Google Fiber’s Next Stop: Austin, Texas | Hacker News Reader

Google Fiber’s Next Stop: Austin, Texas

googlefiberblog.blogspot.com

241 pointspash128 comments

For those wondering where Google will roll out, we don't have exact details, but we have some information.

1) They said they will stick to Austin City Limits, which means within these boundaries [1].

2) For those that followed up with how KC operated, Google runs their lines on electrical poles and all places the city power company has lines. This is one of the big things KC and Austin have in common: city owned electric utility. With that google can run all their lines much easier. So, if you get electricity from Austin Energy, you will likely be eligible to get Google Fiber at some point.

3) Beyond that, it will be up to people like us to advocate in our neighborhood to get people to sign up for the service. Whatever areas have a large # of people pledge to sign up will be more likely to get it. To me this means south and east Austin. But at the same time, north austin has a lot of tech employees from Dell, Freescale, PayPal, and other large companies (though many of those people may live in Round Rock).

[1] http://www.zipmap.net/Texas/Travis_County/Austin.htm

[1.1] (easier on the eyes map) http://www.maptechnica.com/us-city-boundary-map/city/Austin/...

I spoke with someone in Grande's (competing ISP) network planning division and he explained that getting into new buildings downtown was very expensive / difficult given Austin's telco requirements (have to dig up streets, etc.). Is this also the case for Google's fiber layout, or is there any speculation that buildings (condo and apartment) downtown will see this service?

what's expensive to the local isp is probably not to google.

It's really the landlords who want to be paid.

> To me this means south and east Austin.

Why is that?

Thinking about it now, I'd say south Austin more than east.

Check out the population density map of austin (PDF): http://www.austinchamber.com/do-business/files/maps/PopDensi...

If I were google, I would want to deploy to the more dense places (that could afford the service).

South Austin seems to be the more "hip" place to live, and I think people in their 20-35 age range would be more likely to want to jump on Google Fiber. I could be totally wrong, but it's just a guess.

I'd guess north and west myself. Some south. The hipster parts of east.

Austinite here. East of I35 is commonly known as the "wrong side of the tracks". If Austin is wiring up for business and residential focus, they'll do west, some limited up north, downtown, and down Congress Avenue & First Avenue. They might extend to the west of MoPac (Loop 1, follows the old Missouri-Pacific line) but I'm not sure that the neighborhoods there are officially part of Austin or incorporated as a small suburb community.

Your parent comment said the hipster parts of east Austin, so we're not talking about rundberg and the areas that the cops are swearing they'll clean up. There are parts of the east side that are friendly and cheap. There's a nice pocket of neighborhoods around 51st street that's low on crime and just a long bike ride from downtown.

Yeah...I'm an Austinite, too.

Mueller and on down through 2nd Street out to about Chicon east of 35 (an a bit beyond) is full of 20-30 something professionals. It will likely see some action. Maybe Riverside because of the college students but I kinda doubt it. Zilker, SoCo, and Travis Heights have a good shot down south. All of the neighborhoods around downtown and UT are almost certain to see it first. I gotta believe from there they'd just work their way up Burnet, Guadalupe and Lamar until they hit 183 (Though that process make take five years). Tarrytown up to Far West on the West side of Mopac is a pretty good bet too.

Notable neighborhoods that might be out of luck for awhile: WestLake...too far out, too spread apart. South East from Oltorf on down is probably not going to see it for a while. South Lamar is probably a no go (not enough residences or tech businesses) and so Westgate and Manchaca on South and West (Circle C and environs) are probably out of luck too. The Arboretum area might get lucky but I doubt it and I think further west and north of that is pretty unlikely in the next few years unless Google is happy having disparate clusters. I think that area would lap it up but I don't think it is close enough to the downtown/UT epicenter where this is likely to spread from.

If I were Google, I'd pick three different clusters to spread and meet. One at UT/downtown to spread in all directions but particularly North, one at the Arboretum to spread West and North and one somewhere around Westgate to spread West, East and South.

