Google Fiber now offers gigabit for $55 per month to one City

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

I doubt google is using all their own infrastructure. But it would make sense to enter into 2 canadian provinces Ontario and BC Why? Close to the USA, highest population.

-snip-

Yes, however you're not factoring in other costs. Such as infrastructure (you don't need just cable, you need many other items), land use (Take Shaw for example. In BC, Telus owns the top of the power pole, Shaw has to lease space from Telus. Something similar might be necessary for conduits), work permits, regulatory work, etc etc. It's not as cut and dry as it seems.

Say they got an astonishing 20% conversion rate. That's 400,000 units & $60/month for a revenue of $24,000,000/month. Seems like tons, but it's really not. Goldman Sachs had a report where it would cost Google 1.25 billion to connect 830,000 homes.

 

Telus is investing the same amount in Edmonton. While the cost of the cable might not be expensive, when it comes to unit installation in apartments etc it's very time consuming. That's a huge man hour investment. The ad revenue is irrelevant since they're already making that.

 

There are way more options than the big three though. Sure, they're a reason there's not as many, but another reason is the huge investment it would take for smaller providers to start up. For example, Novus in Vancouver will gladly run fiber to you...if you live in an apartment building, and the entire building signs up. Otherwise it's not financially viable.

 

 

[Thony]

4 hours ago, Damascus said:

Yup, I used to be ecstatic about google doing all the isp stuff but now I kind of hope our establishment isps in Canada can keep them away

I wasnt here for a while, do you mind explaining what is so evil about incredibly well priced uncapped broadband ? 

 

Maybe google has done something that I have missed so some filling in would be appretiated.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Fuck, I live just outside San Antonio and can't get this. My internet from Spectrum is more expensive than that for 40 Mbps and that's the discount price because I have it bundled with cable TV.

[DudeWazap]

4 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Fuck, I live just outside San Antonio and can't get this. My internet from Spectrum is more expensive than that for 40 Mbps and that's the discount price because I have it bundled with cable TV.

I'm sorry hopefully now that Austin and San Antonio have Google Fiver cities outside will also get it.

Don;t areas outside San Antonio have gigabit speeds with Grande Communications?

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Fuck, I live just outside San Antonio and can't get this. My internet from Spectrum is more expensive than that for 40 Mbps and that's the discount price because I have it bundled with cable TV.

see if you know someone who can put up a big pole and do this 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

6 minutes ago, DudeWazap said:

I'm sorry hopefully now that Austin and San Antonio have Google Fiver cities outside will also get it.

Don;t areas outside San Antonio have gigabit speeds with Grande Communications?

No Grande service out here. 

[Egg-Roll]

20 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Goldman Sachs had a report where it would cost Google 1.25 billion to connect 830,000 homes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-network-2012-12

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cost-of-building-google-fiber-2013-4

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/10/good-grief-nationwide-google-fiber-would-be-incredibly-cheap-to-build/#71d9e6017740

 

Let's see 140 Billion for a country of 300 million+ (article above claims 140 million homes, lets say half that) a Return/Profit in 15 years, assuming bare minimum and interest rates stay the same...

https://abc.xyz/investor/index.html

Note: Google only has 9 Billion in cash since its last report this year not the 45 stated above

Payment Every Month  $1,107,111,077.44

Total of 180 Payments  $199,279,993,938.87

Total Interest  $59,279,993,938.87

 

The second article took the selling cost of the nexus, and not what it costs google.

Assuming they keep to their pricing of 70 for 1gbps and 75% of the clients take it up, lets go based on that. For a 15 year return less the initial $1000 setup cost incurring per client, however it seems they dont offer much beyond services now.

 

For it to repay in 15 years (ignore the BS spewed out by Forbes), for Fiber to repay it self and let the infrastructure maintenance costs mooch off the 4 billion during said time as they should be very low. It would require 16.9 Million users at 1gbps or 24.14% of 70 million homes, these numbers are plausible but are unlikely and remember google has a positive 4.5 billion every quarter in cash flow which means it could easily bail itself out.

