Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

[Google Fiber] - What Do You Guys Think

[Google Fiber] - What Do You Guys Think

HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider

Hey!

So I am actually super interested. I know a thread was created back in 2012. I'm just wondering if anyone has it / what they think about it. Any improvements over 5 years?

It seems they are expanding (https://fiber.google.com/about/) just find it super interested. Does this put other players out of business?

Just wish this was an option in the UK.

I'm paying for 100 Mbps but I'm getting this. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6060859473

So curious what speeds you get on google fiber?

Let me know!

Your thoughts
  1. Your thoughts.56 votes
    1. Awesome
      16.07%
    2. Pricey
        5.36%
    3. Cheap
        7.14%
    4. I want it in my city.
      71.43%

HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

«1

Comments

  • I personally don't have it but live in a state where it is available. I have friends and coworkers that have it and get very close to 1G repeatably.

  • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member, Provider
    edited February 17

    I have gbit through Hyperoptic in London. On wired, I got about 600/400 on Xbox/PS4. My Macbook Air adaptor is limited to 100 mbit.

    Wireless is not so hot though, but right now I'm only on 2.4 GHZ. I have the Asus AC-3100 on order.

    OnApp + SolusVM + Cloud.net + CDN.net t@onapp.com

    Thanked by 1muratai
  • None of the 4 answer options capture my opinion on Google Fiber.

    Good that US people get some choice, terrible that its Google. And from what I know they are already slowing and stopping a lot of their projects to expand all over the US and are moving towards WIFI instead.

  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider
    edited February 17

    @OnApp_Terry

    If you don't mind me asking how much do you pay monthly? and wow 2.4 ghz you're getting those speeds. I'm on a 5ghz -_-

    Those speeds are definitely impressive. But curious to know your price if your willing to share!

    "48 Quid / Month on 1 GBPS" right? unless you're getting a special deal.

    Cheers

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

  • @HungryVM said: It seems they are expanding (https://fiber.google.com/about/) just find it super interested. Does this put other players out of business?

    They aren't expanding anymore, they realized how expensive it was . . . I do engineering or FTTx networks, anyone who knows anything about this stuff could see it was wildly over optimistic from the start, but I think their intent was really to goad existing providers.

    Now they are looking at using wireless for the last mile.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member, Provider

    @HungryVM said: @OnApp_Terry

    If you don't mind me asking how much do you pay monthly? and wow 2.4 ghz you're getting those speeds. I'm on a 5ghz -_-

    Those speeds are definitely impressive. But curious to know your price if your willing to share!

    "48 Quid / Month on 1 GBPS" right? unless you're getting a special deal.

    Cheers

    Yeah that's our deal. I think it goes up to £68 a month after a year?

    OnApp + SolusVM + Cloud.net + CDN.net t@onapp.com

  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider

    @OnApp_Terry

    Yeah somewhere around that. God they don't offer in 2 of the locations i need it in!!!!

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider
    edited February 17

    @Microlinux That would be a bummer if so.

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

  • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member, Provider

    @HungryVM said: @OnApp_Terry

    Yeah somewhere around that. God they don't offer in 2 of the locations i need it in!!!!

    It was a requirement when I was apartment "flat" hunting!

    OnApp + SolusVM + Cloud.net + CDN.net t@onapp.com

    Thanked by 1HungryVM
  • @Microlinux said:

    @HungryVM said: It seems they are expanding (https://fiber.google.com/about/) just find it super interested. Does this put other players out of business?

    They aren't expanding anymore, they realized how expensive it was . . . I do engineering or FTTx networks, anyone who knows anything about this stuff could see it was wildly over optimistic from the start, but I think their intent was really to goad existing providers.

    Now they are looking at using wireless for the last mile.

    They are still very much expanding. You don't think Google was fully aware how expensive it is?

  • Google Fiber is still publicly committed to building in Huntsville, Alabama; Irvine, California; San Antonio, Texas; and Louisville, Kentucky. Those plans are unchanged, the company says.

