This message is meant for exactly two groups: 1) Google, 2) other municipalities.
AT&T is telling Google that they'll play in any market Google commits to and drive the margins out of it. They want Google to stop doing this, and they're hoping to make Google question its financial model for this capital outlay. (I doubt it will faze Google.)
AT&T is warning other municipalities to not cut Google any sweetheart deals that they're not willing to extend to AT&T. This is a potent message for municipalities that are sitting pretty on financial or other perks they've extracted from AT&T or other telecoms. AT&T is warning them the gravy train stops when they let in Google.
Speed is not even the biggest thing here. Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s. I'm sure if they wanted to go to 1Gbit they could. As can AT&T in Austin.
The thing that's exciting about Google Fiber is what it represents -- reasonable cost, no bandwidth caps, net neutrality, etc. Google WANTS its customers to use the Internet as much as possible. The more HD videos people watch on YouTube and the more people surf the web the more ads they show and the more money they make. The opposite is true with AT&T -- they'll start metering and charging the second they can.
I'd take 100Mbit Google service over 1Gbit AT&T service any day of the week.
> Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s
Where? The entire time I've lived in NYC, in neighborhoods with population density between 30k to 70k people per square mile, I've never, ever, ever had FIOS available to me.
Sure, I've heard about the rare building that has it, but as far as I can tell, it's marketing with just enough actual deployment that we can't call it vaporware.
>Heck Verizon FiOS offers fiber to the home in NYC and has speeds of 300Mbit/s.
Which is great if you're in NYC. There are huge portions of the country -- I'm familiar with the former Bellsouth territories personally -- where you can't get FiOS or U-Verse at all.
I'm in a metro area with ~250k people, and you might be able to get 6Mbs DSL from AT&T; many areas of the city top out at 3Mbs.
What I want is competition. I have U-verse, but why can't I have FIOS. Here in Frisco, TX it seems there are agreements between the providers to focus on certain neighborhoods have one or the other, but never both.
I want to choose who I connect to the internet through, just like I choose grocery stores, cell phone providers and just about anything else.
This makes little sense to me. Instead of building in the same market as Google, go build in another market with no competition! Why layout double the infrastructure when and get into a price war when you can do the same thing somewhere else and be able to charge more? That's my pro-business argument.
My pro-customer argument is that this is great for competition in Austin.
My I-live-in-SF argument is why isn't anyone doing this for us? I can't really think of another major city in the US outside of NY, Chicaco, or Boston where this would have the most impact. You have thousands of companies built on the Internet in SF. Lots of us techies live here. Please, give us a choice beyond Comcast!
Phone and Cable companies are increasingly becoming just ISPs; if Google Fiber starts to be successful in more cities, it threatens the highly profitable duopoly they have.
Consumer ISPs have long deployed their fastest technology in response to a competitor (typically, but not always a municipally funded competitor) deploying a fast network.
You need to remember, Comcast started charging Level 3 (who distributes some of Netflix's content) for peering. There's nothing illegal about this, but think about what it means is Comcast is now selling its customers to the content companies; you are no longer the customer but the product.
Competition in Austin hasn't solved any problems. There are three major providers in Austin: AT&T, TWC, and Grande. That there are "more options" hasn't meant anything to the general availabilities that any of these three companies offers. I can "choose" to get internet from TWC or AT&T, but absolutely none of the choices have substantial differences.
Honestly, this whole focus on "competition" is completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have one company, or two companies, or three companies, or ten companies offering the service. If there's a way, they're going to collude.
"AT&T’s expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives."
Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?
It's rich that ATT, successor company to Southwestern Bell, is complaining about alledged subsidies to another company to enable a fiber rollout.
Southwestern Bell and its sister baby bells were subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the 90s in exchange for a promise to roll out a nationwide network of fiber to the home. Needless to say the network never materialized but the telecoms kept the money.
On the contrary. AT&T has been laying political groundwork for ages. This is a PR hit piece intending to show they're competitive with Google's offerings, but in reality they're playing the reactionary. Google is scaring the shit out of them and they're trying to retain customers who might otherwise jump ship immediately by assuring them they'll get the exact same deal. That is almost certainly not the case, however.
>Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?
Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout.
They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area.
When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.
"However, in Austin, the agreements that Google has signed with the City of Austin are no different than the ones that AT&T and Time Warner have signed according to Laura Morrison, an Austin city councilwoman."
I suspect this is exactly what Google wants. They don't want the burden of bringing high speed internet to everyone, but they do want everyone to have high speed access.
It may be naive to think that AT&T will get the same rules. By all means, all firms should get the same rules, and may need to litigate.
