Google outlines gigabit fiber offer in Kansas City

Earlier today, the world—much of it, at least—turned green with envy at Kansas City residents. Google announced details of its gigabit fiber rollout for the US city, and the residential plans on offer sound… well, almost too good to be true.

For $120 a month before tax, residents of Kansas City will enjoy a full 1Gbps down and up, no data caps, a full TV channel lineup, a 1TB Google Drive subscription. The service will also include a Wi-Fi router, a free Nexus 7 tablet, a TV box, and a 2TB storage box. According to Google, you’ll be able to record up to eight programs simultaneously—"just because you can." And here’s the kicker: no installation fee, provided you sign up for a two-year contract.

For $70 a month, Google will provide an Internet-only service with the same 1Gbps top speed (again, for both upstream and downstream), Wi-Fi router, and 1TB Google Drive subscription. As with the pricier offer, Google with waive installation fees with two-year contracts, and there will be no data caps.

There’s more. In addition to the $120 and $70 services, Google will offer a free fiber service with 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up—still without data caps, and still with an included Wi-Fi router. You’ll have to front the $300 installation fee, but Google will let you pay it in 12 instalments of $25. The company says free service is "guaranteed for at least 7 years."

So, if you’re one of those lucky Kansas City residents, how do you get Google Fiber? Google provides instructions here. The company says it wants to offer the service "where people are most excited about it," so it’s split up Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri into different neighborhoods. Google plans to tally up the number of pre-registrations in each neighborhood to decide which one gets the service first. Pre-registration costs $10 and is open until September 9. Google will announce the results the following day.

Comments closed
    • GatoRat
    • 7 years ago

    Do people realize that Google is doing this at a massive loss? Their approach is similar to, and in some cases exactly the same as, early cable TV companies, almost all of which went bankrupt. When you are willing to lose millions, you can be very price competitive.

      • Thrashdog
      • 7 years ago

      Google’s certainly not going to be looking at a 3-year payoff, but they’re said (at least publicly) that they do intend to eventually run their network at a profit. They’re writing off a lot of the initial cost here, as this first deployment is as much a research-project-slash-jab-at-the-incumbents as it is a business venture, but on an ongoing basis I’d fully expect Google Fiber to be a net money-maker once they’ve worked out the bugs.

      The other thing to consider is that, by planting their flag in the ISP market, they’re gaining market and PR leverage against the other network providers, who’ve been agitating for the right to double-dip Google, Netflix et. al. for sending content across their networks. Even if this ends up losing Google money, having that leverage could be a strategic advantage.

    • travbrad
    • 7 years ago

    As much as I’d love a 1000mbit connection, I honestly don’t think I’d use it to it’s full potential hardly ever. The only time I really feel like my 20/2mbit connection is slow is when downloading large games on steam or uploading youtube videos. I think “just” a symmetric 50/50mbit or 100/100mbit connection would be plenty fast for just about anything.

    The symmetric speeds are probably the most appealing thing about this service, since it’s generally the upload speeds on most connections where you actually notice it being slow (uploading youtube videos for example). Not having to deal with Comcast/Time Warner/etc is also a nice bonus. πŸ™‚

    This service ultimately has the same problem FIOS has though; it’s not available here and probably won’t be anytime soon.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    maybe run your OS from google drive?

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      I wonder what latency would be like. Even mechanical drives are generally single digit ms.

    • internetsandman
    • 7 years ago

    The thing that really makes me happy/envious is the free 5Mbps connection, I’m sure people are paying tons of money for connections slower than that (especially up here in Canada) so that really is a blessing for people with low incomes/minimal internet needs

    Then again I’d gladly pony up 70 bucks a month for a connection that matches the speed of the port on the back of my computer. It’ll be interesting to see where the bottleneck will lie, if these advertised speeds are actually real world speeds or, as is always the case, the absolute best case scenario

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      The more limiting factor would be the speed of servers you are pulling from. You may not be able to get all that speed from single server, and its not needed for anything except massive downloads, and video streaming. Web page loading is also limited by your CPU (though at this point, web page loading is near instant except for complex sites). The benefit past about 20 megs, would be with multiple users, or massive simultaneous downloads/streams. You can stream 1080p Youtube on about 7-8 megs, Blu-Ray is 30 Mbit. Gigabit upload speed would be nice for many work/fun scenarios.

    • HighTech4US2
    • 7 years ago

    $300 for a 5/1 fiber internet connection good for 7 years.

    That works out to be $3.57 per month.

    My Choices are the Duopoly of Verizon and Time Warner.

    Verizon Fios offers Internet Only 15/5 (lowest speed offered) for $70.
    Time Warner offers Internet Only 20/1 (lowest speed offered) for $50.

    Google Please Please P L E A S E come to NW Dallas County.