In addition, I'd run it up 360. In my understanding there are a number of tech businesses/business parks out that way.

I'd be surprised if they go as far north as Wells Branch, though the infrastructure along the rail line leading along MoPaC is certainly available.

East of I35 hasn't really been known as the "wrong side of the tracks" for several years now. It's changed tremendously since what it was like in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

I work with what I know. Sorry for the misidentification. Some friends of mine just north of Lady Bird Lake had their door kicked in a few months back by a few neighborhood kids. My opinion of the area was informed by old history and that incident.

> Our goal is to start connecting homes in Austin by mid-2014.

The timeline Google's followed in Kansas City suggests it will be another year until service is available to a significant chunk of Austin, and likely well into 2016 or beyond before the whole city is hooked up. Fiber to whatever suburbs are invited to the party will likely follow after that.

But hopefully the build-out gets ramped up, both in Austin and KC, now that Google's had some time to work out some of the early kinks.

This is how it goes with most service roll outs. If the people in the suburbs are really miffed that they aren't one of the first areas picked for Google Fiber, perhaps they should consider the downsides of living in the sprawl.

Congrats to any Austin HNers on your freedom from [insert Austin cable monopoly here]

>perhaps they should consider the downsides of living in the sprawl.

I'm sympathetic to this point of view, but in many places it's not possible for everyone to live in the city center because of development restrictions that drive up prices (see here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... one discussion that I've posted before, albeit about California).

Close to downtown is expensive because all the shit people are willing to pay a premium for. Distance to work, nightlife, parks, scarcity of family oriented suburbanites, and being where things like Google Fiber are first to roll out.

TX is not CA. There are high rises going up all over downtown Austin. People are building as fast as they can get permits.

That article you linked demonstrates the opposite of what you claimed. It's talking about building restrictions in the sprawl itself and, in the Lucas case, in the middle of a rural area.

I wonder if this timeline is slow enough for a given city's cable monopoly to respond with price/terms/bandwidth competition in time to head off google fiber.

Doesn't mean they will, but I would think that this is slow enough that they could theoretically ramp it up.

I'm sure TWC will now prioritize Austin as one of their first DOCSIS 3.1 deployments so they will likely be doing 300-500Mbit/sec at minimum by then.

I guess this is my answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5521343

We actually have a bit of a cable duopoly in a lot of the city. Both Grande Communications and Time Warner run systems here, although Grande's build-out area is a bit smaller.

I've been really happy with Grande, they provide the best cable internet I've ever had (65/5 mb/s) for $70. Great uptime, with very consistent service. That said google fiber at 1gb/s, yes plz.

Grande is a small(ish) Texas ISP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Communications

I do hope Time-Warner is severely disrupted, though.

There's also AT&T with Uverse. I'm pretty sure Grande just leases lines but may have better service.

Don't forget AT&T.

> Fiber to whatever suburbs are invited to the party will likely follow after that.

I'm interested to see where in the priority list some of the closer suburbs are. Round Rock, after all, is Dell headquarters. I'd have to imagine there is going to be some strong demand up there.

There's not much data to go on, but in the KC area the schedule for suburban build-outs looks like it's being driven by politics as much as by demographic or infrastructural factors. (Of course, the initial choices of the KC and Austin metros themselves suggest that sort of decision-making.)

In KC, Google's first announced suburban hook-ups were a couple of tiny, affluent suburbs adjacent to KCK and KCMO, likely due to the ease of negotiating the terms of construction. It then announced availability for Olathe, an large exurb on the Kansas side, skipping over the even larger suburb of Overland Park, which is home to Sprint and some other tech firms. Olathe has Garmin, etc., but I don't think corporate tech headquarters are a consideration.

Google has also so far left out North Kansas City, a municipality that's completely surrounded by KCMO, perhaps because it has its own municipal ISP that provides FTTH. I imagine that has made negotiations difficult.

Skipping over OP in favor of Olathe was indeed politically, as well as practically, motivated. The fiber is being hung on existing poles, but Overland Park relies heavily on buried lines to quite a few areas. Additionally, Olathe's city council was very willing to accommodate Google--Overland Park moves more slowly and is likely less accommodating.

