These short-sighted comments really annoy me. I would give parts of my reproductive system to get a fraction of a Google branded fibre and people are getting angsty about what Google gets "in return".
No the sums don't add up. Tax payers will subsidise some of the costs and Google will undoubtedly analyse the traffic to deliver yet even more personalised advertising. The local government will subsidise parts of the installation and make it legally as smooth as possible. Google will probably get cheaper offices or easier planning application processes, and who knows, they'll probably have some sway when it comes to local lawmaking, like any major contributing lobbyist...
... But in return Kansas City gets a bloody gigabit network for pittance. Free ADSL for anybody else.
It's practically unimaginable the services you could deliver to people with that sort of bandwidth because for a very long time it's been considered rude to assume anybody has anything faster than a 2Mbps connection. Google Fibre could stream 4k (with h.265). Even being able to assume the user has some upstream bandwidth for once is a complete boon to developers. In the UK the ratio is 10:1 almost everywhere unless you're on a business line (for four times the price) or the new FTTC options that are available in like 2% of the country.
tl;dr: you get a lot in exchange for letting Google in, not least that you will probably become the testing bed for all sorts of snazzy new technology. Stop moaning, pay your taxes and enjoy being able to watch all the porn at once.
>"No the sums don't add up. Tax payers will subsidise some of the costs and Google will undoubtedly analyse the traffic to deliver yet even more personalised advertising. The local government will subsidise parts of the installation and make it legally as smooth as possible."
As much as I agree with you, this quote highlights something that cycles through my mind whenever I read about Google's ambitions. Basically, Google is doing and motivating people to do what our government should (and as we read, apparently somewhat can in some ways) do to improve our communications infrastructure. It annoys me to think that we could simply be building a new (potentially more neutral) fiber "highway" across the country with a similar model, run by the government. If only people weren't so afraid of government and hell bent on handing things off to private sector instead of the public sector. It's disappointing, and I feel in the very long run it could very well backfire on all of us if google succeeds and becomes the next AT&T.
"It annoys me to think that we could simply be building a new (potentially more neutral) fiber 'highway' across the country with a similar model, run by the government. If only people weren't so afraid of government..."
The government has given us many reasons why we should fear a government-operated internet infrastructure. Do you really want the same government that's seizing web domains without due process to control the physical infrastructure as well? The same government that wants to vacuum up all the internet traffic of law-abiding citizens? That does warrantless wiretaps? That runs the TSA? Be careful what you wish for.
Comments
These short-sighted comments really annoy me. I would give parts of my reproductive system to get a fraction of a Google branded fibre and people are getting angsty about what Google gets "in return".
No the sums don't add up. Tax payers will subsidise some of the costs and Google will undoubtedly analyse the traffic to deliver yet even more personalised advertising. The local government will subsidise parts of the installation and make it legally as smooth as possible. Google will probably get cheaper offices or easier planning application processes, and who knows, they'll probably have some sway when it comes to local lawmaking, like any major contributing lobbyist...
... But in return Kansas City gets a bloody gigabit network for pittance. Free ADSL for anybody else.
It's practically unimaginable the services you could deliver to people with that sort of bandwidth because for a very long time it's been considered rude to assume anybody has anything faster than a 2Mbps connection. Google Fibre could stream 4k (with h.265). Even being able to assume the user has some upstream bandwidth for once is a complete boon to developers. In the UK the ratio is 10:1 almost everywhere unless you're on a business line (for four times the price) or the new FTTC options that are available in like 2% of the country.
tl;dr: you get a lot in exchange for letting Google in, not least that you will probably become the testing bed for all sorts of snazzy new technology. Stop moaning, pay your taxes and enjoy being able to watch all the porn at once.
>"No the sums don't add up. Tax payers will subsidise some of the costs and Google will undoubtedly analyse the traffic to deliver yet even more personalised advertising. The local government will subsidise parts of the installation and make it legally as smooth as possible."
As much as I agree with you, this quote highlights something that cycles through my mind whenever I read about Google's ambitions. Basically, Google is doing and motivating people to do what our government should (and as we read, apparently somewhat can in some ways) do to improve our communications infrastructure. It annoys me to think that we could simply be building a new (potentially more neutral) fiber "highway" across the country with a similar model, run by the government. If only people weren't so afraid of government and hell bent on handing things off to private sector instead of the public sector. It's disappointing, and I feel in the very long run it could very well backfire on all of us if google succeeds and becomes the next AT&T.
"It annoys me to think that we could simply be building a new (potentially more neutral) fiber 'highway' across the country with a similar model, run by the government. If only people weren't so afraid of government..."
The government has given us many reasons why we should fear a government-operated internet infrastructure. Do you really want the same government that's seizing web domains without due process to control the physical infrastructure as well? The same government that wants to vacuum up all the internet traffic of law-abiding citizens? That does warrantless wiretaps? That runs the TSA? Be careful what you wish for.