Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government The Internet Technology

Google Fiber Delays Broadband Award To 2011 90

Posted by timothy
from the hold-your-horses dept.
coondoggie writes "The response to the invitation to become a test market for Google's planned high-speed broadband network has been overwhelming, so much so the company today said it would delay awarding the system until 2011. According to a post in its website, Google said 1,100 communities and 194,000 individuals responded to its proposal. Google had hoped to award the test program this month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fiber Delays Broadband Award To 2011

Comments Filter:
  • Great (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    more time for me to spam their system with more entries!

    • by tverbeek (457094)

      They aren't taking new entries; the cities that in the running are set.

      But you can still show support for a great candidate. [goog616.com]

    • by timeOday (582209)
      "Too many choices!!" doesn't really make sense as an explanation on why they are delaying until next year, anyways. (If there are so many valid choices, how about just putting them up on a dart-board?) So, why the delay?

      Of course, delaying until 2011 might just mean delaying for a couple weeks, which is nothing. But if they haven't made an announcement by March, I'll be disappointed. Not that google owes me anything, but I'm cheering from the sidelines and would be disappointed if they pulled the plug

  • by shentino (1139071) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @04:24PM (#34579002)

    Considering the high demand, Google Fiber should make multiple awards.

    Maybe Google could get into the ISP business.

    Even if conflicts of interest would prevent Google from direct involvement, I would heartily welcome Google Fiber franchising.

    • Considering the high demand, Google Fiber should make multiple awards.

      Conceivably, that could be part of the reason for delay; if they have decided to scale up the resources devoted to the initial effort, from one community to more than one, there could be additional scaling-out time needed.

    • Re:idea (Score:5, Funny)

      by GIL_Dude (850471) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @05:50PM (#34580442) Homepage
      Google already is an ISP. Haven't you kept up to date: http://www.google.com/tisp/ [google.com]. They have had this out there for awhile. I heard it didn't bowl anyone over. You'd think that a company like Google that is flush with cash could do better.
  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@carp a n e t . net> on Thursday December 16, 2010 @04:30PM (#34579124) Homepage

    Man what do you do when the fiber blocks you up? Drink more water? Maybe google needs an enema?

  • What if some of those 1100 communities were to just build the fiber out themselves, instead of looking for Google to do it for them?
    • You mean, pay for it yourself? WTF?
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @04:45PM (#34579384)

      What if some of those 1100 communities were to just build the fiber out themselves, instead of looking for Google to do it for them?

      Then they'd be tied up in the courts for years as they are sued by telecom companies and eventually the project would be outlawed by new laws that would be passed in the state or locality by the shills the telecom companies paid to have elected. At least that's what has been happening in many such attempts.

      • Re:Another solution (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dunezone (899268) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @06:00PM (#34580586) Journal
        Or when the towns go to vote the telecom companies will run newspaper and tv ads on how it will cost the taxpayer more if the city ran network goes under.

        This happened to a tri-city outside of Chicago (Geneva, St. Charles, Batavia). These three towns were voting to build a municipal network and let me tell you the week before voting the amount negative ads running against it were crazy. They basically played on the fear that if this failed the tax payer would foot the bill. It failed in vote but had every household that agreed to it bought it into it would have paid itself off in 5 years.

        The best part the reason the three towns were doing it were because Comcast or any other major telecom refused to bring in broadband. Literally two weeks after the vote Comcast had delivered to 90% of the three cities.
      • The telecoms tried that very hard in my hometown... Even had several "concerned citizens" suing the city after their own lawsuits failed. Ended up pushing back the start date by two years. In the end, though, we won... And completed the build-out ahead of schedule. :)

        http://www.lusfiber.com/ [lusfiber.com]

        Hell of a deal... Still kicking myself for moving to this hellhole right before the build started. The neighborhood my apartment used to be in was the picked as the initial test case!

    • What if some of those 1100 communities were to just build the fiber out themselves, instead of looking for Google to do it for them?

      And force Comcast to file 1100 new lawsuits to block them from doing it?