They said the roll-out was focusing on Austin City Limits, and more specifically they stated the desire to release Fiber in public buildings (offices, hospitals, schools, etc.).

This paired with the UT Austin teacher video they released leads me to believe it'll be available to the campus area, probably downtown as well (St. Davids main and Brackenridge Medical Center) and probably the surrounding neighborhoods.

Personally, I would be surprised if it went east of I-35, south of Capitol of Texas highway, west of Mopac, or North of 183 in its initial release.

I hope the fiber roll-out will also include the 78758/78759 Austin areas, not just because I live in the area, but also cause Google's Austin office is located there too :).

That office is limited to sales and marketing.

But yes, I'd expect that 78758/78759 was lit.

I would say with out a doubt it'll go east of I-35. East Austin is an up and coming neighborhood. The Hipster demand there will be fierce plus it has a ton of lower income households still which will look good for the free internet (with installation fee) version of google fiber.

Additionally during SXSW a lot of the tech people stay over there. I think one of the reasons Austin was picked was to show off the speed during events like SXSW and Austin City Limits.

The only question is how far east it'll go.

I hope you're right! I just bought a house in 78704 :)

That teacher was from the University of Texas Elementary School, which is in east Austin.

http://www.utelementary.org/

I'm not sure that a technology company being in a location necessarily indicates demand. Sure there are some technology enthusiasts in Round Rock, but moreover I think everyone will want fast internet all over Austin and the surrounding areas. I think that demand is likely to be fairly equal throughout once word gets around.

Google here is doing what they do best which is sticking to their core business of advertising/search while spending a bit here and there to disrupt businesses that they see as threatening to their core business. It is to Google's advantage to have fast pipes to their users.

Right now they are getting their intended result from people in the USA. If Kansas City can have gigabit internet for a low price why can't I? The consumers then will pressure their provider to do the same. However it is not as easy for every other telco.

1. They need to be profitable. 2. They cannot cherry pick areas with high density yet low costs of rollout/living like KC and Austin.

So I do not think Google will ever do this nationwide as it is a bad business to be in with enormous red tape, capital expenditures and geographic distribution. It is a smart move on their behalf to do this but people should not get their hopes up for a nationwide distribution, it will never happen.

"In business, I look for economic castles protected by unbreachable moats" - Warren Buffett

I completely agree that its in Google's interest to have faster pipes. But I think Google Fiber may just be another moat for Google, another way for them to hinder their perceived threats.

This was an excellent write up on Google's strategy to build business moats (from 2011): http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-an...

I tried search for a direct link and didn't immediately see one, but Buffett himself has said before that he likes Google and, if it were older and had a slightly less risky profile for him, it would be the ideal company. It's core business is vitally important and is very capital efficient.

But I think Google Fiber may just be another moat for Google, another way for them to hinder their perceived threats.

When FB was asked about a phone they said that any phone user they'd get it wouldn't move the scale given their 1 billion+ users. Same with Google, it's extremely expensive to wire a significant number of their users, so they are doing this hoping AT&T, Comcast etc upgrade their connection and match the price. Which they might--in the areas where Google is entering. Personally, I would not count of the price being, say $70 for a long time.

> Same with Google, it's extremely expensive to wire a significant number of their users

Recent published estimates have been that it would about $11 billion to roll out nationwide in the US. That is a lot of money, sure, but less than they paid for Motorola Mobility recently. Not prohibitively expensive for Google.

Recent published estimates have been that it would about $11 billion to roll out nationwide in the US.

Maybe $110 billion, $11 Billion doesn't go far in US

> Maybe $110 billion, $11 Billion doesn't go far in US

I've gone and rechecked, the $11 billion number from recently published estimates is for a nationwide rollout to a scale comparable to other nationwide broadband providers "passing" about 15% of homes, and is exclusive of costs of actually acquiring customers.

