I think it's good to try different places but Austin is especially cool. The nightlife is better than SF, the rents are more affordable, outdoor lifestyles are huge, the girls are prettier, and the weather is better.
Austin is consistently ranked at the top of various best of lists, a quick google search found this link. http://www.austinhomelistings.com/blog/is-austin-the-best-ci...
Austin is consistently ranked at the top of various best of lists, a quick google search found this link. http://www.austinhomelistings.com/blog/is-austin-the-best-ci...
Except for the drought we are still in and the 74 days above 100 degrees in 2011.
Yall should stay in SF. You won't like it here.
1. No beach 2. Snakes 3. Scorpions 4. Coyotes 5. Steel guitars and country music 6. Guns 7. Heat kills everything, you better love the color brown 8. Few sidewalks and biking is a misdemeanor downtown 9. Everyone is obsessed with football and 10. Stevie Ray Vaughan
1. No beach 2. Snakes 3. Scorpions 4. Coyotes 5. Steel guitars and country music 6. Guns 7. Heat kills everything, you better love the color brown 8. Few sidewalks and biking is a misdemeanor downtown 9. Everyone is obsessed with football and 10. Stevie Ray Vaughan
You forgot giant flying cockroaches.
> and biking is a misdemeanor downtown
What? I see people biking downtown all the time. Is it really?
What? I see people biking downtown all the time. Is it really?
Unless they changed the law recently, certain roads you need to walk your bike, such as "The Drag" and Congress Ave. Yes you do see a lot of hipsters riding around the East 6th Street area. Generally speaking it's not a pedestrian friendly state, Texans joke they can tell you're from another state if you walk further than 20 feet. Because there's no coastline, everything is spread out. Goes with the "Everything is bigger in Texas" mantra.
Really I don't dislike Austin. I moved here about 10 years ago. You will hear some Texans complain about rude Californians moving here. But it makes sense why you're moving here. Lower taxes = more jobs. Just about everything is more expensive in California. I don't know what the situation is in California lately but from reading the headlines, sounds like the government is broke. Texas is more conservative. For example, "State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year" vs. "members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year" Wikipedia.
Really I don't dislike Austin. I moved here about 10 years ago. You will hear some Texans complain about rude Californians moving here. But it makes sense why you're moving here. Lower taxes = more jobs. Just about everything is more expensive in California. I don't know what the situation is in California lately but from reading the headlines, sounds like the government is broke. Texas is more conservative. For example, "State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year" vs. "members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year" Wikipedia.
As an Austin male I'd like to point out we are also exceptionally good looking.
I moved to Austin in 2011 after traveling for 6 months around the country, including weeks in the bay area and other tech cities. I like SF and I'd consider living in SF if it wasn't for the terrible CA government (both local and state). High tax rates on everything, ridiculous entitlement expenditures, anti-business anti-free market policies (rent control, stupid building restrictions contributing to ridiculous housing costs, high business fees, etc).
That said, Austin is great. Come out and visit, flights are pretty reasonable. I prefer Austin weather, Texans are very friendly and welcoming people, and the area is booming which creates a lot of opportunity. TX is much more business friendly. No income tax, a strong libertarian sentiment, similar social views to SF.
The tech scene is obviously smaller but vibrant. There are quite a few coworking spaces and a few incubators. There's at least one tech meetup / event every day of the week. SXSW.
Like any city it has its weaknesses. North south traffic during rush hour is terrible. Our public transportation isn't great. It's very much a car city. The pickup trucks take some getting used to (I still find their proliferation odd). Housing costs are going up but IMO are still very reasonable. Much, much less than the bay.
That said, Austin is great. Come out and visit, flights are pretty reasonable. I prefer Austin weather, Texans are very friendly and welcoming people, and the area is booming which creates a lot of opportunity. TX is much more business friendly. No income tax, a strong libertarian sentiment, similar social views to SF.
The tech scene is obviously smaller but vibrant. There are quite a few coworking spaces and a few incubators. There's at least one tech meetup / event every day of the week. SXSW.