    • by NevarMore (248971)

      And force the taxpayers to cover infrastructure which is then leased to a private monopoly which charges the taxpayers to use the infrastructure they just paid for?

    • What if some of those 1100 communities were to just build the fiber out themselves, instead of looking for Google to do it for them?

      Access to capital to pay for the up front costs is probably an issue here. The success of the Google demonstration could make it easier for others to get capital to do similar things (presuming, of course, that the success of the roll-out isn't attributed to factors that independent parties can't easily replicate.)

    • by PinchDuck (199974)

      They would be stuck with maintenance costs for broadband equipment and no way to pay for them. Most local munis are broke right now and looking to pare back services. Many libraries will be lucky to survive. If some municipalities want to try it, I say go for it, but I just don't see it happening on a large scale. No one has the cash anymore.

    • The 'We the People Surround Them' crowd known as the Tea Party don't want taxes. They want no services. They want spending cut.

      FIBER? FIBER?

  • Demand Unmet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @04:39PM (#34579266)

    So Google talks about rolling out fiber to the home and they get nearly 200,000 responses and 1,100 communities express interest. That pretty well sums up the network infrastructure in the US. It's too slow, too expensive, and falling behind the times. I'm sure we will not be regarded as the most technologically advanced nation within another generation. This generation has failed to invest in critical infrastructure and has let corporate interests divert the money that should be being spent on public works projects, into those corporations own back pockets.

    And yet, I can't help but think, "we deserve this". I mean the people are too lazy and stupid to pay attention to what's going on, or bother to vote, or bother to research candidates before they vote. So corporate shills are elected. They hand over taxpayer dollars, but require no return on the taxpayer's investment and pass laws to make sure taxpayers have fewer, more expensive choices when purchasing services.

    Maybe one of the few innovative companies with enough prestige will be able to start real reform, but I seriously doubt it. This empire is crumbling and, as usual, the average person is too arrogant (USA #1 whooo!) to even consider how far we've fallen behind already. They don't want to hear it or have to think about the hard decisions that need to be made to turn things around.

    Good luck Google, but I almost think you should just test out your new technologies in Japan or Korea or Sweden or somewhere where they are actually implementing fiber to the home, for a more realistic sense of what your future customers will be using.

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      The FCC so needs to crack down that it just is no longer funny.
      1. Cable providers should not be allowed to own networks. Comcast owning NBC! No way.
      2. We need net neutrality rules. Freak I pay to connect to the internet ISP you need to connect me.
      3. Local governments need to crack down on the cable companies. They grant them "franchises" They should demand certain price levels and bandwidth.
      4. We have been paying a telecom tax to the tune of how much for how long and we still do not have universal, inexpens

    • by zooblethorpe (686757) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @07:27PM (#34581590)

      The average US constituency is massive , at around 700,000 people. This is much larger than originally envisioned when the country was founded, and guarantees that the little guy is drowned out. From Thirty-Thousand.org [thirty-thousand.org]:

      The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.

      Such large constituencies as we see now in the US are also much larger than in other representative democracies. The Isle of Wight is an interesting comparison [wikipedia.org]:

      With a single Member of Parliament and 132,731 permanent residents in 2001, it is also the most populous parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.

      While not widely known, the first article of the original twelve proposed for the Bill of Rights laid out the size of congressional constituencies, as an attempt to avoid that the dilution of individual votes seen in the modern US. From the US House of Representatives website [house.gov]:

      Article the first

      After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

      James Madison himself talked about how larger constituencies tend to favor those with land and property (i.e., the rich). He was writing about the justification for having larger constituencies and longer terms for the Senate than for the House, but his description of the basic political mechanics is sound. From page 155 [google.com] of The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Ketcham:

      Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater.

      I.e., large districts are more impersonal, favor the rich, and are less representative. This is precisely what we have in the US. I do not expect any real progress until this gross imbalance is corrected -- and frankly I suspect changing my citizenship would be much more productive for me personally.

