As an Austinite and an EE student, I am very excited about the potential. However, our local media (KXAN)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8A08jNxAaA] is harping on all the benefits this will bring startups, and I'm not convinced. Google's ToS for their fiber lines essentially forbids all of the cool things that you could do with a symmetric gigabit link. They have a wiggle-room clause in their (non-binding) FAQ about whether such things are "legal and non-commercial," but I'm not holding my breath. I don't get the obsession over how this will "help" tech startups if commercial use of the line is expressly forbidden. If I were a founder, I'd be very wary about basing my business on something Google could pull out from under me at any time. If I developed a standalone Dropbox alternative that could take advantage of fiber lines to customers' homes, would that constitute a "commercial" use of the lines? Probably not for the customer, but what about me? As well, I've heard that the hardware provided is relatively limited in terms of network configuration, and has no bridge mode to hand off the connection to hardware that _can_ handle such configuration. That means no pfsense or other routers with Tomato or DD-WRT or other firmware. And I've yet to see an official stance from Google on whether things like running exit nodes or seeding legal content are permitted.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] aspensmonster|13 years ago|reply
TL;DR - This Austinite isn't convinced.
[+] [-] cbhl|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kyrra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aspensmonster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] r0s|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jmsduran|13 years ago|reply
I'm looking forward to ditching Time Warner Cable Internet once Google Fiber goes live in Austin :).
[+] [-] caseysoftware|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modarts|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjbrunet|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] just2n|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Nrsolis|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pdeuchler|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DannyBee|13 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] andymoe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|13 years ago|reply
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...
[+] [-] bajsejohannes|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] banachtarski|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reustle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raj564|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmerl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __david__|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mildweed|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loceng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6thSigma|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mesozoic|13 years ago|reply