Like any city it has its weaknesses. North south traffic during rush hour is terrible. Our public transportation isn't great. It's very much a car city. The pickup trucks take some getting used to (I still find their proliferation odd). Housing costs are going up but IMO are still very reasonable. Much, much less than the bay.
If you are bored in the San Francisco Bay Area the problem is likely internal rather than where you live, so moving (even to somewhere awesome like Austin) will not resolve it.
Well that's a strange way of putting it. I understand what you're getting at, but every city has its own character. What if you're bored or exhausted with the Bay Area's character? Yes, that's an internal conflict but also yes, moving elsewhere can solve it.
It may be a great town, but it isn't the only one and it certainly isn't the most exciting or engaging. There's too much else going on in the world to put one place on a pedestal.
It may be a great town, but it isn't the only one and it certainly isn't the most exciting or engaging. There's too much else going on in the world to put one place on a pedestal.
Bored? In the middle of coastal California? Surrounded by people with every hobby and passion imaginable?
And you want to move to Austin? In the middle of Texas?
And you want to move to Austin? In the middle of Texas?
Ha, I've had the exact same feelings about Austin -- I've lived and worked here all my life, and have been thinking about moving to the bay area for some time now.
Austin's great. I just want to experience what it's like living in someplace different.
Austin's great. I just want to experience what it's like living in someplace different.
There was an Austin Hacker News Meetup but looks like it died. Probably because it costs $ to start a Meetup now.
It costs? For what?!
When I initially asked, I didn't get an answer: why wouldn't Google go ahead and roll it out Fiber here, in its own back yard? How many times are we going to see this story and then pay our monthly Comcast/AT&T/Verizon over-priced tithe for a mediocre service?
The cynical old man in me thinks maybe there's some kind of bribery going on to keep the Bay Area off the table for as long as possible. How much would Comcast have to pay you, Google, to keep you from destroying its market here? A billion? Ten? Fifty?
I've thought about relocating to Austin if I ever tire of the startup scene here, but now it looks like I'd have a very good reason to just go ahead and do that.
The cynical old man in me thinks maybe there's some kind of bribery going on to keep the Bay Area off the table for as long as possible. How much would Comcast have to pay you, Google, to keep you from destroying its market here? A billion? Ten? Fifty?
I've thought about relocating to Austin if I ever tire of the startup scene here, but now it looks like I'd have a very good reason to just go ahead and do that.
This thing is bigger than Austin or Kansas City.
This is Google's answer to the cold war declared on the Internet by Comcast and Time-Warner Cable.
Do any of you remember when Comcast was complaining that Google was making billions of dollars selling ads on Comcast's cable modem service? Do you remember them saying that they wanted a part of that revenue? That this was UNFAIR?
Make no mistake: this is Google making the cable companies watch their step. If push comes to shove and the cable companies start to try and constrain the open Internet in an effort to extract rents, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will expand this service QUICKLY and get into the wireless broadband business post-haste.
This is about ACCESS. Google isn't Google if they can't ensure that they get the visits to their web properties. Right now, the cable companies are the only game in town in way too many cities. This is wrong. We should have competing wireline providers. I'm no Google apologist but I can't say that I disagree with their strategy.
This is Google's answer to the cold war declared on the Internet by Comcast and Time-Warner Cable.
Do any of you remember when Comcast was complaining that Google was making billions of dollars selling ads on Comcast's cable modem service? Do you remember them saying that they wanted a part of that revenue? That this was UNFAIR?
Make no mistake: this is Google making the cable companies watch their step. If push comes to shove and the cable companies start to try and constrain the open Internet in an effort to extract rents, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will expand this service QUICKLY and get into the wireless broadband business post-haste.
This is about ACCESS. Google isn't Google if they can't ensure that they get the visits to their web properties. Right now, the cable companies are the only game in town in way too many cities. This is wrong. We should have competing wireline providers. I'm no Google apologist but I can't say that I disagree with their strategy.
you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will expand this service QUICKLY and get into the wireless broadband business post-haste.