 

A far more strategic approach would be attacking major cities and their local suburbs (anything over 75,000 with a $30,000 avg household income), as it would likely be more profitable. 

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

There are way more options than the big three though. Sure, they're a reason there's not as many, but another reason is the huge investment it would take for smaller providers to start up. For example, Novus in Vancouver will gladly run fiber to you...if you live in an apartment building, and the entire building signs up. Otherwise it's not financially viable.

Not here really, I'm with Teksavvy, they have their own servers but they still run threw the Bell and Rogers Networks, most if not all providers that service outside of the downtown core are like this as the costs are too big as you said.

 

Actually Bell recently upgraded a family member's apartment complex, they said they would do it for months w/o signups (it is a rogers dominated, minimal bell phone building), they decided to go with virgins internet package, it took 2 weeks to get a installer in, and that was on top the 2 months or more later than claimed installation date. Furniture couldn't be put back due to this (tv) making watching stuff annoying, and prevented us playing games with a younger family member during their visit.

 

Oh fiber doesn't need to be installed at your door, if your home has newer wiring it's likely good. Plus most providers only do FTTC which is Fiber to those stupid ugly boxes in random spots. Only reason why buildings get fiber to the door is because they likely have a relay inside for everyone, hence why Bell and your provider mentioned are not keen on putting it in. There is no safe way to get fiber to 90% of the homes where i live (and used to live) w/o digging up all the yards

 

Like i said Google is more than welcomed here, it would possibly be more profitable too due to the insane prices here lol...

[mynameisjuan]

11 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Giving people a 1Gbps uplink to the internet without the common knowledge to protect their networks is a bad thing. The majority of DDoS attacks I and clients receive are from residential IPs which is why my biggest attack so far has only been about 60Gbps. If those same people are upgraded to 1Gbps connection then the internet we know it is done for until Google Fiber connections get blacklisted.

First is most home routers less that $100-150 cant even handle routing more than 300mbps so your complaint goes straight out the window. Like this statement is just putting fear where its not even a thing. Most DDoS attacks dont saturate the victims connection or get even close. I am talking with a DNS reflection they are pushing like 4-5mbps max of data between multiple sources as it multiplies 10 fold and lessens hardware of detecting this attack or ISP of finding the true source.  

 

Cheap gigabit fiber is a good thing while most people hear are treating it like the plague. 

[KuJoe]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

First is most home routers less that $100-150 cant even handle routing more than 300mbps so your complaint goes straight out the window. Like this statement is just putting fear where its not even a thing. Most DDoS attacks dont saturate the victims connection or get even close. I am talking with a DNS reflection they are pushing like 4-5mbps max of data between multiple sources as it multiplies 10 fold and lessens hardware of detecting this attack or ISP of finding the true source.  

 

Cheap gigabit fiber is a good thing while most people hear are treating it like the plague. 

300Mbps is nothing to laugh at, that's a significant amount of bandwidth when you times it by 50k. Reflection/amplification attacks have been on the decline as more and more people are fixing their services (excluding IoT, that's a whole other mess). I am not saying people shouldn't have gigabit connections at home, I'm saying that ISPs need to do a better job educating their clients before giving them something like that. The internet would be a much better place if ISPs required their clients to implement basic security on their network before being allowed to connect to the rest of us. Then again, ISPs should take some of the responsibility also and better monitor and manage their networks (but we all know that won't happen because it's not profitable enough for them to be proactive).

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, KuJoe said:

300Mbps is nothing to laugh at, that's a significant amount of bandwidth when you times it by 50k. Reflection/amplification attacks have been on the decline as more and more people are fixing their services (excluding IoT, that's a whole other mess). I am not saying people shouldn't have gigabit connections at home, I'm saying that ISPs need to do a better job educating their clients before giving them something like that. The internet would be a much better place if ISPs required their clients to implement basic security on their network before being allowed to connect to the rest of us. Then again, ISPs should take some of the responsibility also and better monitor and manage their networks (but we all know that won't happen because it's not profitable enough for them to be proactive).