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      Hell, if they even make it there, I’m still going to be screwed in Rockwall county next door- at least you can get Fios!

    • Guts_not_Dead
    • 7 years ago

    It’s quite amazing how we in North America, especially Canada, pay twice as much, if not more, for our internet and wireless services compared to the rest of the developed world and get the worst, quality wise.

    Why? Why do people in Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Israel, UAE, Taiwan, and all the European countries get cheaper and faster cellular and internet services?

    I mean looking at the revenue and profit numbers of BHell and Robbers, for example, they make billions quarterly. It’s not that it would cost them much if they reduce their prices and improve their crappy networks.

    A friend of mine in Lithuania pings BF3 servers in Japan at few Milli seconds.I get ping times of over 30 ms for locations that are within my province.

    What’s the point of those “elected” governments if the only thing they’re good at is taxing the crap out of us to pay national debts to private-sector banks that print our currencies? And is it legal or constitutional for those private banks to print and lend national money to our government?

    Take a look at this video.The guy is talking about the Canadian national debt to those private banks.We are, like the US, a bankrupt country.

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lqL7Kat2Y&list=FLolqBiv5q9CCUFZPYOY1Dqg&feature=mh_lolz[/url<]

      • Peldor
      • 7 years ago

      Light in a fiber would take 37 ms to make a direct Lithuania-Japan trip (if such a direct line existed), but yes, infrastructure in N. America is pretty far behind where it should be.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        I think the round trip distance is >16 000 000 meter and light travel at 299 792 458 m / s
        So >53ms ping for an imaginary fiber cable from Lithuania-Japan.

        We need to find something faster then light, this is just unacceptable.

        • Guts_not_Dead
        • 7 years ago

        I’m not sure about you’re numbers.Lithuania is around 4800 miles away from Japan.that’s I think around 7500 Km.Now the speed of light is 300,000 Km/s so it would take ~ 8000/300,000 ~ 25 ms for light packets to travel from Lithuania to japan.

        Now keep in mind this is through a straight line from the center of Lithuania to the center of Japan, and if the two locations are closer to each other, it could take less.

        Now i know for sure that both Lithuania and Japan are covered with fiber optic networks so it’s highly possible to reach such high speeds.

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          You realize that data over fiber doesn’t travel at c. It is closer to 0.90-0.95*c (fiber is not a vacuum). You also have to factor in the electrical transmissions (much slower than fiber) from the routers and switches that come off the trunks into the local networks. The cables themselves don’t go in a straight line either, so the distance is most certainly longer than 7500-8000Kms.

          Latency between the two countries is closer to 100-130ms or more.

            • Guts_not_Dead
            • 7 years ago

            I believe you meant greater than the critical angle of full reflection and theoretical 0 refraction which is quite high in those glass tubes and very close to 90 degrees, which reduces both light attenuation and travel distance. I don’t think traveling in very acute angled long lines is gonna increase the travel distance by even 5%.

            Also, the less refraction occurs the less those beams need to be repeated along the way. In fact, with The latest fiber optic technologies, light signals can travel hundreds of miles and still maintain their values and decipher properly at the receiving end.

            I think they use fiber to home and not fiber to node so you get your fiber cable that goes straight to your modem which is where the electrical to optical conversion of data happens.

            The packets will still travel over hops, so yeah, the time it would take to reach Japan would be quite a bit higher than just 25 ms. However, my mate plays bf3 and SSF4 on Japanese servers and claims there’s no noticeable lag, which makes me assume the time delay is around 60 ms or less, which is where i start noticing lag in BF3.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          From both capital its 8,200 KM , perfect straight line ping of light in space would be >53ms

          The capitals are only a few KM from their country borders, that will have no effect, and most likely all traffic get routed by the capital, so actually moving closer physicality will lengthen the cable distance and the number of switches.

          [url<]http://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att.net/pws/network_delay.html[/url<] You can bet that the new york->london link is as strait as it get for fiber. and its 75ms in latency from SF to Hong kong : 140ms Literally Half the distance, half the latency.

      • Dizik
      • 7 years ago

      Have you seen the size of North America in comparison to the rest of the developed world? It’s a lot easier to build up a fast infrastructure for a country the size of South Korea or Sweden than it is the U.S. or Canada?

      Not only is the general size an issue, you have problems with population density. It makes more sense to lay out a costly infrastructure where everybody lives relatively close together. We in North America have a lot of people spread out over great distances, versus a lot of people in much smaller location. It’s a very expensive logistical nightmare, unfortunately, no one besides Google has decided to try and overcome that. Sure, Verizon has FiOS, but they stopped their expansion.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        The density argument is so easily dismissed I’m surprised people even bring it up any more. Yes, for rural locations population density is low. But there are [i<]plenty[/i<] of high density cities in the US which still have nothing more than mediocre cable internet service.