With what? A city here and a city there is a great experiment hoping to push telcos into action. Trying to expand nationally can get hairy and extremely expensive.
I have a feeling that Google is losing on this project and the "real price" would be much higher than the current one.
With what? A city here and a city there is a great experiment hoping to push telcos into action. Trying to expand nationally can get hairy and extremely expensive.
I have a feeling that Google is losing on this project and the "real price" would be much higher than the current one.
Why would you believe that?
Google makes a lot of money on ads. This is the broadcast television model applied to Internet service. They can subsidize their service with ad revenue (cablecos do this too) and still make money.
But you don't have to cover the whole nation to have an effect. You just find out the cities where the CableCos are extracting the highest rents and target those. You take away their gravy with the fattest OPEX margins and repeat until they cry uncle.
Google makes a lot of money on ads. This is the broadcast television model applied to Internet service. They can subsidize their service with ad revenue (cablecos do this too) and still make money.
But you don't have to cover the whole nation to have an effect. You just find out the cities where the CableCos are extracting the highest rents and target those. You take away their gravy with the fattest OPEX margins and repeat until they cry uncle.
They've state repeatedly that this is a profitable enterprise for them. As a public company, they couldn't say that if it weren't true.
They've state repeatedly that this is a profitable enterprise for them. As a public company, they couldn't say that if it weren't true.
“Google received stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees.” http://bgr.com/2012/09/10/google-fiber-criticism-crony-capit...
maybe they're profitable but that's not going to last or others (Comcast, AT&T etc) will sue the government for favoring Google over them.
Even if they said it's profitable, it all depends. Maybe some of the costs are shifted from division to division within Google. Either way, just because they said so, doesn't mean there isn't some wiggle room. They cannot lie about total sales and revenues, but many companies do not even break down division sales.
“Google received stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees.” http://bgr.com/2012/09/10/google-fiber-criticism-crony-capit...
maybe they're profitable but that's not going to last or others (Comcast, AT&T etc) will sue the government for favoring Google over them.
Even if they said it's profitable, it all depends. Maybe some of the costs are shifted from division to division within Google. Either way, just because they said so, doesn't mean there isn't some wiggle room. They cannot lie about total sales and revenues, but many companies do not even break down division sales.
Comcast and AT&T have received "stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments" and government-granted monopolies for decades.
Surely you realize that local governments have been doing this in all sorts of industries.
The give property tax abatements to WalMart or sales tax abatements for equipment deployed in a data center within their borders. This is nothing new.
And like someone else mentioned, TWC and Comcast have had de-facto monopolies for the past 20-30 years. Cable companies are bound by a franchise agreement with the city. One of the things they agree to in that agreement is that they have non-exclusive access to the market via the public right-of-way.
Also consider that one of the things cities will do is try to get ANYTHING that will bring jobs and industry/investment to their community. Growing the tax base is a prime directive of any city.
The give property tax abatements to WalMart or sales tax abatements for equipment deployed in a data center within their borders. This is nothing new.
And like someone else mentioned, TWC and Comcast have had de-facto monopolies for the past 20-30 years. Cable companies are bound by a franchise agreement with the city. One of the things they agree to in that agreement is that they have non-exclusive access to the market via the public right-of-way.
Also consider that one of the things cities will do is try to get ANYTHING that will bring jobs and industry/investment to their community. Growing the tax base is a prime directive of any city.
> With what? A city here and a city there is a great experiment hoping to push telcos into action. Trying to expand nationally can get hairy and extremely expensive.
I think the main impediment is popular support. When people realize, by way of comparison with cities that have Google fiber, that they are getting gouged government will be under pressure to improve broadband everywhere.
I think the main impediment is popular support. When people realize, by way of comparison with cities that have Google fiber, that they are getting gouged government will be under pressure to improve broadband everywhere.
Rolling out new infrastructure like this requires an immense amount of coordination and support with the local municipal governments. Between cities of relatively the same size and layout the sunk costs may not vary much, however the ease of obtaining permits, gaining access to main lines, having city hall support, etc. etc. can be worlds apart.