But to assume that municipalities want a uniform set of rules for all comers would be without basis. Municipalities want to negotiate with vendors to extract concessions.
Laws can be written, without naming names, that apply only to individual firms. Maybe Austin will say that the new rules and incentives only apply to firms below a certain market share. Or to firms that don’t also operate mobile networks. Or firms that have, or don’t have, some geographical footprint. Or which employ a certain number of Texans, or Austinites. Etc.
It would be viewed as pretty evil if Google extracted government concessions and then used some kind of regulatory capture to lock out competitors. That's AT&T's game.
Much like Firefox forced Microsoft's hand in regards to Internet Explorer it seems as though Google have forced one of the major players hands to innovate in the Internet and bandwidth space as well. Any outcome of this battle will only benefit the people in the end. More choice equals a better deal for everyone and I have no doubt this was never about money on Google's end in the first place, merely a wakeup call to companies like AT&T and Comcast who have stopped trying and let their networks deteriorate.
Considering Google have only spent $100 million on their impressive fibre network thus far, AT&T have a lot of catching up to do here to meet the same service offering Google is giving customers (no network caps, fast speeds, a new and reliable network).
Back in my Demon Internet days we went through every possible way of solving that last mile. One of the most innovative solutions, that actually got trailed before being "canned" was to backhaul fibre through the sewage system - it was pre existing tunnelling in every home, could be installed by any fool and had negligible effect on "flow"
In the Chicagoland area, their DSL service was simply horrible, and it languished, until Comcast started rolling out Internet and triple-play (cable TV, Internet, and phone).
Suddenly, AT&T's market was at material risk.
Even then, their Internet offerings remained poorly supported, if relatively somewhat improved.
I suspect the primary reason for this announcement is for use in manipulating various political entities, including Congress. Also, some public PR value, from those who are still inclined to believe anything they might have to say.
Note that today's AT&T is really SBC. AT&T was a mostly empty shell at the time SBC bought them up -- largely, I suspect, for the branding.
Why are they announcing it the same day as Google? And in the same city, no less? If they've had this capability all this time, what has prevented them from offering good service to customers up until now?
"AT&T’s ... anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives."
They want to make a case out of Google getting preferential treatment to build out its network (which they are).
How much do you want to bet AT&T never builds anything? This is a classic tactic of them to announce the development of a network and then never build it. They often do this as a means to extract honey from regulators, but it also works to distract consumers and municipalities. It's the equivalent of networking FUD.
This is duplicated infrastructure. What a waste of money and effort. Australia's National Broadband Network seems a much better way to handle this kind of thing.
I have FTTH with AT&T Uverse yet they only offer at max 22 mbps down / 3 up at around $60/month. Is lack of competition the only reason why AT&T doesn't offer me more speed? I mean why would they? It's either AT&T or dial-up.
This is sort of like if Google announced they are building a 50 ft. wall around the city of Austin, and then AT&T announces they are building a 50 ft. wall around the wall that Google is building.
[+] [-] tc|13 years ago|reply
AT&T is telling Google that they'll play in any market Google commits to and drive the margins out of it. They want Google to stop doing this, and they're hoping to make Google question its financial model for this capital outlay. (I doubt it will faze Google.)
AT&T is warning other municipalities to not cut Google any sweetheart deals that they're not willing to extend to AT&T. This is a potent message for municipalities that are sitting pretty on financial or other perks they've extracted from AT&T or other telecoms. AT&T is warning them the gravy train stops when they let in Google.
[+] [-] nlh|13 years ago|reply
The thing that's exciting about Google Fiber is what it represents -- reasonable cost, no bandwidth caps, net neutrality, etc. Google WANTS its customers to use the Internet as much as possible. The more HD videos people watch on YouTube and the more people surf the web the more ads they show and the more money they make. The opposite is true with AT&T -- they'll start metering and charging the second they can.
I'd take 100Mbit Google service over 1Gbit AT&T service any day of the week.
[+] [-] pifflesnort|13 years ago|reply
Where? The entire time I've lived in NYC, in neighborhoods with population density between 30k to 70k people per square mile, I've never, ever, ever had FIOS available to me.
Sure, I've heard about the rare building that has it, but as far as I can tell, it's marketing with just enough actual deployment that we can't call it vaporware.
[+] [-] commandar|13 years ago|reply
Which is great if you're in NYC. There are huge portions of the country -- I'm familiar with the former Bellsouth territories personally -- where you can't get FiOS or U-Verse at all.
I'm in a metro area with ~250k people, and you might be able to get 6Mbs DSL from AT&T; many areas of the city top out at 3Mbs.
