this post was submitted on
1,148 points (61% like it)
3,035 up votes 1,887 down votes

geek

unsubscribe183,264 readers

~84 users here now


Missed the best of Reddit yesterday? catch the daily recap and best links at tldr


Yup, you guessed it, geek stuff..

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 368

[–]puppetry514 61 points62 points ago

I am thinking about moving to Kansas City just to get it

[–]icantthinkofone 19 points20 points ago

I live in St. Louis. Sooooo close.

[–]likeyouropinion 32 points33 points ago

The time you will save with this connection will more than make up for your commute.

[–]smdaegan 7 points8 points ago

Springfield. SOOOO CLOSER. :(

[–]authorityaction 5 points6 points ago

Same here, real jealous of all my friends that are in a fiberhood.

[–]CRYPTIC_REDDITOR 1 point2 points ago

fiberhood

...

AND SO IT SHALL BE NAMED.

[–]JonnyShips 1 point2 points ago

Springfield and St. Louis are about the same driving distance for me.

[–]voldyman 1 point2 points ago

as a non american.

are the Simpsons your neighbors?

[–]BeerNerdGrrl 2 points3 points ago

Matt Groening actually finally said his Springfield is the Oregon one. :D

Edit: correction, it's the Springfield, OR, from the old show Mother Knows Best.

[–]JonnyShips 2 points3 points ago

I live in Prairie Village, KS (look it up). Oh so close...

[–]ChaosMotor 8 points9 points ago

We've got a hell of a lot more reasons to live there than just Google Fiber, but the Fiber sure is a good one.

[–]neoncp 9 points10 points ago

Care to go on? Just curious.

[–]JonnyShips 11 points12 points ago

Well I like to think of it as having all the perks of bigger cities but also keeping the perks of the country. Traffic isn't bad and there's still Starbucks and Trader Joes everywhere.

Great BBQ.

International Airport so you're not completely disconnected (and the best airport to boot).

Great housing prices.

I think the only real negatives are A) the weather and B) no ocean.

[–]smileyfrown 6 points7 points ago

C) The Royals

[–]wizpig64 0 points1 point ago

D) An economy that is about to explode.

[–]neoncp 2 points3 points ago

Good stuff. Personally I like visiting the ocean more than living by it. It looses some of it's mystique when it's in your backyard.

[–]twelvemoustaches 18 points19 points ago

I would respectively disagree, as someone who lives on the ocean.

[–]SilverSkimmer 1 point2 points ago

Same here

[–]neoncp 1 point2 points ago

I've really taken it for grated. It's great when I do go to the beach or on the ocean, but the rest of the time it just keeps keeps my towels wet and my crackers stale.

[–]GhostGuy 0 points1 point ago

Have you ever had the ocean in your backyard? Because if you have, you probably did it wrong, because it's great.

[–]ChaosMotor 5 points6 points ago

I would LOVE to go on, but the things I'm referring to won't be public knowledge for another couple weeks...

edit: But here's a comment I made last night that doesn't refer to any non-public knowledge.

They call us Paris of the Plains because we've got tons of music and arts of all kind, great restaurants out the wazoo, organic farmer's markets, family attractions enough for a week's vacation, cool bars on every corner, multiple entertainment districts, some of the most liberal liquor laws in the nation, beautiful parks, boulevards, fountains, all that good shit, and, get this - it's super ass cheap to live here, and there are lots of stable, massive businesses that pay well, and a robust and burgeoning entrepreneurial community.

[–]neoncp 2 points3 points ago

Wow, not bad. I was just thinking city facts like these, but man it sounds like Kansas City is really going for it. Now all I need to hear is online marketing jobs and I'll be packin' my bags.

[–]ChaosMotor 1 point2 points ago

KC is going balls to the wall. What kind of online marketing job? I know a few startups in that area.

[–]neoncp 1 point2 points ago

Come August I'll have four years of experience in AdWords and AdCenter. I really enjoy the work, my job has been great but I've been considering new challenges.

Thanks for entertaining the question, I may even have to check the KC section of Google jobs.

[–]dankhimself 1 point2 points ago

I'm all for anything that's 'super ass cheap'!

[–]absolutexero 25 points26 points ago

I am curious to see how this all plays out. I am reminded of several municipalities trying to install their own high speed internet access because no ISP serviced their area only to have, the article I am thinking of in particular, AT&T come out and start laying their own high speed line and then filed an injunction against the municipality on anti-trust charges because AT&T simply "couldn't compete" with what the municipality was going to charge customers...and won. I've been beating on Google but I can't seem to find the source article for this.

Google is basically telling me that if I live in a service area and give them $300 bucks they will hook me up with high speed internet for free after the install charge so I imagine it is only a matter of time until some sort of anti-competitive suit is filed. I hope I'm wrong.

[–]ew73 30 points31 points ago

The anti-compete suits won because it was the evil big bad and super-rich government using its strong arm to edge out the poor honest businessman.

Google is just another company. Other companies are free to offer internet service. Google just has the capital to also lay a fiber line to your doorstep.