    Eleven areas that Google Fiber listed as either "potential" or "upcoming" Fiber cities are subject to the "pause," or have simply been removed from Google Fiber's published plans entirely. That's where employees will lose their jobs. The cities where the ISP's fiber operations will be paused or ended are:

    Chicago, Illinois
    Dallas, Texas
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Los Angeles, California
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Portland, Oregon
    San Diego, California
    San Francisco, California
    San Jose, California
    Tampa, Florida
    

    ^That is my last information on the topic of Google Fiber and its expansion. That was when they laid off 9% of their staff in October.

  • It was a distraction from fighting for municipal networks.

    Don't pin any hopes on Google. They're flaky, and will stand you up when you really need them. Google has a tendency to half-ass things, and then replace it something new that does nothing to address why the deficiencies of the original product place.

    Basically ignore anything Google does until it gains traction, and then wait two more years for them to ignore it or kill it.

  • @fourzerofour said: They are still very much expanding. You don't think Google was fully aware how expensive it is?

    Not beyond a few more cities they already had in progress. They've clearly announced this, are laying off employees and the person in charge of the operation is no more.

    They appear to have been caught off guard by the real world. If I recall correctly, they themselves cited cost. This stuff is very expensive to build in most areas of the US and the rate of return is low. Optimism isn't very good at beating reality.

  • BlazingBlazing Member
    edited February 17

    Comcast/Xfinity in NJ. Recently went w/Triple Play (bundle) deal ("discounted to $140 but that incl taxes - $21, etc).

    It includes Pro Plan internet service (100Mb). I'm getting 10-14ms pings, 90's down, capped at 6Mb up.

    In retrospect, should have tried Fios (fiber) as they recently ran the fiber INTO my home. I mention this because of the similarity to G-Fiber. Fios claims 150/150 for $85/mth (incl TV & home phone). Is self-hosting in my future?

    update: OnApp_Terry very impressive ping times (as well as speeds). Wish I would have tried Fios.

  • OnApp_Terry said: It was a requirement when I was apartment "flat" hunting!

    I really wish I did this :(

    Signed a flat recently and found out that Virgin Media hadn't been cabled in the building - The management company refuses to allow them into do any work. Luckily my local cabinet is VDSL enabled, but now I'm having to deal with the infinite joys of BT OpenReach.

  • raindog308raindog308 Super Moderator

    If Google Fiber is in any way detrimental to Comcast, I'm all for it.

    Sincerely, A Comcast subscriber.

    My Advice: : VPS Advice | My Blog: raindog308.com

    For LET support, please click here.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Member
    edited February 18

    I am not sure why it would be so expensive.
    The townhall in bucharest, a town with only 2 mil people, setup a project called net-city, where they put up the underground infrastructure and are charging operators for it. It allows for regular subscriber fiber links like mine (which I live in the old historic area, previously hard to wire) as well as big dark fiber links between various places.
    As a result, I can pay 10 Eur a month for 1 Gbps (which is actually some .7 at best) but face idiotic staff which put a cabinet for the fiber and brought a UTP (and PPPoE!) line to me, then tell me when I had issues that I must use a windows or mac for the troubleshooting as they do not support linux or RouterOS, or get direct fiber with static IP (though still no IPv6 to this day and age) for same price, but only 500 Mbps (which is more or less real).
    If any of those big metropolitan areas would invest a bit into this would have a big potential to profit and develop. Bug your local town hall, maybe they will copy the model.

    If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Romanian Protests

  • doghouchdoghouch Member
    edited February 18

    @OnApp_Terry said: I have gbit through Hyperoptic in London. On wired, I got about 600/400 on Xbox/PS4. My Macbook Air adaptor is limited to 100 mbit.

    Wireless is not so hot though, but right now I'm only on 2.4 GHZ. I have the Asus AC-3100 on order.

    Locally, my Apple AirPort Extreme does a pretty damn good job. Can broadcast 3+ networks: two 2.4 GHz networks, and a 5 GHz network. All done on N only though, but I only use it for LAN, connected to a Linksys WRT1200AC I got second hand.