The first Google Fiber campaign seemed to me like it was more or less "Which city government will bend over backwards the most for us?", and I'll bet KC ranked first with Austin close behind. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were well entrenched interests, especially in SF, that would prevent Google from making an easy entrance there.
The first Google Fiber campaign seemed to me like it was more or less "Which city government will bend over backwards the most for us?", and I'll bet KC ranked first with Austin close behind. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were well entrenched interests, especially in SF, that would prevent Google from making an easy entrance there.
In one of Marco Arment's podcasts last year (I've been going through the old stuff lately), he mentioned how in Kansas City, the city is in charge of what can go on the poles (rather than smaller jurisdictions), so there is only one entity with which Google would have to negotiate.
Given how much of a clusterfuck residential development and zoning restrictions are in SV, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Goolge would have to negotiate with many many governing bodies to roll out fiber in 'its back yard'. (Wasn't it San Mateo that blocked some Bart line extension back in the day? I remember a HN'er sharing that info with us a few months ago)
Maybe Austin is another city where one entity owns all the rights to the telecommunication poles and pipes. Even if that's not the case, Texas cities have proven to be more business friendly than California overall in the last decade. There's probably an incentive for State govt to coerce cities to work with Google to build infrastructure that will help business. Heck, it'll surely help Rackspace and other Datacenters to have a stronger backbone of internet bandwidth.
Given how much of a clusterfuck residential development and zoning restrictions are in SV, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Goolge would have to negotiate with many many governing bodies to roll out fiber in 'its back yard'. (Wasn't it San Mateo that blocked some Bart line extension back in the day? I remember a HN'er sharing that info with us a few months ago)
Maybe Austin is another city where one entity owns all the rights to the telecommunication poles and pipes. Even if that's not the case, Texas cities have proven to be more business friendly than California overall in the last decade. There's probably an incentive for State govt to coerce cities to work with Google to build infrastructure that will help business. Heck, it'll surely help Rackspace and other Datacenters to have a stronger backbone of internet bandwidth.
Austin has a huge incorporated area. Yes, there are some small towns at the edges (Round Rock, Pflugerville), but the city constantly grows and takes in new developments.
This "single entity" argument makes a lot of sense. But then shouldn't NYC be the next step after testing in smaller cities like KC and Austin?
Remember when FogCreek wasn't allowed to keep their generator going because they were not using union folks? Assume something similar for Google Fibre. The willing, streamlined governments will get it first. Cities like NYC usually want tons of concessions (It must be guaranteed in neighborhoods, not just rich ones! It must use union workers! You need to pay a telecom tax! Etc Etc).
There's no way NYC would agree to the kinds of concessions that Google wants: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/11/the-real-cost-of-goog...
You're assuming those are requirements. What's much more likely is that Google opened up the "bidding" between cities and said "whoever gives us the best deal goes first." Kansas gave them the best deal.
This is pretty much the status quo for major infrastructure projects. Look at what happens with new sports stadiums between New York and New Jersey -- they each bend over backwards to see who can provide the most subsidies.
Why do you think New York wouldn't be able to provide a competitive "bid" to be one of the next cities? I can see why they wouldn't want to provide e.g. free office space as a result of the difference in local real estate prices, but that doesn't mean they can't offer something else. Tax incentives are a popular staple for this sort of thing. And NYC has the huge advantage that Google can wire more customers for less money as a result of the high population density, which means New York wouldn't have to offer the most concessions in order to be the most attractive.
This is pretty much the status quo for major infrastructure projects. Look at what happens with new sports stadiums between New York and New Jersey -- they each bend over backwards to see who can provide the most subsidies.
Why do you think New York wouldn't be able to provide a competitive "bid" to be one of the next cities? I can see why they wouldn't want to provide e.g. free office space as a result of the difference in local real estate prices, but that doesn't mean they can't offer something else. Tax incentives are a popular staple for this sort of thing. And NYC has the huge advantage that Google can wire more customers for less money as a result of the high population density, which means New York wouldn't have to offer the most concessions in order to be the most attractive.