[–]Ph0X 6 points7 points ago

Furthermore, if anyone out there has the lawyers and knowledge to beat these evil monopolies wanting to bring down competition, it's Google. We've seen them fight against Oracle, we've seem them fight against Apple, etc. If they fail, then there's pretty much no more hope...

[–]Fhajad 0 points1 point ago

I wouldn't say it's that Google has the capital, it's they have the desire to provide good service.

My lil podunk telecom has fiber to the home standard.

[–]SumErgoCogito 0 points1 point ago

I used to have a municipal ISP. It was $35/mo for 5Mbps down, 1Mbps up. No strings attached. It was great. I don't live in the area anymore and I pay around $80/mo for 12/5Mbps. I don't need that speed, but it's cheaper than their standard service when bundled with a ridiculous cable tv package that I never use. And every year I have to call them to get my bill smaller when they randomly hike the price. Gotta love Comcast.

[–]doctorsax 142 points143 points ago

That rainbow is coming out of you at 1Gb/s.

[–]13143 -1 points0 points ago

1gbps =/= 1 Gb/s

edit: I am dumb.

[–]RobSamson 24 points25 points ago

Yes it is.

[–]13143 6 points7 points ago

I was under the impression that bits didn't equal bytes.

[–]mloy 22 points23 points ago

GB = gigabyte, Gb = gigabit. :)

[–]RobSamson 12 points13 points ago

It's the b/B distinction, not the g/G

[–]13143 9 points10 points ago

Yeah, I got that now. I guess I had it confused. I've since edited my original comment. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[–]RobSamson 2 points3 points ago

No problem, easy mistake!

[–]Yeugwo 2 points3 points ago

And that's true but Gb/s means Gigabit per second. Gigabyte per second would be GB/s.

[–]13143 5 points6 points ago

Well then, I had it confused. I though when it was written 'gbps' it meant gigabits per second, and when written 'Gb/s' it meant gigabyte. That's how I was reading it yesterday, anyway. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[–]vanostran 4 points5 points ago

We all think weird things sometimes.

[–]steik 3 points4 points ago

Correct. They key is B vs b.

[–]semperverus 0 points1 point ago

It is when its grambits and gigabits.

[–]GhostGuy 0 points1 point ago

I'm upvoting you for being a good sport and crossing out your mistake rather than deleting the post.

[–]Mazgazine1 25 points26 points ago

Makes you wonder how much money ISPs get, or how much resources google has just to give away.

If you pay for the 5mb/1mb connection does that house, no matter who lives there essentially have free internet? That's insane.

[–]GentleCanadianFury 6 points7 points ago

There was actually a really good article about the economics of this project posted earlier today, and surprisingly this project isn't a loss-leader for Google; one of the big thing that is keeping costs down for them is that they are using custom equipment both on the front end (set-top boxes, etc) and the back end. ISP's, Cable companies, and telcos usually spend a lot of money buying this gear and renting it out or reselling it, whereas Google is developing their own so that they can manage cost as well as functionality.

Here's the whole article, it's pretty interesting. They have absolutely no intention of losing money on this project, and the fact that they are effectively "subsidizing" their existing advertising revenue can't hurt either.

[–]Draiko 21 points22 points ago

I will say this...

To my knowledge, ISPs aren't subsidizing your connection by using your information to target ads peppering your entire internet experience.

Current ISPs are still making a should-be-criminal level profit.

I'll also stay that I really don't give a shit about allowing a company to peek into my usage habits if I get something in return.

[–]Cryptic0677 18 points19 points ago

Current ISPs are still making a should-be-criminal level profit.

The way to fix this isn't to criminalize it, it's to introduce competition, something government regulation has made difficult to do, among other reasons.

[–]cecilkorik 6 points7 points ago

I'll also stay that I really don't give a shit about allowing a company to peek into my usage habits if I get something in return.

I'll agree with that, as long as they have my informed consent. Which requires two things -- information, and consent.

A lot of companies do it semi-underhandedly, burying the fact that they conduct such activities within a huge vague catch-all clause within their terms of service or privacy policy or whatever. And when pressed about it, they continue to use vague PR-speak to deflect the questions and avoid taking any responsibility. Treating us like we're stupid is not the answer. Tell us the truth, and tell it in a clear way, so we can make an informed decision.

Secondly, they should require consent, and that means giving the individual the choice to opt-in or opt-out. If I want to pay extra or get less services in exchange for not allowing them to snoop on my activities for their own profit, that needs to be a valid option.

[–]Guvante 2 points3 points ago

Well, technically they only guarantee your connectivity for 7 years. Cheap as heck internet at that rate, but who knows if it will continue to be free.

[–]Pykins 1 point2 points ago

At $3.60 a month, I'd take that risk.

[–]BoneKin 7 points8 points ago

I live in St. Louis, closest major city to KC. It's so close, yet so far away.