Nationwide and 15% of homes is kinda different. I say this because Verizon did spend tens of billion on FIOS and barely reached tens of millions of people.

Also doing it in a few cities as an experiment and doing it as telecom provider are very different too (heavily regulated and extremely expensive). Just imagine what it takes to dig in Manhattan with all the permits, payments, licenses, unions etc etc...

> So I do not think Google will ever do this nationwide as it is a bad business to be in with enormous red tape, capital expenditures and geographic distribution.

Until and unless network neutrality is a secure market principle (and its not in the US now with weak regulation for fixed broadband and even weaker for mobile, and carriers fighting the FCC's authority on even those weak regulations), the revenue from Google's services face a permanent risk from carriers adopting rent-seeking policies (this is much the same kind of risk that Google faced from the potential of a mobile OS monopoly or a browser monopoly); as such, as much as being a carrier is a bad business to be in in general, its potentially an even worse business for Google not to be in.

Now AT&T is announcing that they are building a 1Gbps fiber service in Austin as well.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/09/att-1gbps-fiber-internet-...

I've heard a lot of things from AT&T customers, and "satisfied" is never one of them. This is too little too late, and I'm pretty sure that most of their current customers can't wait to jump ship -- regardless of whatever carrots that they bring out at the last minute.

My Uverse internet only service has been great. They messed up my bill 3 months (not so great), but it only took 5 minutes on the phone to fix. When I called to get my iPhone activation fee waived, they told me it hadn't hit yet, so they'd call me back on my billing date. They did (surprised!) they said they automatically credited the activation fee (super surprised!).

Not sure I've been this excited about utility/telco service in a while.

Uverse has been solid for me. I've had them for 4 years now and they've had very limited downtime (a lot less then I had with TimeWarner). I'll happily move to Google Fiber, but Uverse has treated me just fine. While I wish their upload speeds were faster, but I haven't really had any options that were faster.

What issues have you had with them exactly?

I've never used them -- but my friends constantly complain of disconnects, slow speeds, shotty tech support, high rates, etc. While I'm sure these types of problems are often localized, I've heard the same complaints from geographically diverse friends.

My only problem is that they're a monopoly slowly reconstituting itself like the T-1000 from Terminator[1].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-1000

I had Uverse in my apartment (in 78723). It was solid for the first year and then went to absolute sh*t. Perhaps something about how it's set up for apartment (shared connection at some point)? I've since switched to Time Warner and I'm happy.

Maybe you're referring to Internet access only, but the over-compressed picture quality on Uverse is horrible, especially compared to easily-obtained OTA in the Austin area.

Hm. I don't live in Austin, but Uverse here in Oklahoma City has fine quality (about equivalent to OTA). (It's night and day with the other TV provider here, Cox, whose picture quality is terrible at best.) Also concur with GP that their internet service is pretty decent (although a bit overpriced for my liking).

Once they have you they tend to aggressively hike their rates

AT&T and existing telcos need to announce these kinds of initiatives before their crappy service invites competitors, not after.

Actually, they don't "need" to because they don't have any competition. Why invest (which is always a risk) when you can continue to rake in profits by doing nothing?

Because now they are getting more competitors—from Google, from municipal broadband, from Gigabit Seattle (http://gigabitseattle.com). Political types have realized that fast Internet connections are a real economic advantage.

I'm in Austin and can't wait. Unfortunately I think I'm going to have to continue to pay TimeWarner for another 1-2 years at least.

I'm interested to see where the first 'fiberhood' is going to be in Austin. South Austin, 78704 would be awesome. Any Austin people on here have any guesses?

I would bet you'll be in the first (or second) roll out of fiberhoods. My best bet is UT Austin and downtown first, plus surrounding neighborhoods. Then they'll move West, then South.

If not longer. I live in KC and am probably going to have to wait another 1-2 years.

born & raised in Austin, just might have to move back (from Silicon Valley) :)

Announced the day after I signed a contract on a house outside the service area. It was clearly me holding you back the whole time, Austin. I'm so sorry.