    Not really useful since my Internet is powered by Bell, with speeds that cap at like 5 mbit/s. I really only have this kind of equipment for network transfers, but it's capped at 100mb/s obviously, since AC isn't nearly as fast as the 10 gig cards on the back of my NAS.

    EDIT: Speeds are better than normal.

    Free Image Hosting - https://i.dawgy.pw
    Main Site - https://dawgy.pw

  • ethancedrikethancedrik Member
    edited February 18

    I'm using comcast cable internet right now to type this lol, and have been using them for home internet ever since 2009 before they bought out InsightBB in the Midwest

  • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member, Provider

    With the new router...

    Wired

    Wireless

    OnApp + SolusVM + Cloud.net + CDN.net t@onapp.com

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • BlazingBlazing Member
    edited February 18

    ^^^ Those numbers are sick.
    image

  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider

    @OnApp_Terry Stop your making me sulk. Bloody amazing!

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

  • raindog308raindog308 Super Moderator

    @ethancedrik said: I'm using comcast cable internet right now to type this lol, and have been using them for home internet ever since 2009 before they bought out InsightBB in the Midwest

    I'll try not to post any animated gifs so you don't get hit with that $50 "you used more than 1TB in a month" fee.

    My Advice: : VPS Advice | My Blog: raindog308.com

    For LET support, please click here.

  • doghouchdoghouch Member
    edited February 18

    @raindog308 said:

    @ethancedrik said: I'm using comcast cable internet right now to type this lol, and have been using them for home internet ever since 2009 before they bought out InsightBB in the Midwest

    I'll try not to post any animated gifs so you don't get hit with that $50 "you used more than 1TB in a month" fee.

    My connection may be slow as f*ck (it also costs $80/mo for this).... at least I have unlimited BW. (3G only, I disabled LTE to save dem battery)

    Free Image Hosting - https://i.dawgy.pw
    Main Site - https://dawgy.pw

  • raindog308raindog308 Super Moderator

    doghouch said: My connection may be slow as f*ck (it also costs $80/mo for this), but at least I have unlimited BW. (3G only, I disabled LTE to save dem battery)

    No no...I'm not talking about mobile. I'm talking about the 1TB cap for home ISP service (cable modem).

    My Advice: : VPS Advice | My Blog: raindog308.com

    For LET support, please click here.

  • doghouchdoghouch Member
    edited February 18

    @raindog308 said:

    doghouch said: My connection may be slow as f*ck (it also costs $80/mo for this), but at least I have unlimited BW. (3G only, I disabled LTE to save dem battery)

    No no...I'm not talking about mobile. I'm talking about the 1TB cap for home ISP service (cable modem).

    The usage was for broadband (DSL). (there's no such thing as unlimited LTE/3G here if you want actual coverage.)

    Free Image Hosting - https://i.dawgy.pw
    Main Site - https://dawgy.pw

  • @OnApp_Terry said: With the new router...

    Wired

    Wireless

    I really wished that the company would expand out of London, as other providers are so bad in comparison.

  • pikepike Member

    @Maounique said: As a result, I can pay 10 Eur a month for 1 Gbps (which is actually some .7 at best) If any of those big metropolitan areas would invest a bit into this would have a big potential to profit and develop. Bug your local town hall, maybe they will copy the model.

    US Americans will never get this I bet.

    Thanked by 1HungryVM
  • @fourzerofour said: They are still very much expanding.

    Doesn't look like it. Just yesterday they reassigned 50% of the employees from the division that manages Fiber to other parts of Google. It costs Google nothing to put names of cities on a website (Chicago has been there for years) and it means exactly that.

  • @HungryVM said: I'm paying for 100 Mbps but I'm getting this. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6060859473

    You speed for VM 100 Mbps is pretty crap you must live in a oversubscribed area.

    I got VM 200 Mbps I get over 180 Mbps even at peak times.