[–]aerosquid 14 points15 points ago

That is actually how 99.99% of Americans feel reading about it too. Kansas City is not a large city by any means. This is a fairly small roll out. There are some strong waves of jealous rage emanating from non KC residents and that is understandable. At LEAST half of the city is not even included in this initial push and THOSE people are pissed/crushed. I was born and raised in KC and will be getting GF within the next year. I'm extremely fortunate and I know it. Life in KC is not easy. Last World Series was 1985 and last Superbowl was 1969 or so. Our football team will go 8-8 this year and the Royals are lucky not to lose 100 games a year. We have no NBA or NHL... and don't really want it. Probably the biggest sport in town is college basketball with KU and MU both close by.

[–]industrai 15 points16 points ago

Was reading this and looked up at username hoping for gradual_sports_statistics.

[–]aerosquid 2 points3 points ago

yeah i got a little carried away.

[–]moderndayvigilante 2 points3 points ago

Damn, no sports in KC.. that really must be a tough life. ಠ_ಠ

[–]aerosquid 0 points1 point ago

well it's a quality of life thing. it depresses the entire city when the sports teams suck. we have lots of great things as well it's just a sore spot if you have lived here a long time.

[–]benjgvps 6 points7 points ago

Depends where you are, there's two Fibre providers in my city... And both don't quite reach my house.

[–]kaveman6143 7 points8 points ago

And they charge retarded mounts of money, so still not an option compared to the prices Google charges.

[–]Ph0X 13 points14 points ago

Exactly. Bell charges 200$ for a 175/175 connection, and best part? 300GB bandwidth limit and 5$ per extra 25GB. Absolutely ridiculous.

Google Fiber is 5.7x faster and unlimited bandwidth for a third of the price.

[–]Chenz 4 points5 points ago

Indeed that is ridiculous. In Sweden, 100/100 is $56, while 1 Gb is about $150.

[–]moderndayvigilante 1 point2 points ago

OH THE POSSIBILITIES!!!!! I'm getting all giddy like a school girl would.. but I live in Canada... FML

[–]muad_dib 0 points1 point ago

In my city there is one fibre provider, and they charge >$100/month for just the Internet connection. I'll stick to my unlimited DSL for $30/month until a better offer comes around, thanks.

[–]countingthedays 0 points1 point ago

Especially considering latency is the deciding factor for a lot of web experience... it's probably not worth it.

[–]muad_dib 0 points1 point ago

It's really not. Especially considering their ridiculous bandwidth caps. 60gb/month for $100 is not acceptable.

[–]countingthedays 0 points1 point ago

Agreed.

[–]thecapitalc 0 points1 point ago

The Bell Fibe in Toronto requires you to have both TV and Internet.

[–]wardmuylaert 1 point2 points ago

Off topic: what's the context for that image?

[–]Infidel_Grey 0 points1 point ago

Peter Dinklage (unimpressed fellow in the GIF) was nominated for an award, an Emmy I believe, for the awesome show Game of Thrones. He was being humble when they called his name.

[–]ScumbagException 1 point2 points ago

I'm confused. Are you not impressed because you already have fiber or do you not care because google won't build it close to you?

I could use the same gif because I've had access to 1Gb/s fiber for years.

[–]FatalMegalomaniac 0 points1 point ago

Not impressed because the chances of Google Fiber coming to Canada are slim at best.

[–]ScumbagException 1 point2 points ago

I'm sorry. :( Sympathetic high-five from Sweden, sent to you through multiple fiber optic cables.

Maybe you'll hop on the LTE wireless train instead, I know I'm looking forward to that. There's no way in hell I'm letting Google control my Internet anyway.

[–]Kezler 0 points1 point ago

Would be nice if this was in every major city. One can hope.

[–]MiaowaraShiro 0 points1 point ago

or just...everywhere!

[–]Stoyon 7 points8 points ago

Congratulations on catching up to Sweden!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Stoyon 2 points3 points ago

Finland too! High Five!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Stoyon 0 points1 point ago

HAHAHA! True!

[–]stevanov 2 points3 points ago

My god, exactly this. Nordic countries and a couple Asian countries have had this for quite a while now. I thought it was normal. Even where I live, holland, we're able to get it in the major cities. I don't see what the fuzz is about in America.

[–]igetbooored 81 points82 points ago

There is something deeply unsettling to me about Google. They're positioning themselves to have the ability to harvest insane amounts of data from their users, combined with their targetted advertising algorithms so they have a great motivation to continue to harvest data and apply it in other areas.

[–]Coloneljesus 76 points77 points ago

As long as they use that data only to target ads at me, I'm fine with it. I just hope they don't sell it.

[–]ramp_tram 43 points44 points ago

Who would they sell it to? Google is an ad company first and everything else second (or lower). Our information is their most valuable resource.

[–]FrankReynolds 55 points56 points ago

Google makes 95%+ of their revenue from advertising. That's what they do. We are Google's product they sell, and I'm okay with that. The services they provide are worth it.

[–]itchyouch 35 points36 points ago

Not to mention that they are actually doing science and working on moving tech forward. W/out google, I'd be afraid that we would still have 3MB email accounts and ad-link ridden spammy top search results for everything.