I was thinking specifically of waiving permit fees, outsourced inspections, and colocated staff with authority to make decisions on the spot. If at least the first two aren't requirements I'd be surprised.
Permit pile-on has killed quite a few nascent populist telecom infrastructure projects in recent memory. Commercial projects generally have enough revenue involved to be worth working around the issues.
Permit pile-on has killed quite a few nascent populist telecom infrastructure projects in recent memory. Commercial projects generally have enough revenue involved to be worth working around the issues.
Do you have any idea what construction work in NYC costs?
Is anyone here thinking any of their comments through past "X city would be great for fiber"?
Is anyone here thinking any of their comments through past "X city would be great for fiber"?
In addition, large swaths of NYC already have Verizon FiOS, which isn't too bad by the standards of American ISPs. Even non-FiOS buildings (like the one I live in) have reasonable options; I get 50mb down and 5 mb up right now, in the East Village, for $50 a month from RCN cable.
By contrast, in Tucson (where I used to live), I got 12mb down and 1 or 2 mb up for about $70.
RCN's speeds aren't equivalent to Google Fiber, but they're not terrible either.
By contrast, in Tucson (where I used to live), I got 12mb down and 1 or 2 mb up for about $70.
RCN's speeds aren't equivalent to Google Fiber, but they're not terrible either.
Most commercial buildings in NYC will have access to commercial-grade fiber connections as well. NYC is one of the best-connected cities in the world already. I doubt Austin is even close.
Just curious - how is wireless data for you in NYC? On my iPhone 4S (AT&T) Manhattan speeds are much, much slower than say Baltimore suburbs.
By "large swaths" do you mean "a few brand-new buildings"? Because that's the only place I've ever heard of Fios being available.
Why would google want to deal with the kabillion regulations that exist here.
"Sorry, we'll bring fiber to your area just as soon as we get through the 46 meetings necessary to remove this heritage tree blocking the way"
Imagine the red tape involved in doing anything in MTV or SF or the bay area.
The cynical old man in you consider just how over-regulated the area really is. California requires lighting and wattage density calculations to place lighting in a building. This part is actually not so uncommon, since IECC has some requirements.
However, compare:
http://www.lightingcontrols.com/support/statecodes/excerpts/...
with
http://www.lightingcontrols.com/support/statecodes/excerpts/...
Note: Texas just follows IECC (so for example, you will find it the same for NJ, MD, VA, TX, etc), while california has gone off on their own.
I'm actually all for permitting and code inspection, but a lot of the crap you deal with in SF and MTV is truly crazy.
"Sorry, we'll bring fiber to your area just as soon as we get through the 46 meetings necessary to remove this heritage tree blocking the way"
Imagine the red tape involved in doing anything in MTV or SF or the bay area.
The cynical old man in you consider just how over-regulated the area really is. California requires lighting and wattage density calculations to place lighting in a building. This part is actually not so uncommon, since IECC has some requirements.
However, compare:
http://www.lightingcontrols.com/support/statecodes/excerpts/...
with
http://www.lightingcontrols.com/support/statecodes/excerpts/...
Note: Texas just follows IECC (so for example, you will find it the same for NJ, MD, VA, TX, etc), while california has gone off on their own.
I'm actually all for permitting and code inspection, but a lot of the crap you deal with in SF and MTV is truly crazy.
Issues like this are the reasons I moved to Austin instead of SF. The CA government is bonkers.
Or maybe it's about testing the service and gaining expertise in smaller markets where there is less competition before committing a huge amont of risk in order to roll out to a very large market... Pretty much par for the course for telecom rollouts.
This is an astute observation. Additionally, Apple just opened a large campus in Austin, which is also home to Dell. It's a good roll out strategy: middle of nowhere, semi-large city, then bay area/chicago and maybe even NYC.
Austin is not a 'semi-large city' - according to the U.S. Census, it's the 13th largest metro area in the country.