[+] [-] smcguinness|13 years ago|reply
I want to choose who I connect to the internet through, just like I choose grocery stores, cell phone providers and just about anything else.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chez17|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geuis|13 years ago|reply
My pro-customer argument is that this is great for competition in Austin.
My I-live-in-SF argument is why isn't anyone doing this for us? I can't really think of another major city in the US outside of NY, Chicaco, or Boston where this would have the most impact. You have thousands of companies built on the Internet in SF. Lots of us techies live here. Please, give us a choice beyond Comcast!
[+] [-] codexon|13 years ago|reply
The point is that AT&T is trying to kill off Google's Internet business. It takes many years to earn back the cost of laying new fiber.
If Google knows that AT&T is going to avoid building wherever they are, Google would just keep going with their plan.
[+] [-] joshe|13 years ago|reply
https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1085&s...
[+] [-] aidenn0|13 years ago|reply
Consumer ISPs have long deployed their fastest technology in response to a competitor (typically, but not always a municipally funded competitor) deploying a fast network.
You need to remember, Comcast started charging Level 3 (who distributes some of Netflix's content) for peering. There's nothing illegal about this, but think about what it means is Comcast is now selling its customers to the content companies; you are no longer the customer but the product.
[+] [-] jseliger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aspensmonster|13 years ago|reply
Honestly, this whole focus on "competition" is completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have one company, or two companies, or three companies, or ten companies offering the service. If there's a way, they're going to collude.
[+] [-] djcapelis|13 years ago|reply
It is really really really expensive to do anything in SF, much less deploy fiber on a wide scale basis.
(I also live in SF. I <3 sonic but don't live in a place where they have fiber and even they can only do so much.)
[+] [-] PerryCox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacobmarble|13 years ago|reply
Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?
[+] [-] bradleyjg|13 years ago|reply
Southwestern Bell and its sister baby bells were subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the 90s in exchange for a promise to roll out a nationwide network of fiber to the home. Needless to say the network never materialized but the telecoms kept the money.
Ref: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
[+] [-] maxk42|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben1040|13 years ago|reply
Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout.
They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area.
When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.
[+] [-] tapsboy|13 years ago|reply
"However, in Austin, the agreements that Google has signed with the City of Austin are no different than the ones that AT&T and Time Warner have signed according to Laura Morrison, an Austin city councilwoman."
http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/take-that-google-att-ups-the-an...
[+] [-] sterlingross|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwsherman|13 years ago|reply
But to assume that municipalities want a uniform set of rules for all comers would be without basis. Municipalities want to negotiate with vendors to extract concessions.
Laws can be written, without naming names, that apply only to individual firms. Maybe Austin will say that the new rules and incentives only apply to firms below a certain market share. Or to firms that don’t also operate mobile networks. Or firms that have, or don’t have, some geographical footprint. Or which employ a certain number of Texans, or Austinites. Etc.
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] james33|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mayneack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfasfasf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccarter84|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
Considering Google have only spent $100 million on their impressive fibre network thus far, AT&T have a lot of catching up to do here to meet the same service offering Google is giving customers (no network caps, fast speeds, a new and reliable network).
[+] [-] gonzo|13 years ago|reply
Lots of trenching around town, tons of interduct.
Then the winds shifted, and they shut the project down.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
For some reason it never caught on :-)
[+] [-] pindi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o0-0o|13 years ago|reply
What firms are HQ'd in the Austin and surrounding areas...
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/state.... Whole Foods... Dell... I wonder what types of conversations Google & Dell have been having?
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|13 years ago|reply
AT&T, for one.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] largehotcoffee|13 years ago|reply
Pretty sure the answer to that is zero.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|13 years ago|reply
In the Chicagoland area, their DSL service was simply horrible, and it languished, until Comcast started rolling out Internet and triple-play (cable TV, Internet, and phone).
Suddenly, AT&T's market was at material risk.
Even then, their Internet offerings remained poorly supported, if relatively somewhat improved.
I suspect the primary reason for this announcement is for use in manipulating various political entities, including Congress. Also, some public PR value, from those who are still inclined to believe anything they might have to say.
Note that today's AT&T is really SBC. AT&T was a mostly empty shell at the time SBC bought them up -- largely, I suspect, for the branding.
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsl|13 years ago|reply
"AT&T’s ... anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives."
They want to make a case out of Google getting preferential treatment to build out its network (which they are).
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smutticus|13 years ago|reply
Examples: http://www.muninetworks.org/content/atts-many-broken-merger-...
And of course the biggest scam of all: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026...
[+] [-] nnethercote|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousdannii|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] addflip|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scragg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] programminggeek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intopieces|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]