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          NIMBY and local politics.

          It is easier said and done to upgrade infrastructure. You need to get permission and cope with zoning laws (USA is bizarre in this).

          People keep forgetting that USA has a ton of legacy infrastructure, since none of it got destroyed in a major war since the 19th century.

          That’s part of the reason why DSL and cable are so popular in USA. They can work with per-existing infrastructure (POTS/old codex cabling lines) with minimal cost and expenditure.

          Upgrading to fibers requires telecos and ISP to lay down the wiring, substations, upgrade the trunks at CO/cable plants. Believe me, it isn’t cheap and there’s no government subsidies to help out.

            • designerfx
            • 7 years ago

            everything is right except the “it isn’t cheap” part. Upgrading to fiber and laying down substations, trunks, etc not only a: pay for themselves in the long run but also b: usually garner an increase in customers. It’s also not true that all of those have to be done at the same time or even for all upgrades as many manjor ISP’s already have fiber to the premise.

            There is absolutely zero need for a gov’t subsidy in this – telcos are already profiting enough and signing noncompete agreements (verizon -> comcast for example) . Google’s lack of a need for a subsidy (when they’re not even in this business right now) shows that what we need is competition, not providing more money to the incumbants.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            Google has billions of dollars that it can spare on this “pet project” and it is only a small scale. I doubt that they move to nationwide anytime soon.

          • irvinenomore
          • 7 years ago

          Sorry, I thought that the density argument was if people are dense enough to pay extortionate prices for the service the supplier will charge it. Basic rules of monopoly.

        • Guts_not_Dead
        • 7 years ago

        I have, and i still think it is possible to cover at least Ontario where near half the population is with fast fiber optic networks with the billions Bhell and Robbers make.

        Look at Germany, close to half the size of Ontario and fully covered with fiber optic networks.

        You do have a valid point there, but there are workarounds and smaller steps that can be taken over time to provide Canadians with faster and cheaper internet access.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Some countries simply decided that it’s in their national advantage to fund technological infrastructure, and then taxed the people to get it done. Meanwhile, America decided “free” market is king -> monopolies formed to make profits, and now we’re f*cked.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            We’re not really screwed though.

            There is a ton of fiber that was laid and just isn’t being used. The backbone is there just need to get it to the curb.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        Hah! You mention Sweden, did you realize that the population density of Sweden is (per Wikipedia) 53.8/sq mi, whereas the USA [i<]including Alaska[/i<] is 87.4/sq mi. Its time you faced the fact that the free market is screwing over North America on network access. (Canada has a population density of 8.3/sq mi, and Alaska alone is 1.26/sq mi.) [b<]EDIT[/b<] [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density[/url<]

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          The problem has nothing to do with free marketing.

          It is a complicated mess of politics, NIMBY, realities of upgrading infrastructure, and lack of demand for higher internet speeds in the mainstream market.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            You just made that up. That whole post is a load of bull.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            No, I live in the “real” world.

            The situation is much more grey and complex.

            It is just more convenient to blame problem on a single party/factor.

            ITT: people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

            “I WANT TO HAVE 100MBPS SERVICE, BUT I DON’T WANT TO PAY $199+ USD/PER MONTH FOR IT!”

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            The only thing sensible in your post is that people don’t want to pay $199+ per month for network access.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            *facepalm*

            $199 for network access? Please spare yourself from further humiliation. It doesn’t cost $199 for a decent broadband connection.

            Internet access isn’t even a necessity. It is a luxury service. 100Mbps service is on the high-end of that spectrum and commands its price point accordingly.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Internet access isn't even a necessity. It is a luxury service. [/quote<] Really? Some people believe it's a basic human right: [url<]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/[/url<] I think it's a necessity if we have any plans of being competitive in the global market place this century.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            Holy entitlements batman!

            Internet access is a luxury, you don’t need it to live or breathe. You can live without it. This is coming from somebody who has spoiled by the decent internet access. Most of the world isn’t as fortunate.

            Internet is only a necessity for businesses that revolve around it. There’s quite of number of enterprises and proprietorships that don’t rely on it, let alone use it.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            So anything you don’t [b<]need[/b<] "to live or breathe" is a luxury...? What a silly argument

          • ludi
          • 7 years ago

          Population density is a good metric for abstraction but you need to consider where the population is located. Canada is huge, but you can see the majority of its population simply by driving the Trans-Canada Highway, which runs within an average of 100 miles or so of the US border. Something like 35-40% of the population lives in the urban corridor from Toronto and suburbs up to Montreal.

          The example of Sweden is a bit more dramatic because it doesn’t have so much a cluster of popualtion centers, although for scale, Sweden is a bit larger than the state of California.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah that’s right, whole-country population density is largely irrelevant to this discussion, its just that the inhabitants of North America do so enjoy talking about just how big and spread out the place is. I am here to broaden horizons!