You can redeem yourself by washing your car and summoning the rain gods. That little sprinkle we got last week was a bit of a tease.

I literally did get my car washed last week, and the next evening, we had water 10 feet past the doors at work. Willie Nelson never should've built this place below the parking lot.

This is the worst superpower.

This is kind of funny... AT&T suddenly decided to offer a 1gb network: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=24032&cdvn=news...

"This expanded investment is not expected to materially alter AT&T’s anticipated 2013 capital expenditures."

This is what pisses me off. Telcos have the capability and it won't even hit them that hard, financially. They just want to drag their feet to eek out whatever extra sliver of profit they can out of the current status quo.

In big-co speak that could mean either it's close to free, or they're rearranging their capex to prioritize Austin in order to compete (e.g. someone else isn't getting upgrades)

Or that AT&T already has a TON of fiber in the ground in Austin, from back in the 90s.

Even if they have dark or underutilized fiber it doesn't mean that it's a 0 expenditure. So you don't have to rip up the street, but optics are pretty expensive. That's not even counting a need for new switches if it's not 1 Gbps capable.

So they're aiming for the suburbs (where they already have FTTN) before Google has a chance to roll out from the city. This is gonna be good. Microwaving my popcorn already.

I realize this is very much a "first-world problem," but I find it infinitely frustrating that Google Fiber will probably never be available where I live (Long Beach, CA). Apparently this is because the various environmental regulations in California make it prohibitively expensive to deploy it here.

On the one hand I like the environment. On the other, I'm on DSL. :(

The great thing about working for an Internet company (I'm assuming you do since you've been on Hacker News for a while) is that you can really live anywhere. I moved my most recent startup to Austin after living in the Valley for 10 years and SoCal for 2. I'm already ridiculously happy with the move. And it seems like much of California is following me here--we are even getting an In-N-Out Burger this year!

Austin is a great place to run a company. Lower cost of living, lower taxes, and now Google Fiber. Plus the people here are amazingly friendly. I'm happy to compare/contrast vs. the Valley or SoCal--shoot me an email (email in my profile) if you have questions.

>And it seems like much of California is following me here--we are even getting an In-N-Out Burger this year!

California has been driving people away for decades: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UWRs1Bkhf... . My own family moved out of CA when I was 10 for the usual reasons: high housing costs and long commutes. Housing costs have stayed high and so have commutes; consequently, a lot of people are leaving for the usual places: Phoenix, Austin, Seattle. . .

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded"

I live in Dallas and I like the lower cost of living and everything. But now I wish I lived in Austin. :)

The thing I hate about both Dallas and Austin is driving. I used to live northeast and could walk everywhere much easier. Austin seems to be pretty bike-friendly though, and Dallas is becoming more so.

If you choose where you live and work carefully, living without a car in Austin isn't so bad. In particular, car2go is a godsend. That plus my bike and the bus get me around.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the heat. And don't give me anything of that "It's a dry heat" bullshit; >90 days in a row over 100 degrees is enough to make the city turn into Do The Right Thing.

My office for the past few summers has had a shower, so I biked most of the time. Riding the bus isn't bad either as long as you can wait in the shade.

Lived in both Austin and North Dallas. Compared to Austin traffic, Dallas is a parking lot. Austin has random spouts of traffic and a plethora of backroads. Dallas, the side highways are the backroads. Beltline Road would be backed up from 6 AM to 2 AM daily. Awful, awful traffic.

We tried to go from Dallas to Plano one time on a weekday at 4:30. Took 3 hours for a 15-20 mile trip. Nuts to that.

There's a couple of choke points where you can't take backroads in Austin without going all out of your way. In particular, anything crossing Lady Bird Lake.

Redbud Trail is great.

Other than that, yeah, you're going to fight traffic.

The city proper not so much, but the immediate northern suburbs are increasingly bike-friendly.

The necessity of driving is also one of my biggest issues with the area. My list is quite a bit longer than that, though. I would already rather be in Austin, and this announcement just makes that worse.:)

After growing up in Southern California and moving to a city in the north east, I really miss driving. And the sun. Austin is sounding better every day.