[–]Diginic 6 points7 points ago

I agree 100%! They were the first with 1GB mailbox. Now that and more is standard. I hope in 10 years 1GB fiber will be standard as well!

[–]darknecross 5 points6 points ago

1GB might be pushing it.

[–]DaGarver 0 points1 point ago

That's what they said about Gmail in early beta, wasn't it?

[–]darknecross 0 points1 point ago

A 1GB/s connection is feasible. 1GB standard not so much.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]MathGorges 10 points11 points ago

But Google being the only company with access to that data is what's profitable for them.

[–]huntsman 0 points1 point ago

If you look at the voting structure of Google, Larry and Sergey actually have over 50% of the voting rights due to the classes of shares and the upcoming share split will ensure that this remains the case for the forseeable future.

[–]B-Con 2 points3 points ago

The things you don't want other people to do with your data are likely things that Google will eventually do with it themselves.

[–]Coloneljesus 1 point2 points ago

But at least then it's centralized... (I sound more optimistic than I am)

[–]pyroxyze 11 points12 points ago

Teddy Roosevelt thought there were good trusts and bad trusts. Good trusts work by being innovative and providing a great product to the consumer without being anti-competitive. I think Google is one of them. Especially on the internet- I can go to bing simply by choosing bing.com but I choose not to because I don't think it's as good.

[–]JackieMittoo 1 point2 points ago

well since its links come from Google (indirectly) , some people might say it at least as good.

[–]mrpoops 0 points1 point ago

Explain.

[–]Trylstag 0 points1 point ago

I'm not up-to-date on it, but some Google engineers did some testing, and discovered that having the Bing toolbar installed in a browser would return Google results for various phrases to Bing. They entered some completely ludicrous phrases, that they rigged Google to display specific results for, and within a couple of days, discovered that Bing was now returning those same completely unrelated web pages for the specific search terms.

[–]hectavex 0 points1 point ago

I thought it was from the new universal search bar in IE. For example, you search something in IE and your search provider happens to be Google. Then you click on the first search result. Microsoft sees this as the "most likely" path a user will take when searching, so they use these "clickthrough" results for Bing. That's why Bing is almost identical to Google search results, without actually copying from Google. If you think about it, this approach is damn smart and it works not only for Google but any search provider. Bing becomes a search engine whose results are based on real users doing searches with various search providers through IE.

[–]hectavex 0 points1 point ago

Google acquires startups frequently. Does that not remove potential competition and/or jobs from the economy? I'm not an expert but I have a feeling it does more harm than good.

But in the vast majority of cases, the buyers aren't interested in the startup's business, they are acquired for their engineering talent alone.

Silicon Valley's dirty little secret: The 'Startup Boom' is a disguised jobs fair for big corporations

[–]GymIn26Minutes 4 points5 points ago

What a worthless infographic. Why on earth would google setup integration with another companies mapping service when the one google has is far superior to any of the free alternatives.

On top of that, the search examples they used seem to be specifically chosen to try and make google look bad, where if you search for something the way real people do it is painfully obvious that they do not artificially boost the results for their products.

For counter examples "best online map" doesn't even have google maps in the first page of results.

Likewise for "who provides the best free email", gmail isn't mentioned on the first page.

With the searches "where can i upload a video" and "best video sharing site" youtube and google videos aren't returned either.

[–]Trylstag 0 points1 point ago

I just did a search for "email", and, unlike the infographic's claims, my results were:

  • Hotmail
  • Gmail
  • Yahoo
  • Email.com
  • Wikipedia

However, searching "best online map", Google Maps was in the first result ("Bing, Google Maps, and MapQuest all have their charms, but which one will get you where you need to go with the least hesitation and the most accuracy?") but didn't show up again on the first page, and wasn't actually one of the results.

[–]auandi 1 point2 points ago

That data is very far off. Those are not the results I get when I enter those terms into Google. Also Chrome is a much bigger market share than represented, it just last month surpassed IE to be the most popular in the US.

[–]tehkillerbee 1 point2 points ago

I think it's better to be paranoid than hopeful...

[–]KungFuHamster 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, if they keep the data within their ecosystem, learning about me and using that data without sharing it to "partners", that's smart and makes sense.

[–]richalex2010 9 points10 points ago

[–]Deto 6 points7 points ago

I trust them more than Comcast or Time Warner, so I feel like it's a net positive.

[–]a1579 4 points5 points ago

Relevant

Also interesting: A Genetic Social Network, would you trust them with your DNA? It sounds good, but just the combination of words social network and DNA makes my hair jump.

[–]hectavex 3 points4 points ago

So now they want me to get my information from Google Search, with a good chance the information is on a website hosted/cached by Google, across my Google Fiber (or Google Android), using my Google Chrome, while wearing my Google Headgear and watching some YouTube on my Google TV? Not to mention the information is sparse with Google Ads/Products/Services and Google's paid advertiser content. Google had Google Video, but they still acquired YouTube and the entire community. Google has gone from "do no evil" to "do everything". I know I have the option of using another product or service somewhere in the chain, but I'm still being fed a world from one perspective. If they "own" the primary hub to most of the world's information, then they get exclusive priority (and marketing analysis) for integrating new products and services. Always.