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]And is it legal or constitutional for those private banks to print and lend national money to our government?[/quote<] Probably. But maybe it's time to revamp The Constitution. It was done back a long time ago; it's unfair to expect those guys to be able to foresee our present

        • CuttinHobo
        • 7 years ago

        Revamp the constitution?! Treasonous dog!!!!

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      I wish people stop using wonder spots (EU, Korea, Japan) as examples of hyper-fast internet.

      They are heavily subsidized by the local governments. It is an apples and oranges comparison at best.

      In terms of backbones, the USA is #1 by a large margin. The internet practically runs through the USA around three major hubs (SoCal, TX and DC area)

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]In terms of backbones, the USA is #1 by a large margin. The internet practically runs through the USA around three major hubs (SoCal, TX and DC area)[/quote<] Give me a [b<]break[/b<]. Do you expect the world to run infrastructure between Asia and Europe by some other route?

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          It is already happening.

          EU, China and India are trying to create their own backbones and DNS roots so that USA doesn’t have a practical monopoly on the infrastructure of the internet.

      • Madman
      • 7 years ago

      I think part of the problem with US is the overall density. The country is HUGE, and population is spread over large areas. That makes it a lot more difficult to cover every square mile in fiber optics than it is in Japan, UK, Lithuania, Latvia or Sweden.

      Cities on the other hand…

      But someone on the forums explained the situation, there is some sort of problem in using the already laid out fiber optic channels because or ruling or something.

      Still, after being used to 100Mbps 24/7 connection for less than 10$ a month, I feel ZOMG when I hear about average connections in US.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        [i<]Nooo[/i<], you're like zombies! I already explained just a few posts up that the USA has a significantly higher population density than your example country of Sweden, and that's including Alaska. The time has come for Americans everywhere to stop thinking the USA is so damn special. [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density[/url<] Sweden has a density of 53.8/sq mi which would put it at [b<]38th place[/b<] if it where to be annexed suddenly and without much population change. [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden[/url<] So, let us all agree that noone will ever again say that the USA is harder to wire up than Sweden. Lets continue this fun game. Lets say Japan (873.1/sq mi) became the 51st state. It would rank only 3rd in density. That's right ladies and gents, New Jersey and Rhode Island are more densely populated than Japan. Anyone care to compare their network access options? [b<]EDIT[/b<] fixed an error

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          It is local population density by region that’s the big problem.

          The average density don’t tell the whole story. Take a look at a population density maps. The vast majority of the population in those wonder spots (Japan, South Korea, Scandinavian countries happen to resided in tightly-nested metropolis areas. It is only the case of USA in a few areas (Boston-NYC-Philly, Southwestern Cal, Chicago, Florida), while it is spread out elsewhere. It is even worse in Canada where most of the population resides near the great lakes area (Ontario and Quebec), while everything is all spread out.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 7 years ago

            Sounds like North America is [i<]magical[/i<]! By the way, the NYC metropolitan area has more population than [i<]the entirety of Scandinavia[/i<]. Who has the better internet access in their cities? I will enjoy hearing your explanation. [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe[/url<] [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_metropolitan_areas_by_population[/url<]

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            North Amercia isn’t magical or special, it is just different.

            It sounds like you are just envious that you can’t the same bandwidth at the same price point found in the “wonderspots”.

            The reasons are very complicated. It is not because the major ISPs are some evil overload that want your babies and soul for 1Mbps residential access.

            It is from a perfect storm of NIMBY, lack of economic incentive, zoning laws, collusion from some major ISPs and no government subsidizes to help eat some of the infrastructure costs.

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    I will wait until I see it.

    I’m sure there’s some kind of catch to it.

    The biggest problem with getting faster internet connection has always been the infrastructure of the last-mile. Telco’s CO and cable company’s cable plants don’t have the trunks to handle 100+Mbps to all of their customers. They need to add more wiring and update their equipment and none of its cheap or easy to it.

    There’s the problem of having enough demand to warrant the associated costs. The users who have a genuine want for 20Mbps+ internet connections are a vocal minority. Why should ISP upgrade everything to satisfy a small demographic? There’s no economic incentive to it, however they still can “get” such services at a hefty premium (to cover some of the costs).

    For those who try to counter this with “wonder spots” like South Korea, Japan, some EU countries? Guess what? The infrastructure costs were subsidized by their government.

    To make things even more complicated in the USA. Telco and cable guys can’t simply add more wiring and equipment at a whim. They have deal with local governments into getting zoning permissions and NIMBY crowd who don’t want their community turned into a “mini-city”.