13th largest city, 34th largest metro, both by population.
If it were ever to be declared a CSA with San Antonio, they'd be of similar size to Seattle-Tacoma or Minneapolis-St Paul. Which seem 'semi-large' to me, especially on global scene.
If it were ever to be declared a CSA with San Antonio, they'd be of similar size to Seattle-Tacoma or Minneapolis-St Paul. Which seem 'semi-large' to me, especially on global scene.
This is a fair point. However, if you do what we do, Austin is arguably the second best place to live outside of SF/Bay Area. The concentration of very smart people, technology and startups in this city can be very surprising for people who haven't spent a lot of time here.
I also wouldn't call Austin the middle of nowhere. Within a 3 hour drive are Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio each being in the top 10 for populous cities. Arguably, Chicago is more isolated.
[deleted]
Because this is what happens when you try to build something in the Bay Area:
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...
Sorry, evil (bribes in this case) is the only answer for when Google does something an HN commenter doesn't like.
To broaden the question a bit: What's likely to be the next location or locations for Google Fiber?
I'm not in the bay area, but would love to see it in my city. I was so dissatisfied with the webpage and user experience of signing up for Comcast [1] that I eventually just gave my neighbor some cash for his wifi password.
[1] Off topic: They'll tell you that you can get pretty decent internet for $10 a month. Then it turns out you're not eligible. And it turns out you're not eligible for the $20/month either. So after a lot of back and forth, it ends up being $40/month. Which is fine, unless you though you were getting the same deal for $10 just a few hours before. I don't understand how this scheme could work. Maybe by annoying users enough that in the end they just click Sign Up to get it all over with? Somehow it must work, though, since they keep doing it.
I'm not in the bay area, but would love to see it in my city. I was so dissatisfied with the webpage and user experience of signing up for Comcast [1] that I eventually just gave my neighbor some cash for his wifi password.
[1] Off topic: They'll tell you that you can get pretty decent internet for $10 a month. Then it turns out you're not eligible. And it turns out you're not eligible for the $20/month either. So after a lot of back and forth, it ends up being $40/month. Which is fine, unless you though you were getting the same deal for $10 just a few hours before. I don't understand how this scheme could work. Maybe by annoying users enough that in the end they just click Sign Up to get it all over with? Somehow it must work, though, since they keep doing it.
>To broaden the question a bit: What's likely to be the next location or locations for Google Fiber?
It'll probably be somewhere without decent options right now, which rules out anywhere Verizon operates FiOS. I would guess that it will show up in a low-regulation stat, which rules out most of the West Coast and Northeast. Somewhere like Seattle is plausible, but the city is teaming up with a company to offer Gigabit Seattle.
Some of the more plausible options might be Phoenix, AZ, Denver or Boulder, CO, a city in one of the Carolinas (Raleigh / Durham?), Oklahoma City, Minneapolis / St. Paul, or Madison, Wisconsin (some may already have FiOS).
It'll probably be somewhere without decent options right now, which rules out anywhere Verizon operates FiOS. I would guess that it will show up in a low-regulation stat, which rules out most of the West Coast and Northeast. Somewhere like Seattle is plausible, but the city is teaming up with a company to offer Gigabit Seattle.
Some of the more plausible options might be Phoenix, AZ, Denver or Boulder, CO, a city in one of the Carolinas (Raleigh / Durham?), Oklahoma City, Minneapolis / St. Paul, or Madison, Wisconsin (some may already have FiOS).
As somebody in the area, I've been annoyed at how despite Apple, Google, and a number of other tech companies are clustered together in the Cupertino/Mountain View area, I still go home to shitty AT&T internet.
Telecom is weird. Here are some plans from a small city in ND:
(apparently contrasting crappy service in Silicon Valley to rural areas is downvote worthy)
$34.95/month* - High Speed Advantage - up to 15 Mbps down & 3 Mbps up
$54.95/month* - High Speed Advantage Plus - up to 15 Mbps down & 10 Mbps up
$104.95 to $114.95/month - High Speed Extreme Advantage - up to 50 Mbps down & 25 Mbps up
(apparently contrasting crappy service in Silicon Valley to rural areas is downvote worthy)
I think what you're experiencing is the situation where people execute the bearer of bad or unwelcome news.