I won't be hypocritical; I use Google products/services daily. I also think this move could be a win for Net Neutrality and benefit consumers by increasing competition with TWC/COX/AT&T and lowering prices.

[–]fenixjr 2 points3 points ago

even though it takes away from your wording, the actual motto was "don't be evil".

[–]Trylstag 0 points1 point ago

And sometimes, to not be evil, one has to do some evil along the way.

[–]veriix 1 point2 points ago

  • Sent from my android phone.

[–]maxxusflamus 22 points23 points ago

you should get off the internet then...hell...you should live in the mountains. If you have anything electronic that can be used to uniquely identify you as a datapoint, you are essentially a database record that gets dumped into a big ass linear algebra matrix every so many milliseconds.

[–]zip_000 17 points18 points ago

There's nothing wrong with being concerned about how your data is being used. You do have to recognize that it is a trade that you're making - information about you for service - but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be concerned about the cost.

[–]neoform 1 point2 points ago

Very few companies have the resources to mine the amount of data that flies around the internet...

Google is one of them.

[–]maxxusflamus 0 points1 point ago

it's just not just the internet though.

Whole companies are built on large scale analytics.

It may not be real time data but amassing gargantuan datasets so they can crunch numbers can be done surprisingly cheaply. It's a matter of getting the right people who can develop those analytical models.

Target/Walmart both have analytics divisions devoted to analyzing purchase habits.

Ever hear of tealeaf? IBM has- enough so that they ended up buying the entire company. It's not just internet browsing habits but practically everything these days.

[–]neoform 0 points1 point ago

What I mean is google actually has the resources to log and store everything you do online....... then datamine it.

[–]ramp_tram 3 points4 points ago

This is no different from NetZero's banner ad supported "free dialup" from years back, except the ads might actually be relevant (and will be easily blocked).

[–]FredFredrickson 2 points3 points ago

This is why I can't really get excited about this. Or about just about any cool thing Google creates these days. I can't help but get caught up in wondering just how they're going to glom data from their new service / device.

[–]JonnyShips 2 points3 points ago

Well TWC and Comcast weren't doing anything. Both of them have terrible service and are internet is about as fast as Holland's in 1997.

[–]dolderer 2 points3 points ago

Google Inc, or VersaLife as we know it in 2052.

[–]cedricchase 2 points3 points ago

I would like for someone to extrapolate this out into the future where it ends up being bad, because I can't see it. I actually would PREFER targeted ads - heck - it'd help me find good deals on stuff I'd like. No more maxi-pad commercials? Great.

[–]igetbooored 0 points1 point ago

It sets the precedent of harvesting information from users then using that information for profit. What happens if the ad revenue dries up?

[–]reddit_user48 1 point2 points ago

They already do this.

[–]jaggederest 1 point2 points ago

Someone mentioned on hacker news - all they have to do is put an extra processor, some extra memory, and storage on the 'wan' side of their google boxes and they'll have the largest distributed edge cluster ever, with space, cooling and power costs paid by the consumer and ridiculous interconnect speeds. Even if they just deploy to a half million people in KC, it'd still be among the largest compute clusters on earth.

[–]Kardlonoc 2 points3 points ago

Its so amusing that someone pointed out with the Google driverless car a while back that the motivation for the program was solely so people who would normally be driving would instead be using the internet and thus be more likely to use Google search. It sounds crazy but its almost exactly the same goal of Google glasses and pushing their way into smart phones: they want more people searching.

Fiber is like the ultimate nail in this coffin (besides making some sort of plan that gives a unlimited data over your mobile). You see, google doesn't want to steal your information, they just want to make sure everyone is using Google search no matter what cost and they want to make it so you use it more.

[–]FabianN 1 point2 points ago

Everyone keeps bringing up that they will be tracking people through their Internet service. I've yet to actually hear anything confirming that.

Google collects and uses information from services that they provide which is (monetarily) free. They are using your information on those services because their usage is free.

If you pay for the Google Apps service Google will not collect personal information that is on that service. I don't see why this will be any different.

[–]FredFredrickson 3 points4 points ago

Everyone keeps bringing up that they will be tracking people through their Internet service. I've yet to actually hear anything confirming that.

Maybe not, but this is how Google makes money. Expecting something different just doesn't make sense.

[–]mocheeze 1 point2 points ago

They're also making money by charging for installation and plans. It's not ad-based fiber access here.

[–]nolongerresisting 1 point2 points ago

That's not entirely true. From what I've read the installation costs are massively subsidised, which makes sense if Google wants to get high speed Internet to become the norm. From what Google has done in the past I imagine they are not so concerned with become an ISP, but improving cloud/web applications.