ISPs should take time to educate their customers? Hahah I you fucking serious? Should car dealerships be showing people how to drive better before giving them a sports car or large SUV? Since when is it the ISPs job. Maybe people should start to give a fuck about technology and understand it better. 

 

Also I love how you think its so easy to monitor and fix DDoS attacks on the fly but they dont because they are lazy. Do you work for an ISP and have you tried to stops an attack? No? Well its my job. Even if caught most our DDoS hardware ($300,000 each piece) is behind the edge routers preventing the traffic from leaving our network but that just isolates it until we can find and take down the internal attack. Depending on the scale it might take mins to even reach one client as a saturated network makes it next to impossible to reach in a reasonable amount of time. And this is with 4-5mbps of bandwidth. I like how you think malicous connections always saturate bandwidth of the victim, possible, yes, reality, no.

[KuJoe]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

ISPs should take time to educate their customers? Hahah I you fucking serious? Should car dealerships be showing people how to drive better before giving them a sports car or large SUV? Since when is it the ISPs job. Maybe people should start to give a fuck about technology and understand it better. 

That's not a good analogy because you need to prove that you can drive a car before purchasing one (i.e. you need a valid driver's license which you can't get without passing a test). I also agree that people should take the time to educate themselves also.

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Also I love how you think its so easy to monitor and fix DDoS attacks on the fly but they dont because they are lazy. Do you work for an ISP and have you tried to stops an attack? No? Well its my job. Even if caught most our DDoS hardware ($300,000 each piece) is behind the edge routers preventing the traffic from leaving our network but that just isolates it until we can find and take down the internal attack. Depending on the scale it might take mins to even reach one client as a saturated network makes it next to impossible to reach in a reasonable amount of time. And this is with 4-5mbps of bandwidth. I like how you think malicous connections always saturate bandwidth of the victim, possible, yes, reality, no.

I never said any of that. You're not understanding what I am saying. You are looking at the situation from a different perspective which is fine, but it's not relevant to what I'm talking about. I appreciate you taking the time to reply but we are talking about different things so I apologize for the confusion it's caused you.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

That's not a good analogy because you need to prove that you can drive a car before purchasing one (i.e. you need a valid driver's license which you can't get without passing a test). I also agree that people should take the time to educate themselves also.

A license proves you can drive but have you seen most drivers? lol. Give a kid a sports car and next thing hes speeding into traffic and causes and accident even though the license said he could driv. Point is both are situation both up to the user and its their responsibility not up to the company providing the product. 

3 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

I never said any of that. You're not understanding what I am saying. You are looking at the situation from a different perspective which is fine, but it's not relevant to what I'm talking about. I appreciate you taking the time to reply but we are talking about different things so I apologize for the confusion it's caused you.

No I get what you are saying. Yeah there is a risk giving a gig connection to a customer that might have malicious software and if it saturates that connection, that is a lot of data that can cause problems. What I am saying is that chance is incredibly small and shoulnt even be in the back of your mind.  

[KuJoe]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

A license proves you can drive but have you seen most drivers? lol. Give a kid a sports car and next thing hes speeding into traffic and causes and accident even though the license said he could driv. Point is both are situation both up to the user and its their responsibility not up to the company providing the product. 

I still think these are different situations. I guess a better analogy would be giving a kid remote control access to tens of thousands of sports cars because a person in a single vehicle can't do the same level of damage as they could with a 1Gbps uplink.

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

No I get what you are saying. Yeah there is a risk giving a gig connection to a customer that might have malicious software and if it saturates that connection, that is a lot of data that can cause problems. What I am saying is that chance is incredibly small and shoulnt even be in the back of your mind.  