Shhhh! Don't tell him that Austin is great. Everyone will move here, then turn it into California.[1]

EVERYBODY: AUSTIN SUCKS, DON'T MOVE HERE! [2]

[1] it's possible that this has already happened, of course. [2] I just moved back (from Hawaii) in 2011.

California, once one of the friendliest states to do business in, has turned into a nightmare. The entrepreneurs I know are already looking for exits to Austin.

The people might by friendly, but aren't the taxes quite high? Last I read, the state+federal together added up to almost 50%.

Texas has no income tax. Federal tax applies equally to living in any state and seems ridiculous to mention.

Property tax is high, 2%-3%. Sales tax is high, 8.25%

California's base sales tax is 7.25%, but CA's municipalities can bring that up to 9.25%. I believe ~8.5% is the average for the Bay Area.

I think we won't see Fiber in California. They will use wireless technology to transfer data from final optical fiber node to homes. That way it won't need a lot of digging.

Wireless data is getting faster and faster, so it should be possible to transfer gigabit per second data over wireless transmitters.

Right now my iPhone's LTE is faster than my home Comcast cable connection. I hope wireless gets cheaper and faster to replace Comcast in future

There's also DOCSIS 3.1 on the horizon for cable providers. It will allow for a quick and dramatic increase in download speeds over existing cable HFC infrastructure. All the big market cable ISPs will be offering 1Gbit/sec download speeds in the next 2-3 years at least in some competitive markets. Within 3-5 years it will be pretty widespread. Within 5-7 years it will be fairly universal to have multi-gigabit/sec broadband just about everywhere in the country that is serviced by cable ISPs.

Wireless data is getting faster and faster in terms of providing what would previously be considered massive bandwidth but generally the latency still sucks for things like fast-paced online gaming. I still want fiber.

Over in SF, I have Webpass, which uses wireless data to deliver Internet to the building. I consistently get around 100/100 with <5ms ping (and that's for $50 a month!)

So yea, wireless data has gotten really really good.

Mind you, that's not LTE. It's microwave wireless... so a different type of wireless tech.

Is that using microwaves? I've heard of buildings getting pretty great speed using that technology.

It could be that laws in general need to be more flexible, and to keep in mind the end goal more than the boundaries of strict limits in the language of the rules. That way, you don't have this one-or-the-other decision.

What environmental regulations?

Remove environmental, and you've got it.

California in general has a ridiculous set of regulations for doing anything related to building.

Individual counties are even worse (often requiring fighting with county-paid or city-paid arborists to remove trees on your own property, etc)

For giggles, read the story of PEX tubing and California. PEX has been used in Europe with no issues since the 60's. For many years, California was the only state to ban PEX, for no reason.

After it's adoption into the 2006 UPC, california started to take steps to add it to the california codes.

This resulted in 3 environmental studies, two environmental impact reports, 2 lawsuits against California for trying to adopt it, and 5 years of work.

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/New/PEX.aspx

This covers only the post-2009 part of the saga.

CEPA, the California Environmental Protection Act, is the most obvious, and IIRC the most onerous state-mandated environmental act in the country. It's (one) part of what makes building in CA so difficult.

Maybe the California Coastal Commission. They have a notoriously long approval process for almost anything.

Love it, Austin is such a great tech bubble right now, this will just continue the trend for a long while, they picked a great spot to do this (mainly because I live in Austin, lol)

Austin is in a state, (Texas), with a lot of pending issues coming to roost... education, traffic, migration, water/drought, social safety net. As much as I love my native state, I don't see any leadership addressing these.

It's important to note that California is just as bad or worse in a lot of those areas.

All the things you mentioned are pretty bad in California. Public education is terrible, traffic is outrageous, there is a huge immigration 'problem', and the forest fires are pretty bad. To each his own but Californian leadership isn't really that great.

I just can't decide who is worse Perry or Brown.

Nyc also had a pretty bad immigration problem. Those pesky italians and their mafia. The Irish were no better. And on top of that Mexicans are no arriving in droves. When will it ever end? When?