Google have a record of forcing technology improvements (web mail,V8/Chrome etc) but I think it's important to remember why. The more you're data is online the more they can learn about you and the larger they grow. It's interesting to think where things like Google Glass will take us when we have ubiquitous high speed "always on" connections.

[–]valasia 1 point2 points ago

$300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and fees

Subsidized by users.

[–]FredFredrickson 0 points1 point ago

Are they? $300 is pretty cheap for fiber installation, compared to other services.

[–]FabianN 1 point2 points ago

They make money with your information where the service/product you are using is free to you.

When you are paying for the product/service (ie: Google Apps) they DO NOT use your personal information.

So I say to you, expecting something different just doesn't make sense.

[–]FredFredrickson 0 points1 point ago

Okay, they don't use your personal information. But to think they don't still factor in the things that they don't consider personal into their advertising database of likes and dislikes is ludicrous.

Giving them control of the entire line and expecting them not to pull any data from it is naive.

[–]FabianN 0 points1 point ago

Their pay-for Google Apps service meets the Government standards for data privacy. Google does not use any data you enter into that service. They do not send you any ads based off of information in that service (they don't send any ads in that service for that matter).

Google only uses information from people in the services where the people are not paying for the service.

The Google Apps service may seem exactly the same as their normal gmail/gDocs/etc services but they are very separated and are managed completely differently.

[–]FredFredrickson 0 points1 point ago

Google Apps is a different case. It doesn't use the information you enter into the documents - otherwise, they wouldn't really be private. No surprises there.

But you think they won't be using your web browsing habits / data if you use their fiber, even if you're a paying customer? Unless they specifically say they aren't, I don't believe it.

[–]FabianN 0 points1 point ago

From what you've said I'm not sure you are actually aware of what Google Apps is.

http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/

It's a service from Google where you get to use their applications (gmail, gdocs, gcal, gsites, gdrive, etc) under your own domain and gives you full control over the users. It is your own private instance of Google's products that you have control over.

Now, for small groups (I think ~10 users) you can get a free instance of Google Apps setup where they will collect data like they do with their other free services that you normally access. But they could not offer this service to Government organizations if they were collecting any data from the service. As long as you pay money for the service you have control over Google's data collection for your private instance of Google's services.

Now, I just read over the privacy policy for Google Fiber and it states that they will not assign any information regarding websites you visit to your identity. They of course will know what sites their entire customer base visits because that information is actually critical to ensuring the network is running smoothly (what's that? Can't access yahoo.com? Lets check the logs. Yup, at 12:00 yahoo stopped responding for all users in region Y which corresponds with update X, etc etc) and is something that every single ISP does. And since it's not being associated with any person but just the faceless blob of all their customers you as an individual are protected.

[–]FredFredrickson 0 points1 point ago

Alright, it's possible, based on what you've found in the privacy policy, that Google won't be using your surfing habits on their fiber network to enhance ad delivery. I'm glad that, instead of just blindly assuming this, you've actually taken the time to find it and read it.

I don't understand what I've said that might have made you think that I don't understand what Google Apps is; but that's not really even worth discussing. I know what Google Apps is, and I still see a distinction between the two.

[–]DoctorMcNinja[S] 0 points1 point ago

They are the best parts of Veridian Dynamics, Skynet, and Lendl Global.

[–]easygenius 5 points6 points ago

I just know it will be ten years before it comes to my area. I still can't get UVerse or Fios for christsakes.

[–]Phersick 1 point2 points ago

Same here. 5 years ago AT&T dug a hole through my front yard to lay a fiber line for UVerse. 3 years after that it's finally "available", meaning I can get UVerse internet, not TV or anything else, just internet. Like it doesn't use the same fucking cable. On top of that, when I check the available speeds I can get, their site shows me 768k DSL as the only speed. Calling customer support to find out exactly what is going on gets me "oh really? that's weird, we'll check into it." Yeah, I'm sure you will.

[–]tanaciousp 0 points1 point ago

Same thing happened to me with Fios. My front yard was dug up, but only for half of my neighborhood did Fios become available.

[–]geonerding 4 points5 points ago

This will probably get buried but whatever. I work for a company that provides fiber-to-the-home and it is municipally owned. We've had lots of meetings with Google and it's fair to say they borrowed from our business model. It's an open network so anyone can be a service provider over the fiber.

We already offer 1-gig connections to the home (it's a tad pricey at $300/mo) but of course we have 25, 50, 100 Mbps speeds too all of which are a steal in my book not to mention all the connections are symmetrical. We've got the typical 10-gig too if you've got a business or a freakish bandwidth fetish.

http://www.utopianet.org/

Go ahead and AMA if you guys want any details about fiber.

[–]pyroxyze 1 point2 points ago

See- I saw estimates that Google was paying 3,000 to 8,000 per line. They're making 840 per year. With maintenance+initial investment, is fiber feasible even if every household adopts?

