Google Fiber to service Austin, TX

[akmarq]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/google-fibers-next-stop-austin-texas.html

Remebering with sweet fondness the time that Chicos told me Google Fiber would not expand beyond KC because of cost restrictions.
For those of us not enamoured with the current model of media/internet distribution, this is good news.

[jesmu84]

Google Fiber may not roll out nationwide, but it will keep slowly expanding to densely packed metros. TELCOs have been scamming the USA for years on the price, availability, speed and data restrictions (caps) on broadband. It's a joke. I'm glad Google is showing that it doesn't have to be this way.

[Coleman]

It definitely won't go nationwide, but you're right, they will strategically introduce a new metro every few years. Fingers crossed for Chicago

[akmarq]

It's not mentioned in the blog post, but ATT is now planning on rolling out a fiber optic line in Austin as well. I agree that Google may not be able to roll this out nationwide, but they do have one signficant advantage - diversification.

ATT has to garner all their revenue (in the ISP division) through monthly fees/subscriptions. Google has a more diversified product line and could use the high speeds they provide to offer cloud computing with revenue generating ads. All it takes is for ATT/Comcast/Time Warner to see a threat to their monopoly and they will be real quick to roll out all those speeds/services that they say are 'impossible' right now.

[jesmu84]

It's not mentioned in the blog post, but ATT is now planning on rolling out a fiber optic line in Austin as well. I agree that Google may not be able to roll this out nationwide, but they do have one signficant advantage - diversification.

ATT has to garner all their revenue (in the ISP division) through monthly fees/subscriptions. Google has a more diversified product line and could use the high speeds they provide to offer cloud computing with revenue generating ads. All it takes is for ATT/Comcast/Time Warner to see a threat to their monopoly and they will be real quick to roll out all those speeds/services that they say are 'impossible' right now.

This. The more people that Google can get online, and stay online, and do more online generates more profit for Google. So it's really only a benefit for them to be doing Google Fiber and pushing the Telcos to do more.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Google's gonna look awfully dumb when North Korea nukes Austin.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/google-fibers-next-stop-austin-texas.html

Remebering with sweet fondness the time that Chicos told me Google Fiber would not expand beyond KC because of cost restrictions.
For those of us not enamoured with the current model of media/internet distribution, this is good news.

At the time, that was their plans.  Things change.  I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here.  Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue.  You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.  

[jesmu84]

At the time, that was their plans.  Things change.  I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here.  Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue.  You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.  

For me, when talking about Google Fiber, it's not about content cost. It's about internet cost. It's about data caps. It's about tiered pricing. It's just ridiculous.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For me, when talking about Google Fiber, it's not about content cost. It's about internet cost. It's about data caps. It's about tiered pricing. It's just ridiculous.

This stuff isn't free and as people continue to hog bandwidth resources, what are these companies supposed to do?  If it means Johnny next door is consuming so much porn that he's hurting my bandwidth downstream and upstream rate, damn right I want some caps just to insure I'm getting what I paid for.

[reinko]

I am too dumb to know why, but how does the US, have the 33rd rank in fastest Internet?

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

Geographic size?  Lack of federal investment or federal regulation on bandwidth?  Large interweb companies not investing in frastructure? 

[jesmu84]

This stuff isn't free and as people continue to hog bandwidth resources, what are these companies supposed to do?  If it means Johnny next door is consuming so much porn that he's hurting my bandwidth downstream and upstream rate, damn right I want some caps just to insure I'm getting what I paid for.

You're right, it isn't free. And I'm not asking it to be (though Google does offer basic for free + construction costs). But if Google can offer 1GB/s (1024MB/s) for the same price as Uverse 24MB/s, something is seriously screwed up with the current providers/telecoms. That's 50x the speed for about the same price!! ($70 vs $66).

[jesmu84]

I am too dumb to know why, but how does the US, have the 33rd rank in fastest Internet?

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

Geographic size?  Lack of federal investment or federal regulation on bandwidth?  Large interweb companies not investing in frastructure? 

Some answers here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/why-japan-is-eating-ameri_b_62608.html

But some is outdated.

[🏀]

When a Walmart is built, they have to pay for the improvements to the local streets, intersections and sewer system.

It should also be that large companies that consume local bandwidth need to pay to start upgrading that infrastructure as well.