  • InfinityInfinity Member, Provider

    @MetallicGloss said: I really wished that the company would expand out of London, as other providers are so bad in comparison.

    Even within London there are very few locations supported. It's only high rise and big complexes which are economical for them.

  • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member, Provider

    @Infinity said:

    @MetallicGloss said: I really wished that the company would expand out of London, as other providers are so bad in comparison.

    Even within London there are very few locations supported. It's only high rise and big complexes which are economical for them.

    If you are in a high rise they do it in a pretty cool way. Just add your zip code and if (I think) 10 other people also express interest, they will at least take a closer look at things.

    I do know they have expanded to at least Manchester. Good friends with the their head of customer care (he used to be CMO at UK2Group) - I'll let him know you guys want the service :)

    OnApp + SolusVM + Cloud.net + CDN.net t@onapp.com

  • @OnApp_Terry said:

    If you are in a high rise they do it in a pretty cool way. Just add your zip code and if (I think) 10 other people also express interest, they will at least take a closer look at things.

    I do know they have expanded to at least Manchester. Good friends with the their head of customer care (he used to be CMO at UK2Group) - I'll let him know you guys want the service :)

    Would be great, but I think it will take them quite a while to make it all the way to Devon/Cornwall. Anyway, looking forward to the future!

    Thanked by 1HungryVM
  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider

    Then again virgin media does do the job pretty well. My price on a 12 month contract is around 20.00 / month (i think) for a 100mpbs line (been with them for over 15 years or more hence the price)

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

  • Maounique said: If any of those big metropolitan areas would invest a bit into this would have a big potential to profit and develop. Bug your local town hall, maybe they will copy the model.

    Not likely. Municipal broadband networks have been banned or restricted in 20 states so far and the new head of the FCC is working to discourage them further.

  • Guys in Hong Kong and Singapore gets 1000/1000 mbits FTTB and pays 30-40 usd per month. Although they won't get this speed internationally, they have local peering for most online services.

  • In NL I get full gigabit speed up/down with very good AMS-IX peering behind it for 365 euro per year. Speedtests show at least 900mbit both ways.

    I work for this company

  • HungryVMHungryVM Member, Provider
    edited February 18

    @teamacc said: In NL I get full gigabit speed up/down with very good AMS-IX peering behind it for 365 euro per year. Speedtests show at least 900mbit both ways.

    Dam! that's amazing for that price. 30 Euros / Month that's blimming cheap!

    HungryVM - KVM VPS / Domains / Proxies / Mascot Designs / Reseller Hosting / VPS Reseller / Shared Hosting. [GEM/CAN/LON]
    HUNGRY LLC LTD - 10513817 - We Feed You're Hunger Through Quality Hosting.

    Thanked by 1muratai
  • mfsmfs Member

    At home I'm forced to use a proprietary WiMAX variant and the best I can get is up to 30/3 for ~35 € / mo

    there's no risk for me to ever hit eth/wlan caps ahah

    lucky me

  • MaouniqueMaounique Member
    edited February 18

    Dylan said: Municipal broadband networks have been banned

    https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

    Either way, this is not like the municipality sets up own broadband service, just that it creates a ring of fiber throughout the city and ISPs can piggyback on it for a price (much lower than digging themselves). It has a lot of advantages, from hiding the cables to reducing digging.
    This is how it was before (article from 2008), the light posts were felled by cables: http://www.gandul.info/stiri/stalpii-din-beton-pusi-la-pamant-de-52-de-cabluri-necunoscute-3248357
    Surely, even americans can understand why this is very good. I do not mean the monopolist cable or copper operators, but the general public which is supposed to matter.

    If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Romanian Protests

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Provider
    edited February 18

    Bias poll much? Why is there no option for people who think it's a bad idea to give people a 10Gbps uplink (rolled out in some areas already for testing) and let skids expand their botnets to unthinkable sizes?