Could you also provide the prices for the other services? I don't really know an address to put in

[–]geonerding 0 points1 point ago

We've found that it's a pretty long-term investment before break-even kicks in. However, the retail pricing to single-family homes is only one model, but it's the model that gets people excited to sign in certain geographic areas. Businesses and multi-dwelling units (MDUs) are a whole other model. Most businesses will cover the cost of their own connection and then pay a much higher monthly fee. MDU's can have relatively low cost to build out to and then offer hundreds of customers service which can also be profitable.

The real question that's hard to measure is what value the fiber brings to the city/area. A city that has fiber to the home has a telecom advantage to other cities so it's likely to bring in highly skilled people and big tech firms. I don't know how to measure the economic benefit of having a major software firm come to the city, but many cities are willing to gamble a huge bond in order to get the fiber advantage.

[–]obylix 3 points4 points ago

my fiberhood finally met it's goal today im pretty fuckin excited

[–]Fhajad 2 points3 points ago

As an already fiber ISP, its got me looking towards the future. If Google ends up revamping the game, I'm already there on the forefront mostly.

The thing I can't get over is their fucking set top boxes having AP AND ethernet ports in them to use for your internet devices. It's fucking genius, I can't get over how cool that would be to have.

[–]chrismetalrock 2 points3 points ago

I don't live in KC. I feel a shitload of jealousy.

[–]DoctorMcNinja[S] 2 points3 points ago

Edit: Wow guys came home to front page rainbow vomit, thanks.

[–]Airazz 4 points5 points ago

Eastern Europe welcomes you to the world of decent internet speeds.

[–]Fhoxx 1 point2 points ago

I really wish they were in NJ. I'm a photonics student with a dual major in fiber and I'd give an arm a leg and probably a few other appendages to work for google.

[–]FredFredrickson 1 point2 points ago

It makes me feel weird to think that someday, companies as awful as AT&T or Comcast may be seen as the "good guys" who don't watch everything you're doing online.

[–]ChaosMotor 0 points1 point ago

But they DO watch what you're doing, they just subcontract it out to the NSA.

[–]plainOldFool 1 point2 points ago

As someone who lives far, far away from Kansas City, fuck Google Fiber :p

[–]JonnyShips 1 point2 points ago

Come and visit, we have BBQ.

[–]ellipses1 1 point2 points ago

The big question is... can Astraweb or Giganews max out a 1Gb/s connection? It does with my 32 Mb/s cable line

[–]wheezl 1 point2 points ago

I'm just happy to be at a bar in Barcelona with only 100Mb fiber.

I'm sure Kansas City is nice too though.

[–]Snip-Snap 1 point2 points ago

Sweet, I can't wait until this is available in my area!! Then, I can finally download a car!!

[–]ManEggs 1 point2 points ago

So apparently reaction pics that don't even relate to what you're posting about nets you about 1k karma on /r/geek. Really now?

[–]inmatarian 1 point2 points ago

Funny, I would have thought you'd feel exactly like this: http://i.imgur.com/HiAey.jpg

Joke Explained Edit: The image is from the comic The Adventures of Dr. McNinja: Doc gets Rad, where the doc gets a motorcycle that turns out to be an evil unicorn named SparkleLord. OP's user name is DoctorMcNinja.

[–]thejustducky1 8 points9 points ago

Something tells me Fiber is going to look like the shining, gleaming, future until we all start using it, and finding out more about it. Then we'll start seeing that dirty underbelly.

[–]Anman 14 points15 points ago

Except it's already used, and for awhile now. There are tons of fiber optic lines under oceans creating what we know as the internet. When you post something on reddit it's almost certainly going through a fiber optic line.

[–]TomTom_on_a_Tauntaun 9 points10 points ago

Plus all of the fiber-to-house services that are available all over the world.

[–]Anman 6 points7 points ago

Yup. This technology is only "new" to the US. And even then we've had services like Verizon FiOS for awhile now.

[–]Zakisbored 0 points1 point ago

Well fiber as a technology isn't really what's new in my opinion. Many people know about it. The issue is that companies like Verizon are simply laying it to the house and then providing 1/100th of it's capability. I have FiOS at home and my personal experience is that it's not much faster than your average cable internet.

[–]gmrple 4 points5 points ago

Indeed, this is not new tech. The only underbelly I can foresee would be what is going to happen when Google owns every part of the internet in the US?

[–]ItsSoBeautiful 0 points1 point ago

That will hardly happen (at least, with the current information). Given a best case scenario for Google, let's say they connect every single person in the US with their Fiber. This will only connect residences to their local fiber lines. The big players like AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc, will still own the backbones. Right now, Google still needs those backbones to connect your home to that server 2000 miles away.

Basically with the current information, a decent analogy will be that Google will own everyone's driveways, backroads, and maybe that main road that cuts through the town. The big Tier 1 backbone providers will still own all the highways, trucking lanes, airports, and ports.

In the future when you consider Google as a major Tier 1 provider, well that will just be capitalism at it's finest: Company survival of the fittest. If someone can offer 1GB of internet for $70, you better do something better, faster, cheaper, or all of the above to remain competitive (though, not mentioning all the crazy lawsuits they can and will file if it gets to that point).