      • tviceman
      • 7 years ago

      The catch is it will be a slow rollout. I live in Kansas City, about 15-17 miles from the hub of where the rollout is starting, and judging by their plans, it will be at least a year (probably closer to two years) before they reach my neighborhood for service.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Why are you so fixated on a random Canadian company?

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        Telco = shorthand for telecommunications industry.

          • Meadows
          • 7 years ago

          I gave you a minus on every comment for the NINJA EDIT.

          [i<]You said Teleco multiple times[/i<] and you're afraid to admit that you don't speak English properly.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            You win.

            There’s little point of trying to deny it.

            I can see that English major of yours is getting put into good use. Going around and critiquing posts on a stupid internet forum. A forum that is populated primarily by a bunch of computer nerds. I can see that your exhaustive effort of pointing out the finer details of grammar without bothering to address the argument itself is not going to waste.

            The world would come down crashing if it wasn’t for dedicated individuals like yourself who selflessly go out of their way to point out that single misspelling of “loose”.

            Bravo! The winner is you!

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Is this your argument? [i<]Really?[/i<] New low, Meadows.. [quote<]You said Teleco multiple times and you're afraid to admit that you don't speak English properly.[/quote<]

      • JohnC
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]There's the problem of having enough demand to warrant the associated costs.[/quote<] Yeap. That was the major reason why Verizon has officially stopped the FiOS expansion.

      • cegras
      • 7 years ago

      25 a month for a year, then free internet for up to 7 years afterwards sounds pretty solid to me. In exchange, you help Google lay the infrastructure and you probably give them browsing data, which is far more important.

    • My Johnson
    • 7 years ago

    Who do you think would more likely resist a National Security Letter request from the feds? Google or Kansas City?

    You be the judge:

    [url<]http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908[/url<]

    • moose17145
    • 7 years ago

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GHX8dvuFUQ[/url<] Every nerds reaction in Kansas City after reading this....

    • gmskking
    • 7 years ago

    Come to Eastern Iowa next, Google.

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    Comcast & ATT must be pooping their pants… or growing their arming of lobbyist in DC to stop this.

    and its funny Google use reverse pricing from Comcast. “Pay 25$ for twelve month then the rate jump to 70$”
    Google “Pay 25$ for 12 month, same so far, but is then free for at least 7 years”

    That comes down to $3.5 a month for what Comcast charge $39.. and people complain that they have to pay 100$ of a 2TB drive and being price gauged.

    Cant wait for Apple & Google (MS is in the cable company pockets) to destroy Comcast & ATT…

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    And Google rides to the rescue. I suppose this is a good idea of just how poor ISP service is in the US compared to other countries and how much we’re getting ripped off.

    Their pricing models seem a bit weird though. Paying a extra $50 a month for TV seems high (discarding all the freebies).

    One has to wonder how long this will last for and if this is truly uncapped service. I’m sure it wont take long for someone to setup a at home server on this and make full use of their connection. Unless $70 a month account for pretty much the raw cost of the data and the overhead associated with it, they could lose money… Then again, raw data at the ISP level is pretty cheap.

    Heck I could see a lot of server hosts going out of business with something like this if it’s sustainable… At home data servers?

    In other news, techies weep as we now have the same internet speed as intranet speed and wireless surpasses both. The next jump in wired networking better hit like 1Tbps.

      • jss21382
      • 7 years ago

      The cost of bandwidth….it’s largely a myth, there was always excess fiber capacity, in the 90’s when they were rolling out the fiber networks most of it was left dark or unused, it was just installed along side the needed fiber due to the low costs since you’re already in the ground. Google has been buying up dark fiber since at least 05, I suspect they have plenty of bandwidth available for the pretty minor number of people that’ll be setting up home servers pushing out massive bandwidth.. As far as tv for 50 a month being high, it’s the only thing that Google can’t supply on it’s own, networks want $ for content.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        It the cost of uptime and other equipment needed to drive all of that bandwidth/unused fiber.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          And usage of said fiber. Something has value when it becomes scarce. If you over use a resource (regardless of how renewable it is), then it’s worth more.

          Just like time is money. A abstract concept like data can have value.

      • bcronce
      • 7 years ago

      “Unless $70 a month account for pretty much the raw cost of the data and the overhead associated with it, they could lose money”

      It only costs them about $300 to connect someone. Typically, $15/month covers the infrastructure, $5 covers the bandwidth, and the other $30 is all profit.

      Google has a lot of peering agreements, so bandwidth is nearly free. Also, any use of their own Google services is “Free” for them. So all Youtube/Gmail/Searches/Ads/etc won’t cost Google a dime, outside of their own efficient infrastructure costs.