    -Joe @ SecureDragon - LEB's Powered by Wyvern in FL, CO, CA, IL, NJ, GA, OR, TX, and AZ
    Need free hosting? Get AFreeCloud
  • KuJoe said: Why is there no option for people who think it's a bad idea to give people a 10Gbps uplink and let skids expand their botnets to unthinkable sizes?

    So, the solution for the ills of the internet is to limit access...
    Congrats, you just got the Trump award.

    If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Romanian Protests

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Provider
    edited February 18

    @Maounique said:

    KuJoe said: Why is there no option for people who think it's a bad idea to give people a 10Gbps uplink and let skids expand their botnets to unthinkable sizes?

    So, the solution for the ills of the internet is to limit access...
    Congrats, you just got the Trump award.

    Not at all, there are plenty of things they could implement to prevent abuse. It's unfortunate that they won't/don't though.

    EDIT: I think ISPs need to get past the old school mentality of letting the clients figure things out themselves and instead do more to educate their clients about things like network and internet security. Education about the internet in the US is severely lacking (I know "tech" people who don't know they can login to their modems or that they should change their default passwords). ISPs here have little concern if you spread malware or participate in a botnet but heaven forbid you download a song or movie. I don't care if they want to give away a 10Gbps connection for a fraction of what it would cost a hosting provider to mitigate an attack of that size but I think at that point there should at least be a "do you understand how the internet works" test you need to pass. At this point the internet is not a luxury or a toy, it's a need on the same level a car is for the majority of people (here in the US) so why can't we have a simple test or interview process if you want more than 100Mbps which the vast majority of home users who don't change their router's default username and password will utilize? I'm not even saying it needs to be a hard test that only CCNA owners can pass but a simple test that both educates them and makes them think before hooking up their unpatched Windows XP box to their new 1Gbps connection.

    -Joe @ SecureDragon - LEB's Powered by Wyvern in FL, CO, CA, IL, NJ, GA, OR, TX, and AZ
    Need free hosting? Get AFreeCloud
    Thanked by 2Maounique bugrakoc
  • MaouniqueMaounique Member
    edited February 18

    Well, it did look like you advocate throttling because people might get hacked and providers do not care about keeping tabs on their network (ab)usage.
    Volens-nolens, capacities grow, if not in US, then in Europe, then will come Asia, America (other than US), Africa...
    Limiting speeds is not the solution, it will never be, same, prioritizing content will not help, other than inflate profits for lobbyists.

    KuJoe said: why can't we have a simple test or interview process if you want more than 100Mbps which the vast majority of home users who don't change their router's default username and password will utilize?

    Even better, how about putting random passwords derived from the MAC address or something, so, if you wish to tinker with it, you will have to have some knowledge? That will be the test.
    Simply allowing the spread of default internet accessible settings routers is tantamount to facilitating a crime, same with cameras and IoTs. Go and deregulate people, but don't come down on people's choices regarding their internet speeds if you fail so hard in the regulatory field.

    If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Romanian Protests

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Provider
    edited February 18

    @Maounique said: Well, it did look like you advocate throttling because people might get hacked and providers do not care about keeping tabs on their network (ab)usage.
    Volens-nolens, capacities grow, if not in US, then in Europe, then will come Asia, America (other than US), Africa...
    Limiting speeds is not the solution, it will never be, same, prioritizing content will not help, other than inflate profits for lobbyists.

    I'm all for giving people unrestricted access to the internet, it's just that the ISPs here in the US have done literally nothing to prepare people for that kind of access. Schools don't educate people either so the only actual education they get is online or from other people who understand it. I think the US population seriously needs to undergo some education before the ISPs drop them in a racecar and let them drive on a speedway without any limits. Can you believe in 2017 people still blindly open up e-mails and attachments? I like to think that the rest of this world is more educated than this, if not then I guess Google Fiber can proceed rolling out and we can just prepare for Internet 2.0 after this one dies a fiery death. :)

    -Joe @ SecureDragon - LEB's Powered by Wyvern in FL, CO, CA, IL, NJ, GA, OR, TX, and AZ
    Need free hosting? Get AFreeCloud
    Thanked by 1davidgestiondbi
  • @edgecase said:

    @fourzerofour said: They are still very much expanding.