[–]thejustducky1 0 points1 point ago

You got it. I'm not referring to "Fiber" as in Google Fiber, not fiber optics in general.

[–]NotEntirelyUnlike 11 points12 points ago

Just like every other of their awesome (free) products I use every day to improve my life?

[–]xzxzzx 2 points3 points ago

Then we'll start seeing that dirty underbelly.

Sorry to burst your sour grapes, but there isn't a "dirty underbelly". It's just better.

Remember getting broadband after using a dial-up modem? Everything about it is better. Same with fiber.

[–]xef6 0 points1 point ago

Sounds like we have a negative nancy on our hands here.

I have a question. Who would you consider an acceptable provider of fiber internet?

[–]BricksThinking 1 point2 points ago

Feeling good in my fiberhood!

[–]LadyDeadpool89 1 point2 points ago

Just for clarity

1Gbps=1,000,000,000 Bits=125,000,000 Bytes=122,070 Kilobytes which in turn means they will be getting 119MB/sec speeds.

I don't know how to not freak out about this... O_O

[–]Dorkins 1 point2 points ago

Want to download WoW or Guild Wars 2 in 2 minutes? Starcraft 2 in under 1? League in 30 seconds? Google Fiber!

[–]LadyDeadpool89 0 points1 point ago

*shudder I feel like I am having a Pavlovian response... but in my brain... :D

[–]WolfDemon 1 point2 points ago

I feel reading about Google Fiber being a thousand+ miles away from Kansas City

http://i.imgur.com/qJthI.gif

[–]Draiko 1 point2 points ago

[–]aerosquid 0 points1 point ago

mine was similar.

[–]Draiko 0 points1 point ago

It wasn't a difficult concept. They refused to implement it for over a decade despite having countless blueprints handed to them on silver platters.

[–]aerosquid 0 points1 point ago

are you talking about Time Warner dragging their feet here or what...?

[–]Draiko 0 points1 point ago

I'm talking about everyone in the business. I didn't have the clout to push something like that through at the time. I'm hoping to do so sometime in the near future.

[–]iUberGeek 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the meaningless, inane, and circlejerky content, OP.

[–]Prime20 0 points1 point ago

While on one hand i feel the exact same way and wish they would have Gfiber in my area, the other side realizes that if they did i'd have to start looking for a new job because mine wouldn't be around much longer.

[–]moderndayvigilante 0 points1 point ago

Holy fuck, they're even offering FREE internet that is like today's internet? For only a one time $300 installation fee?!??!?! THE FUCK?!!!

[–]dowster593 0 points1 point ago

In just one year that would be paid off at $25 a month, my current internet costs $34 a month, and I barely ever get 1mbps, that is if the connection is even up.

[–]stormbeta 0 points1 point ago

I'll get excited when and if they actually start deploying it on a large scale. Otherwise this will be just like the Sonic ISP - an amazing deal, but only if you live in a very specific area.

[–]ChaosMotor 0 points1 point ago

I understand Sonic will be managing the network, actually.

[–]madkinesis 0 points1 point ago

Onlive could actually compete with consoles with this much bandwidth. They say on their site they will go 1080p when higher bandwidths are sustainable.

[–]Rozen 0 points1 point ago

[–]inedidible 0 points1 point ago

If I could hug an entire company it would be google, and they know this. I love my nexus phone, the chrome browser, Gmail and gdocs/drive and gtalk giving me a free phone number for various things, I love their mapping system and their browser, I love that they have fun and that their employees are taken care of. And even if gfiber doesn't yet exist here I love that they're making the first steps to completely blowing away our current idea of broadband. Fuck, I thought my 30/5 from optimum was nice.

Google is in a position to be incredibly evil, but the extreme advancements they're pushing in to the market (and thus forcing their competition to step up) are WELL worth that risk in my opinion.

[–]yagi_takeru 0 points1 point ago

i can't seriously be the only one waiting for the other shoe to drop

[–]paradoxicaloxymoron 0 points1 point ago

I am way too uptight about Google's privacy policy to care about amazing internet speed. Is a fast internet worth people meddling with your business? You really want Google to know that you prefer interracial porn over chubby porn?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

What I don't understand is why it matters? As long as they are catering the content to you, I don't think you'll mind.

[–]HoochCow 0 points1 point ago

I feel like this.

AWESOME FUCKING AWESOME... Wait. Kansas, FUCK I'm in the middle of nowhere and in the south no less this will NEVER make its way to me.

[–]Spectrehawk 0 points1 point ago

I don't get how people are so excited about this. Google's business model is: gather search data about people, keep it on file, sell it to whoever will pay. its bad enough that they do it with just our google seaches, now you wanna run ALL your internet traffic to go through google? that means everything you do on the net is recorded and sold to the highest bidder. that includes your email, your facebook, your PORN preferences, all of it is recorded to be sold to whoever.

move over big brother, google is watching.

[–]themastersb 0 points1 point ago

How I feel is that I probably will never see that in my life time.