        • Thrashdog
        • 7 years ago

        The telco guys I know have put the cost of wiring up a single-family home with a new fiber-to-the-home connection at somewhere between 3 to 7 [i<]thousand[/i<] dollars. Google's just looking to defray a bit of that with the connection fee.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          Or offer it as a gating system for people that are actually serious about this and willing to drop serious money on it ($300 is a lot for the average consumer). 10% of the cost is like a drop in the bucket though.

    • Peldor
    • 7 years ago

    I’m defecting to KC.

      • designerfx
      • 7 years ago

      I look forward to every major ISP in america beginning to sweat bullets in the next 30 days.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        Well, the ones in the KC area anyway. I don’t expect Comcast to treat me any less shitty.

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah with the free service available, that pretty much screws over any other ISP in the area.

    • Welch
    • 7 years ago

    Screw you Kansas :P.

    Seriously, bring this stuff to Fairbanks, Alaska. We have a need to connect to the rest of the world at high speeds and our local ISPs are raping people over with ultra limited plans at premium prices.

    Save us Google!

      • 5150
      • 7 years ago

      Only if you take back the Palin’s.

        • Visigoth
        • 7 years ago

        How do you want them to be taken? Up front or through the backdoor? πŸ˜›

          • 5150
          • 7 years ago

          Quietly.

          • gmskking
          • 7 years ago

          Both

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    This is what our ISP’s could do. They just prefer to roll around in huge vaults of money while admiring their lucky dime in its glass case. They don’t want us to save money and have super speeds. They prefer we wallow in misery with our sub 20Mbps connections for $70+ and laugh while their execs all move to Kansas City.

    • My Johnson
    • 7 years ago

    And the city can’t install fiber itself?

    Rebuilding sewer lines? Drop fiber along with it. Burying power cables? Drop fiber too.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      if there isn’t immediate profit, it isn’t done. The powers that be are incredibly near sighted, caring only for their own political careers / terms. Something that might not come to fruition for 1-10 years is not in their interests.

        • UberGerbil
        • 7 years ago

        And whenever the powers that be suggest doing anything like this, the voters complain about a waste of tax dollars and vote them out of office, so there’s no incentive for them to do otherwise.

        The reality is that physical utilities are natural monopolies, and further political, regulatory, and economic barriers grow up around them over time, making it even more difficult and expensive to introduce competitors or even to piggyback on their physical infrastructure.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]The reality is that physical utilities are natural monopolies, and further political, regulatory, and economic barriers grow up around them over time, making it even more difficult and expensive to introduce competitors or even to piggyback on their physical infrastructure.[/quote<] And this is exactly why they should be under benevolent government agencies. And by benevolent I mean for-the-people-not-for-profit. This is why it works so badly in the USA yet so well outside of it.

      • JMccovery
      • 7 years ago

      Not when the incumbents pay State government officials or sue to keep municipal fiber projects from happening…

    • NeelyCam
    • 7 years ago

    How does Google benefit from this? More data in Google Drive?

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      That and more integration with Google systems, and I’m sure they’re going to sell ads on this somehow.

        • grantmeaname
        • 7 years ago

        And scaring the bejeezus out of Verizon.

          • JohnC
          • 7 years ago

          Why? Verizon has no interest to expand their fiber-optic connection anymore due to doubts of whether the costs associated with deployment will be paid off soon enough (perhaps unlike Google they can’t easily gather and resell their user’s preferences data to other companies) so I doubt they care if the Google does more fiber deployment, especially in the cities where Verizon has no FiOS presence…

            • ShadowTiger
            • 7 years ago

            I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure it also has to do with less competition and higher margins in the wireless business.

      • JohnC
      • 7 years ago

      Oh, I’m sure they have plenty of benefits. More Ads shown to their users, more statistics gathered about user’s preferences (what certain users like to watch at certain times and what they like to download, which sites they like to visit at certain times, which online games they like to play, what text they typed in their e-mails, which files are being stored in GoogleDrive by certain people, what data is in these files, etc.) which they can easily re-sell to huge amount of companies. I’m sure someone will uncover these “hidden” details later πŸ˜‰

        • David
        • 7 years ago

        Hell, I’d almost let them put a webcam in my living room for $70/month gigabit. For that they can collect anything they want about me and I’ll sign the contract in blood. My family line for eternity will be contractually obligated to use only Google services and products where available.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          You should look into a Microsoft Kinect. You don’t get the great deal on data services, but it has everything else you’re looking for.

            • David
            • 7 years ago

            I have one. I keep it unplugged since Microsoft isn’t giving me awesome internet.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      More Google service users, a little bit of good will, and most importantly, of course, demographics information for advertisers.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 7 years ago

      I imagine that Google wants to push the whole networking industry in this direction. The more bandwidth people have, the more opportunities there are for Google in the future. Well maybe 1Gb is a little excessive, that might just be to grab the headlines.