Most of the current migration into Texas is from California and NY. How can I tell?

They are constantly bitching that Texas isn't California or NY.

Don't forget Florida!

130,000 people are expected to immigrate to Austin in the next 2 years. Insane!

It's going to be awesome. Austin is growing like crazy.

That is why I put problem in quotes, I was responding to the parents reply about migration.

I actually favor more open immigration, my grandparents were some of those mexicans who came illegally and had a great life.

Which is why http://www.battlegroundtexas.com/ is so important. Texas needs some competition for it's top offices. Having a whole state run by one party is a terrible idea.

Only if that one party is Republicans, apparently. California is currently run by Democrats and, lo and behold, now has a projected surplus.

This is downright embarrassing economic analysis. I hope you're just joking.

Your business-friendly state is the envy of many Silicon Valley leaders and entrepreneurs I know.

This is going to be awesome, I feel lucky to live here (double lucky that my neighborhood is a prime target).

I'd love to connect with some hackers in KC to hear how Google Fiber has affected them. Does anyone have any resources about KC startups, what Google Fiber opens up, etc.?

Google, come launch in a small subset of Houston! I'll bet the city would love to make a deal for you to deploy in EaDo. START Houston is there and it'd attract significant investment to an underutilized area literally a few blocks from downtown that Houston is eager to develop.

I really want to see the ROI google is planning on having for theses projects. If my calculations[1] are correct they only need something like 200,000 customers to sign up to get a ROI of one year on both roll outs.

~ 100M for both rollouts @ $70 per customer per month

I'd argue Google's ROI on the service itself a very small piece of the pie and almost irrelevant. Google gains most of their revenue from advertising on their properties. More people online + faster access = more advertising revenue.

Especially in a market like Kansas City which is dominated by TWC who is notorious for misrepresenting bandwidth, throttling against high bandwidth sites (youtube & netflix) and has noticeable capacity issues during peak usage times.

I imagine they're aiming for a high multiplier effect, too. Even if Google Fiber never reaches a large percentage of the American public, its mere existence may spur action on the part of other ISPs. For every Fiber customer Google signs up directly, they might indirectly obtain much better internet (and thus more advertising revenue) for maybe 10 other people using other ISPs.

but what do you do if that multiplier doesn't appear ? From what I have seen even when Verizon started a massive rollout of FiOS it didn't spur other ISP's to offer a competing service, they just relied on the fact that rolling out to _every_ market would be cost prohibitive. It looks like with Google Fiber the existing ISP's are taking the same track.

Actually, the Cable companies selectively pushed out much faster speeds in markets where FIOS was being rolled out, to suck the oxygen out of the water in those places.

I don't know, my Comcast offerings got substantially better over the last few years before I moved, going from 6/1Mbps to about 20/5, and I could have had well beyond 100Mbps down by the end if I felt like paying for it.

FiOS clocks in at 150+ Mbps and starts at 25/25 Comcast is the prime offender in the you have no other options game.

I'm quite aware in both cases, as I have FiOS now, and Comcast was the only game in town at my old place.

My point, which you seem to have missed, or at least not addressed, is that Comcast did substantially improve their offering while Verizon was rolling out FiOS, even though they remained the only real broadband provider in my area.

I still think this whole thing is to shame other internet providers who says this kind of service is impossible and there is no demand for it.

There is no way Google will be able to roll this out across the country. But if they roll it out to 10 or 20 cities then they might be able to force other internet providers into doing something.

>There is no way Google will be able to roll this out across the country.

Why not? The US is big, but the population is concentrated into a few areas.

I wonder if we'll see a counter measure by cable companies: offer google to run their tv ads and build them set top boxesand share profits, while google stops this broadband stuff ? That would be interesting.

I wonder how hard it would be to get both AT&T gigabit and google gigabit in the same place.

Google, Tulsa, Oklahoma is waiting with open arms.

Google, Chicago wants gigabit speeds:P

I'm so jealous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com