      Cheers,

  • by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @05:20PM (#34579974)

    Am I missing something?

    • by zero_out (1705074)
      I'd probably label it Hardware, but I think this Google fiber network has a backstory related to net neutrality. At about the time Google announced this program, they had just backed a push for net neutrality, which was defeated in some fashion, and the next day this program was announced. At least, that's how I remember it, but I'm probably completely wrong.
      • by Nadaka (224565)

        YRO is used to label anything involving rights or the internet. Sucks, but true.

  • Indication (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MadUndergrad (950779) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @05:23PM (#34580014)

    I think this is a pretty good indication that the general public would like faster access to the internet, despite the telcos' claiming that people are pretty satisfied. I for one welcome our multiplexing digital overlords, and would like to remind them that I'm not interested in cloud services until I get at least 2 9s of at least 10Mbps connectivity with overall uptime of 4 9s or so.

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      You need 4 9's of uptime on your home internet connection? You really can't tolerate more than 53 minutes of loss of access to your cloud computing assets in a year?

      You sound more like a business user, and hopefully you're willing to pay business rates (and potentially trench in more than one circuit from opposite sides of your house) for this level of availability. In the past year, our $5000/mo DS3 hasn't even given 4 9's of availability (though in the prior year, it provided 5 9's of availability). I th

      • by Willuz (1246698)
        I do need 4 9's on my home internet service. My web applications are hosted on shared business servers but there are several apps that require a desktop GUI that must be run at home since it's too expensive to rent entire Windows servers. Better uptime would be great for running websites and services from home. Not to mention the bandwidth advantage of not having to worry that watching a YouTube or NetFlix video will interfere with my hosted services. Imagine all the internet start-ups that could be don
        • Too expensive to rent Windows servers? You can get Amazon EC2 Windows instance for less than $100/month for 24 x 7 uptime. Pretty hard to run a Windows Server in-house for that amount of money (remember you have hardware, Windows 2008 license, cooling, electricity to consider).
        • by hawguy (1600213)

          Ahh, so I was right, you are a business user.

          Just because you're running your business at home doesn't mean you're a home user.

          You have business requirements and you should pay business rates for your reliable internet connection. Though if you really require 4 nines of reliability you should have better service diversity by buying bandwidth from multiple ISP's using completely separate circuits (that don't share a telephone pole or conduit).

          Though I know few businesses that would colocate a critical busin

          • by Willuz (1246698)
            I don't know about the original poster, but I'm not a business user. I'm active in several internet communities and provide my resources and knowledge to benefit the community at no charge. While I'm not paid people do donate hardware that I can setup at home to provide the services. An old dell P4 2.4 wouldn't exactly be useful in a corporate data center but with a good connection it works great at home.

            Examples
            Dynamic forum signature images (very high CPU utilization makes hosting expensive)
            Forum
            • by hawguy (1600213)

              Yes, business class availability to the home would make all of our lives easier, but don't look to Google to do that. There are a lot of telecom companies that will provide services with a variety of SLA's, but in general, you get what you pay for.

              Don't expect a residential broadband provider to offer business class SLA's at a price a residential consumer is willing to pay.

              Unless you have your home servers on a redundant, hot swappable UPS, a backup generator (with a service contract that includes regular

      • by TheSync (5291)

        I am involved in an IPSec VPN over commodity "business cable modem" service to 200 sites across the US.

        In general, 1% of sites are down at any time due to the cable provider.

        If you ever want to try this, get one of those auto-pinging power-cyclers for the sites, as a power cycle of the cable modem seems to solve about 10-20% of the outage events.

  • Right now many places have decided to leap in with a flavor or PON which is not much more than cable TV over fiber. The local bunch keeps saying it can grow in speed forever yet the largest user of it in the world (NT&T) has hit a wall and both AT&T and Verizon have both pulled back plans for future rollout. Its looking like shared isn't the way to go but no one has a good idea how to do direct point to point that isn't way too expensive to roll out.

    As far as *PON being future proof, it has manage

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...