      • kyboshed
      • 7 years ago

      It would allow them to do better targeted advertising than is possible with traditional tracking methods. Something similar to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm<]Phorm[/url<], which has been run in the past by BT.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    God, I hate Rogers.

    Still, at the moment, my ISP (Acanac) is giving me a pretty sweet deal here in downtown Toronto: 28 MPS cable service, no data caps and free VOIP phone service (with most of North America free, and most of Europe – handy when you have a British girlfriend – at 5 cents/min). $38.95/month.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      You can get a British girlfriend for 5 cents/min? Where did you find this deal?

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        Have you seen the average British woman?

          • vaultboy101
          • 7 years ago

          this…

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah, like Pippa Middleton – what a dog!

            • irvinenomore
            • 7 years ago

            The exception that proves the rule!

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            Exceptions don’t prove rules.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          Take that back, or I’ll give sweatshopking your home address.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            GIMME GIMME!! I WANT NEW FRIENDS!

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Some jokes are too easy to pass up πŸ˜‰

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            We’ll see if you still feel that way after his first visit. He’ll probably bring NeelyCam with him; apparently they’re into 3somes.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Ironically, I have a huge crush on Karen Gillan (Amy Pond from Doctor Who).

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            how is that ironic?

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Duh, she’s British. And [url=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gs__0nnw7i4/TcfZxCTuwdI/AAAAAAAAAaA/r0fE4M-WnEI/s1600/Karen-Gillan-Amy-Pond-001.jpg<]incredibly hot[/url<]. And being British, she has the whole [url=http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/004/8/0/karen_gillan__amy_pond__be_by_slyphertwin-d36fpzm.gif<]Pippa Middleton rear-end thing[/url<] going on, too.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            But she’s not ironic. Also, if you ask her she’s not British, I’m sure. She’d most likely say she’s Scottish and denote that there’s a difference.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            And I, my friend, think you’re confusing ‘English’ and ‘British’. She is a Scot (and a damn fine one!) and all Scots are Brits (as are the Irish, the Welsh, and, God help us, the English). That’s why the United Kingdom is called ‘Great Britain’

            And the irony was that BT made a comment suggesting British women aren’t that hot, when it turns out that he has the hots for one.

            • irvinenomore
            • 7 years ago

            She’s also by no means “average”.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Compared to my girlfriend, she is πŸ™‚

            Sorry, BT. I mean, I’m sure she’s got a great personality, and, and, um…..

            • irvinenomore
            • 7 years ago

            Are you kiding! It’s just sweatshopking in a dress I tell ya!

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Average women everywhere pale in comparison to those in magazines, TV, movies. And so do average men.

          I.e., take the red pill and wake up.

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            Come work in midtown manhattan near FIT and say that. πŸ™‚

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Sounds expensive…

            Wanna hire me? I do good work

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        It’s like most Rogers deals: 5 cents/min for the first ten minutes of a 50-year contract.

        • irvinenomore
        • 7 years ago

        As a Brit living in Canada I can tell you 5 cents/min is in no way a deal for a British girlfriend!

        The women over here may be more expensive but offer much better long term value for money.

        <disclosure>Married to a Canadian</disclosure>

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Married to a Canadian[/quote<] Until she hears you describing her as 'a better value for the money'

            • irvinenomore
            • 7 years ago

            Not happening!

            (I took the red pill so I have my b*lls back)

            Whatever you do, don’t move over there get her landed over here. Rogers is nothing to suffer compared to their economy (in a good year.)

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      Hmm. Good deal. I’m with Teksavvy on they’re 28 Mbps service, but it’s $47/month. I’ve been really happy with their service though. How is Acanac’s? They must also use Rogers’ infrastructure like Teksavvy – which is half the fun stickin it to Rogers by paying less for their own service.

      I see Acanac is currently offering 28 Mbps for $40/month. I wonder if it’s worth switching..

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        Did I say 24 MPS?!? Duh, you’re right, it’s 28. And their service has been great, the few times I had to call, anyway.

        And yeah, I loved stickin’ it to Rogers πŸ™‚

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          Well at least you didn’t use “they’re” when you should have used “their” like I did… Ugh.

          Seems like I might be looking into switching. Maybe you can get the referral for a free month of service πŸ˜‰

          Edit: Is Ontario-wide calling included in the free VOIP service? Do you need to buy their VOIP box?

        • Johnny5
        • 7 years ago

        I’m also from Toronto, on Rogers. I looked into switching to one that’s not a ripoff a while ago, but I encountered some trouble. As I’ve been told by Rogers you lose your @rogers.com email addresses. If it was just me it would be a hassle (right now I’m trying to phase into my gmail account, bit by bit), but as there are 6 other people in my household with @rogers.com emails it is near impossible.