    Doesn't look like it. Just yesterday they reassigned 50% of the employees from the division that manages Fiber to other parts of Google. It costs Google nothing to put names of cities on a website (Chicago has been there for years) and it means exactly that.

    Pumping the breaks does not mean not expanding. In the cities they are in it is very active. Plus the idea of rolling out wireless service is still progress and competition.

  • hzrhzr Member
    edited February 19

    This was last year for $30/month.

    Webpass was recently bought out by Google Fiber. We can choose between ~4-6 gigabit fibre ISPs in the bay area assuming you're not in some dangerous neighbourhood where the techs get shot and robbed and glass gets stolen by crackheads

    Native ipv6 /56 too

    BitNinja ignored - Support not submitting to bogus blacklists

  • DylanDylan Member
    edited February 19

    Maounique said: https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

    That was in 2015 and the decision was reversed by a court in 2016.

    That decision was also made under a Democratic FCC chairman (Obama's appointee). Now that Trump's in office the chairman's a Republican. Democrats support municipal broadband while Republicans oppose it. The person who's now the chairman even voted against that exact decision you linked back in 2015. If it hadn't been reversed by a court he'd undo it himself now.

    I'm not even talking about whether it's a good idea or not because right now that doesn't matter. Traditional ISPs have extraordinary political power at the moment and municipalities would be foolish to attempt anything with Republicans in control of both the White House and both branches of Congress. Such is the current political reality.

  • WilliamWilliam Member, Provider
    edited February 19

    We have wired 200/100 in Croatia based on a GPON network with up to 32 (likely 31) users at ~2.45Gbit down and ~1.24Gbit up with various plans from 50/10 (most sold as package, but since forever 100/20 in reality as limited upgrade) to 500/250 (not really available, few flats only in our city) with 200/100 being highest normal available upgrade plan (on 100% of fiber connections).

    If we assume 8x 50/10, 16x 100/20 and 7x 200/100 we get to 3400Mbit sold or overselling ratio of ~1.4 which is compared to ADSL (our 16Mbit link should be ~3) or cable (~2) not bad but not fiber (in major POPs like AMS possibly 1.0 but with longhaul backhaul you never realistically get to 1.0, more ~1.2).

    OnApp_Terry said: My Macbook Air adaptor is limited to 100 mbit.

    You have one extremely crappy Macbook Air (or router) then - my 2015 syncs at 800Mbit Tx on AC 5Ghz.

    Microlinux said: They aren't expanding anymore, they realized how expensive it was . . . I do engineering or FTTx networks, anyone who knows anything about this stuff could see it was wildly over optimistic from the start, but I think their intent was really to goad existing providers.

    It is a marketing thing PLUS showing they can (which is both political relevant and a tech demo, while the 'tech' used is very old actually) - the effective cost of this entire operation is not much relevant to Alphabets operating budget (especially as it has a break even point, in the far future, which in tech is nowadays not usual anymore).

    Expansion makes not too much sense though, yea, not with their investors and general direction - Google is just not Verizon or AT&T and cannot play a combination of either + Level3 in the long run/very far. We might see them buy one large ISP at one point though, primarimy for backbone usage but interest in operational influence on end-users sounds not likely.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Member
    edited February 19

    Dylan said: municipal broadband

    What does that mean exactly? What i mean is an infrastructure then rented to ISPs which find it cheaper to rent than dig themselves. That would not break any monopoly, the city hall does not become an ISP, the prices are the same for everybody, the ISPS will cut a lot of cost with laying out infrastructure and maintenance, effectively only working a few meters at the end points.

    William said: We might see them buy one large ISP at one point though, primarimy for backbone usage but interest in operational influence on end-users sounds not likely.

    That would be interesting no matter the reason.
    However, the monopoly will cry foul and reject the merger. Google will find other ways, though.

    If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Romanian Protests

Sign In or Register to comment.