Probably. It's funny how small groups tend to do great telecom service and large companies don't. Kinda relates to a startup mentality.
Due to cognitive biases, anecdotes are worse than no data. Definitely downvote worthy.
Then you should probably flag half the stories on the front page because that's is what most of them are. We aren't doing research studies here, we are talking about how chaotic telecom is and expecting everyone to provide all the pieces is just not going to happen.
Telecom is quite a different world. There are a number of small ISPs in North Bay that are trying to make a dent; see Sonic.net in sebastapol. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120506/BUSINESS/12050...
They aren't available in my neighborhood but I routinely check every month or so.
I've got 100mbit up/down for $50 per month in SF with webpass.
One of the big factors in deciding which cities to look at is cost I'm sure. They're starting with the smaller cities and moving up. The amount of red tape in cities like SF and NY must be outstanding.
SF is smaller in size, and slightly smaller in population than Austin.
For giggles, take a look at the flow chart for getting a building permit in SF, compared to Austin.
Check out the average times, etc.
Try to imagine for a second how much easier and less expensive it is to deal with Austin than SF.
Check out the average times, etc.
Try to imagine for a second how much easier and less expensive it is to deal with Austin than SF.
Was the link posted elsewhere? I'm interested in this flowchart.
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/SF...
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/03/navigating_the_trea... is a wonderful explanation
Realize it is so bad they have a many-page colored guide on replacing a fucking window:
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/St...
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/03/navigating_the_trea... is a wonderful explanation
Realize it is so bad they have a many-page colored guide on replacing a fucking window:
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/St...
Yeah, but the entire SF Bay Area is much more populous than the Austin-Round Rock Area
SF has more red tape than Austin.
Better hurry up. Condo construction is taking over the city. Rental market is skyrocketing. There are 82 people relocating to Austin everyday, according to my realtor friend.
I've heard it as high as 100 people a day, but it's also a part of the whole 'the sky is falling'/'welcome to Austin, please don't move here' attitude that pervades the entire city's culture. Also, 'Austin was great before you got here.' So I take those statistics with a grain of salt.
"according to my realtor friend" - a reliable source of "supplies are limited" messages.
Austin experiences relatively mild boom/bust cycles. The metro area is not that big and there is still a great deal of undeveloped land so developers are always ready to build more, thus holding prices stable. The biggest problem the area faces is water supply. High property taxes of 2-3% annually offset most any gain from not having a state tax. Racial diversity is about 50 years behind most major cities.
Austin experiences relatively mild boom/bust cycles. The metro area is not that big and there is still a great deal of undeveloped land so developers are always ready to build more, thus holding prices stable. The biggest problem the area faces is water supply. High property taxes of 2-3% annually offset most any gain from not having a state tax. Racial diversity is about 50 years behind most major cities.
Does Google have plans to expand it much more and in different states / cities? I lost hope for Verizon FiOS to grow in urban areas, and I'm not going to use any coax. cable companies for sure.
> I'm not going to use any coax. cable companies for sure.
Why not? I'm all for fiber but really what I want is a fast symmetric connection. If someone can provide that over coax, that's fine with me.
Why not? I'm all for fiber but really what I want is a fast symmetric connection. If someone can provide that over coax, that's fine with me.
They are all media companies at core, who push all kind of idiocy on the Internet, from DRM to SOPA-like stuff and who support all kind of censorship. At least Verizon is just a communications company, even though their service isn't the best.
Ah, I thought you had something against coax itself :-). I agree, but pragmatically there just isn't a real alternative to the local cable monopoly. Maybe U-Verse, though AT&T isn't my favorite company either.
Hopefully they work their way down to San Antonio before I work my way up to Austin.
Maybe next Google can fix the traffic problems in Austin :(
TL;DR - This Austinite isn't convinced.