[akmarq]

At the time, that was their plans.  Things change.  I don't know why you think it's good news, content is still ultimately at issue here.  Technology delivery, as I said then, isn't the issue...it's the cost of the content which the content companies (Disney, NewsCorp, NBC Universal, HBO, etc) control which is the issue.  You seem to think this is going to lower content costs.  

I think it's good news because introducing more competition into the market is going to improve connections and/or bring down prices for people - this is good news regardless of what happens on the content side.

Where this makes a difference in content though is that it opens up the possiblility for new technologies/services. When you have substantially faster internet, the viability of multiple streams on one connection (try streaming 3 netflix movies at once on one connection w/o buffering - good luck) and new ways to deliver content expands. Netflix already has their second original series in the pipeline and House of Cards is getting at least one more season, showing that it's not just the traditional players who can create content anymore. The only kind of content this DOESN'T really affect is sports, which I don't worry too much about because I really only watch MUBB, Mariners baseball (MLBTV) and Football (mostly available over broadcast).

I know you are 'in the game' and so I do defer to you on a lot of the details on how this works. That being said, sometimes I think your being 'in the game' leaves you a little myopic to what could change. I'm still confident that we haven't seen the full impact of the 'cord cutting' movement because the demographics most likely to do so have only recently gotten old enough to be market participants. There reaches a point where the demand for new content delivery systems will create a viable supplier. Google seems to well positioned to get into that game. Despite your instistance that they won't, HBO is looking hard at their options for HBO GO as a subscription service.

As for your predictions that Google Fiber would only be in KC, you're hedging your bets awefully hard. As I read it, your position was "they won't expand." Then when they expanded it became "they changed their plans." Well, with all due respect, duh. That's like me saying 'Blue does not declare for the draft' and then, when he does (hypothetically), saying 'I wasn't wrong. He just changed his plans.'

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think it's good news because introducing more competition into the market is going to improve connections and/or bring down prices for people - this is good news regardless of what happens on the content side.

Where this makes a difference in content though is that it opens up the possiblility for new technologies/services. When you have substantially faster internet, the viability of multiple streams on one connection (try streaming 3 netflix movies at once on one connection w/o buffering - good luck) and new ways to deliver content expands. Netflix already has their second original series in the pipeline and House of Cards is getting at least one more season, showing that it's not just the traditional players who can create content anymore. The only kind of content this DOESN'T really affect is sports, which I don't worry too much about because I really only watch MUBB, Mariners baseball (MLBTV) and Football (mostly available over broadcast).

I know you are 'in the game' and so I do defer to you on a lot of the details on how this works. That being said, sometimes I think your being 'in the game' leaves you a little myopic to what could change. I'm still confident that we haven't seen the full impact of the 'cord cutting' movement because the demographics most likely to do so have only recently gotten old enough to be market participants. There reaches a point where the demand for new content delivery systems will create a viable supplier. Google seems to well positioned to get into that game. Despite your instistance that they won't, HBO is looking hard at their options for HBO GO as a subscription service.

As for your predictions that Google Fiber would only be in KC, you're hedging your bets awefully hard. As I read it, your position was "they won't expand." Then when they expanded it became "they changed their plans." Well, with all due respect, duh. That's like me saying 'Blue does not declare for the draft' and then, when he does (hypothetically), saying 'I wasn't wrong. He just changed his plans.'

My position was based on what they had stated, they weren't going to go any further.  It's not profitable for them.  As recently as September, 2012, they said they weren't expanding.  Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day.  The cost outlays for FIOS and UVERSE right now are enormous, same for Google....they're basically doing it on the huge margins they make on wireless to pay to run fiber all over the place.  About $7,000 drop for FIOS to the home....that's a payback of years, but when their wireless margins are where they are, it gives them room to lose money elsewhere in their hopes of gaining marketshare.

I don't think I'm being myopic, I look at the data everyday.  Is cord cutting there?  Yes.  Is it what some chicken littles want it to be?  Not close.  Could that change?  Of course.   The technology isn't really the issue, there are lots of delivery systems, though full IP delivery is still many years down the road to be able to support multiple streams into the house with multiple different options all in the same neighborhood.  The issue remains cost of content.  ESPN, HBO, CBS, VIACOM, etc, etc need massive revenues to produce content, buy sports rights, etc. Without those revenues, Game of Thrones isn't created, Monday Night Football doesn't happen, etc.  So ESPN, for example, isn't going to trade taking $5 per subscriber per month from 88% of pay tv subs in exchange for $5 per month per subsciber from someone going direct via a la carte....for the simple reason that though the $$ are the same, the volume would be cut by 50% if not more....suddenly forcing them to charge $10 to $15 per month. That's the piece that has to be solved.