        On a related note, we had a 60GB cap with Rogers, but new costumers were getting 70GB. My dad complained, and just as you would expect they will bump you up once you complain, actually they bumped us right up to 80GB. Still, it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard that us loyal costumers have to complain to get our service up to par.

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          Having email with your ISP is plain retarded. There is Gmail, and other free services that are as good, or way better than generic ISP email. And the huge bonus of them not being able to keep you paying outrageous usage fees just to keep your email address. ISPs offer like 10 email addresses, but its not a feature, its a shady tactic to lock you in. There has been free email for like…. ever.

          • irvinenomore
          • 7 years ago

          Also in TO would love to switch to Acanac etc but the problem is that the techno-phobes in the household don’t want to give up their @rogers.com email addresses.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Just take the price difference, divide by the number of people, and tell them they owe you that much per month to keep their ‘@rogers.com’ addresses. In cash. Small unmarked bills, in a plain paper bag, left behand the second garbage can in the garage on the first day of the month. Carry a 2×4 in your hand as you explain this to them.

        • Spotpuff
        • 7 years ago

        Only downside is the speed halves from 7-12PM.

        But… free phone! ZOMG. The funny thing is the phone service probably costs them almost nothing since it’s just “Data” too.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          Nobody said anything to me about the speed dropping after 7pm, and I certainly haven’t noticed it.

          As to the phones service, I just bought an ATA and off-the-shelf wireless phones. So far, I’ve been very impressed with the VOIP service; it’s miles ahead of what I remember from just a few years ago.

      • burntham77
      • 7 years ago

      I am getting a similar deal with internet and phone in Las Vegas, but our bill is close to 100 dollars per month.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    Not sure if free, or data mining operation.

    /Fry meme

      • David
      • 7 years ago

      Honestly, who the eff cares?

    • 5150
    • 7 years ago

    Anything to take their minds off that joke of a football team.

    At least they still have awesome BBQ.

      • gmskking
      • 7 years ago

      Watch out for Stanzi

      • Generic
      • 7 years ago

      Hey. Hey. Hey.

      Don’t hate on our football team without mentioning our sorry ass baseball club with them!

      Only fair that way.

      <shrugs> Least we got soccer…..

      Edit:
      More on topic – Sucks paying Comcast $60 for 30/6 service when this service is rolling out so close to home. To add insult to injury NorthKC municpal service has provided fiber to home for years now.

    • vaultboy101
    • 7 years ago

    Can anyone enlighten me as to why Google have chosen Kansas?

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      β€œIn selecting a city, our goal was to find a location where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government and community organizations. We’ve found this in Kansas City. We’ll be working closely with local organizations including the Kauffman Foundation, KCNext and the University of Kansas Medical Center to help develop the gigabit applications of the future.”

      πŸ™‚

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        translation: giant tax break

          • ludi
          • 7 years ago

          alternate translation: around these parts, nobody cares what we have to rip up in order to pull the fresh lines

            • Thrashdog
            • 7 years ago

            alternate alternate translation: “Whoah, so you guys have your own public utility company, and the city government can just *tell* them to let us run our cables on your poles!?”

      • Neutronbeam
      • 7 years ago

      I believe that is a big area for telcom operations, and there may have been a lot of dormant “dark” fiber that Google picked up cheaply.

      • albundy
      • 7 years ago

      small population density offering better controls in testing this out?

    • yokem55
    • 7 years ago

    So, Scott’s going to have to round up, bribe, threaten, and otherwise cajole his neighbors to get this in his neck of the woods?

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      And if they’re really stubborn, he can try bullying, browbeating, coercing, a little bit of dragooning and maybe even besetting upon them until they see the light.

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      Each neighbor who joins the rally gets a free Korean IPS monitor.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        i can sign up for your neighbor, just ship me the panel!

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 7 years ago

    Holy crap that’s awesome.

    I would gladly pay $70 just for a 100mb connection.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 7 years ago

      The program offered by Google in the above article advertises $70 per month for 1Gbps. That’s an even better deal as you’re willing to pay the same amount for a much slower connection.

      Here is a link to the article.

      [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/23322[/url<]

        • BloodSoul
        • 7 years ago

        That’s the point… he was saying that he would be more than willing to pay $70 for a 100mb connection, so it is awesome (borderline unbelievable) that they are offering 1 Gbps for $70.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        GG dumbass.

        • CasbahBoy
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t even

        *ow my brain*

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Same. Heck, I’m paying close to that for 20mbit.

      • PenGun
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah I pay that for 3 MB/s. You kids and your bits. πŸ˜‰

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, there is the gigabit in Chatanooga, for $350/month, and they have lower speeds. I think their 100Mbit is like $70, and it’s a steal at those prices, especially with no data cap. The free service is quite nice to, just pay for installation, and use the bandwidth, which is cheaper than dirt for ISPs, so they easily recoup their cost if you use it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This