It's not in the back of my mind, it's in the front of my mind because it happens regularly. The amount of DDoS attacks my data centers deal with on a daily basis is sickening with a good amount of traffic coming from residential botnets and not some Ecatel servers. With the rise of IoT the amount of malicious traffic from residential ISPs has also increased to scary levels. I work with other small businesses and these attacks directly impact their income so when I see port speeds increasing with education and common sense decreasing it bothers me a lot. Hell, it's 2017 and we still have to tell people not to click on links or open attachments in their e-mails.

[Doobeedoo]

I wish Google Fiber was available at my place. I can't even know when fiber will be available at locatins in city. They keep that info tight lip which sucks ass. 

[piemadd]

14 hours ago, DudeWazap said:

snip

dont get exited

 

google fiber has been here for at least 2 years, and it won't be another 2 years before my house gets it

 

I live in Sandy Springs, a suburb of Atlanta

[piemadd]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

snip

Google doesn't use the power poles, or anybody else's infrastructure for that matter. This is what they do:

 

 

[mynameisjuan]

18 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

It's not in the back of my mind, it's in the front of my mind because it happens regularly. The amount of DDoS attacks my data centers deal with on a daily basis is sickening with a good amount of traffic coming from residential botnets and not some Ecatel servers. With the rise of IoT the amount of malicious traffic from residential ISPs has also increased to scary levels. I work with other small businesses and these attacks directly impact their income so when I see port speeds increasing with education and common sense decreasing it bothers me a lot. Hell, it's 2017 and we still have to tell people not to click on links or open attachments in their e-mails.

It doesnt happen regularly, you might get DDoS attempts or brute force but its not as common as you make it seem. I have a live monitor open up right now in real time monitor over 10,000 connection for this exact thing and right now there is a total of 3gbps of active traffic between all connections. All those connections have a total of maybe 80-90gbps and not a single one is saturated or causing a majority of the usage. Giving people a gig connection is really not a concern....really. 

[KuJoe]

13 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

It doesnt happen regularly, you might get DDoS attempts or brute force but its not as common as you make it seem. I have a live monitor open up right now in real time monitor over 10,000 connection for this exact thing and right now there is a total of 3gbps of active traffic between all connections. All those connections have a total of maybe 80-90gbps and not a single one is saturated or causing a majority of the usage. Giving people a gig connection is really not a concern....really. 

I wish my experience was the same as yours. Thanks for giving us insight from your perspective though.

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, KuJoe said:

I wish my experience was the same as yours. Thanks for giving us insight from your perspective though.

I mean your experience is a handful of places while I am monitoring the actual traffic being passed between thousands of customers and job is to maintain and control it. But I guess my input doesnt matter. 

[TheCherryKing]

AT&T Fiber has more service areas than Google Fiber. It seems unlikely that Google will expand into those areas.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, TheCherryKing said:

AT&T Fiber has more service areas than Google Fiber. It seems unlikely that Google will expand into those areas.

It will if people are will to pay. Its not first come first serve

[TheCherryKing]

32 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

It will if people are will to pay. Its not first come first serve

Eventually, but not anytime soon. Most of the AT&T Fiber service area is in Florida. Google has very few planned service areas there. 

[Damascus]

11 hours ago, Thony said:

I wasnt here for a while, do you mind explaining what is so evil about incredibly well priced uncapped broadband ? 

 

Maybe google has done something that I have missed so some filling in would be appretiated.

Google got too big and has now begun to censor/demolish opposition.  I don’t want a company that doesn’t particularly care about freedom of speech to control the internet.  That could lead to a china lookalike in 50+ years

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?mcubz=3&_r=0&referer=https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattstoller2/google-tried-to-shut-us-down?utm_term=.fmmBX7Vpa

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Implosivetech said:

Google doesn't use the power poles, or anybody else's infrastructure for that matter. This is what they do:

 

 

I'm aware they don't use power poles, but you can still have land use right fees. 

[arbellason55]

Rip me, I'd trade my 10 mbs down that costs $60 a month for that.