In the meantime, most of us are getting into the "cord cutting" alternative game anyway.  So you cut the cord from Comcast and you buy from XYZ service which is owned by.....Comcast.

Interesting times.

[Coleman]

Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day.  

Google has had a pretty significant presence in Austin for a while. Its a tech hub, probably the biggest outside of Silicon Valley. Its not like they introduced Google Fiber in Alabama or Kentucky simply because they have low taxes. Google is oozing cash, I'm sure Texas' taxes are nice but that's not why they are there. I'm sure its part of their larger strategy to rule the world...

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/04/google-fiber-not-in-your-town/

[akmarq]

My position was based on what they had stated, they weren't going to go any further.  It's not profitable for them.  As recently as September, 2012, they said they weren't expanding.  Maybe Texas is luring them in with amazing tax incentives...oh the irony that would be with some of the folks that run Google, but I'll leave that for another day.  The cost outlays for FIOS and UVERSE right now are enormous, same for Google....they're basically doing it on the huge margins they make on wireless to pay to run fiber all over the place.  About $7,000 drop for FIOS to the home....that's a payback of years, but when their wireless margins are where they are, it gives them room to lose money elsewhere in their hopes of gaining marketshare.

I don't think I'm being myopic, I look at the data everyday.  Is cord cutting there?  Yes.  Is it what some chicken littles want it to be?  Not close.  Could that change?  Of course.   The technology isn't really the issue, there are lots of delivery systems, though full IP delivery is still many years down the road to be able to support multiple streams into the house with multiple different options all in the same neighborhood.  The issue remains cost of content.  ESPN, HBO, CBS, VIACOM, etc, etc need massive revenues to produce content, buy sports rights, etc. Without those revenues, Game of Thrones isn't created, Monday Night Football doesn't happen, etc.  So ESPN, for example, isn't going to trade taking $5 per subscriber per month from 88% of pay tv subs in exchange for $5 per month per subsciber from someone going direct via a la carte....for the simple reason that though the $$ are the same, the volume would be cut by 50% if not more....suddenly forcing them to charge $10 to $15 per month. That's the piece that has to be solved.

In the meantime, most of us are getting into the "cord cutting" alternative game anyway.  So you cut the cord from Comcast and you buy from XYZ service which is owned by.....Comcast.

Interesting times.

Appreciate the well thought out response. Is the data you're looking at industry provided stuff or is there a good place to get public-domain numbers on subscriptions, connections, etc?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Google has had a pretty significant presence in Austin for a while. Its a tech hub, probably the biggest outside of Silicon Valley. Its not like they introduced Google Fiber in Alabama or Kentucky simply because they have low taxes. Google is oozing cash, I'm sure Texas' taxes are nice but that's not why they are there. I'm sure its part of their larger strategy to rule the world...

They are definitely sitting on a lot of cash, though a bunch of us are.  As the article I linked this morning shows, the cost is just enormous for them to do this which is why in September they said they had no plans beyond their "project" of KC.  We'll see how much further they push this, but the ROI on it is really tough.

[Spotcheck Billy]

They are definitely sitting on a lot of cash, though a bunch of us are. 

then D* should cut my bill or give me the HR-44 for free 

[ChicosBailBonds]

then D* should cut my bill or give me the HR-44 for free 

We have three satellites to launch in the next 2 years...that's going to cost LOTS of money, but it will also deliver about 100 additional HD channels, 4K, etc. 

If you need a HR44, send me a PM

[muwarrior69]

We have Cablevision and FIOS in our town. Since Cablevision had the monopoly prior to FIOS you can get it anywhere in our town. FIOS is only available where the fiberoptic cable can be run above ground. If your in a development where all your utilities are underground FIOS is not available due to the additional expenditures. I'll be long gone before FIOS comes to my house.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Appreciate the well thought out response. Is the data you're looking at industry provided stuff or is there a good place to get public-domain numbers on subscriptions, connections, etc?

Industry stuff that costs lots of money to get, unfortunately.

[jesmu84]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Eh-Google-Fiber-Is-No-Big-Deal-123847

Yes, it's a opinionated, low brow blog. But it does reference some responses by companies that show that, HOPEFULLY, change will occur sooner rather than later.

[chapman]

I for one welcome our Google overlords.