Whether they succeed or not with Fiber, whether it expands to every American city or not and whether they get sued because of antitrust laws (which I don't believe they will), the fact is that they're changing the status quo. Even only scaring the telecom companies enough for them to offer decent plans is a win for Google AND for the customer.<p>Sure Google pursues its own commercial goals but in the end it benefits the customer as well. I personally think they will succeed, will sign up as soon as it's available in my city and believe what they're doing is great for the future of the 'net.<p>The biggest selling point here (in Canada) would probably not even be the speed (about 40 times faster than whatever else we can get) but the unlimited bandwidth. As opposed to the USA (I think) we have very aggressive bandwidth caps up here. Try consuming anything with a 30Gb/month limit, especially when your ISP charges a few cents per subsequent Mb without telling you until you get your bill. You'd be welcoming an alternative like Fiber as well.
There's always been a touch of Willy Wonka style unreality about Google Fiber.<p>Municipalities across the U.S. know that their broadband sucks, and they wrote proposals to Google in lieu of real action, hoping Google could solve their problems with their magic wand.<p>Google still has a "non-evil" and academic reputation in some quarters, although anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that Google is the most dangerous and rapacious company on the net. People think, for instance, that Google is a noble warrior against web spam, although Google sustains web spam by (i) being the only signficant source of traffic for many site types, and (ii) making it possible to monetize crappy content. In fact, Google has gained "question answering" capabilities in the last few years thanks to web spam farms run by companies like eHow.<p>What gets me is that, in a time where the world is overflowing with capital (signified by low interest rates and general low investment returns) both the private and public sectors in the U.S. seem completely indifferent to investments in infrastructure.<p>(And why should they? Telecom companies can make minimal investments in infrastructure and charge champagne prices for beer products.)<p>Google steps in because, like Microsoft, they've got a small number of wildly profitable products and an inability to use the profits from those products to create new products of comparable profitability.<p>This is good for Kansas City, but it's one of just a long list of distractions, such as snake oil fixed wireless schemes for rural access, that have stood in the way of a real national plan for broadband U.S.
Google's core business is advertising. Google likes to do stuff with the data that passes through its systems. Google has explicitly and pro-actively taken sides in fight against copyright violations instead of remaining a neutral party.<p>And they've been less than steadfast on Net Neutrality, which is a big red flag for a company that wants to be an ISP.<p>This is not about Google being "evil", but I do not want a company with that mindset and those interests to be my ISP. It's going to be very tough, if not impossible to separate those.<p>I know this is already common practice in the US, with many of the major (cable) ISP's being part of companies that having a direct stake in copyright exploitation, advertising etcetera.<p>So ask yourself: how's that working out for you so far? Would Google really be any better?
Sorry for the weak pun, but I really couldn't help myself: I wish the title had been "Why Google is an acceptable ISP".<p>Apropos of the article, I'm increasingly unconvinced that free markets work well enough when they're dealing with infrastructure--roads, train lines, phone lines--that have an expensive one-off set-up cost and then a larger cost of switching while the original provider attempts to recoup the set-up subsidy. Certainly Britain's experience with train lines, and the US's existing telco network, among others, seems to demonstrate that it doesn't tend towards a free market. (Compare, of all places, Somalia's mobile network, which is thriving--at least relatively, for a country that's been in a civil war for two decades-- in the absence of a set-up cost).
If I were a potential customer, my biggest fear would be customer service. There is a track record of no-human-contact service disabling; especially with "free" products.<p>If Google shuts down an ad-sense account for perceived violation without good justification or interaction, how can I expect them not to do the same with my internet for an unjust DMCA complaint?
Let's take a poll: How many people here understand that Google is doing this because Internet connections are a complement of your personal data, which they would like to monetize, and not out of the goodness of their hearts?
> It gets better: For people that don’t need a super-fast connection, Google is offering a 5Mbps connection for free — yes, free. If Google Fiber expands, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case, but it could totally upset the market for entry-level broadband. Even the “catch” isn’t that much of a catch. Google is planning on charging a one-time $300 fee to run the fiber to each residence, but if you opt for a contract, the fee is waived. Free accounts will have to pay the installation fee, unfortunately.<p>Free for 7 years. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's still relevant.
I really hope they succeed or at least stay in the game long enough to make a difference. Remember the Verizon "open" ads a while ago when ATT was kicking their butt with the iPhone? Android came along and they quickly shoved the open thing under the rug. Nothing changed in the wireless world except for the visual voice mail aspect. The current players in the wired internet market do not have competition. All they are interested in is making commercials and getting more customers. Google would be a swift kick in the butt for comcast and others. They will be forced to improve.
Once this gets rolled out to more cities, this will certainly be looked back as a disruptive product in the home internet market. Google is well-placed to destroy the traditional ISPs.<p>Google Fiber: come to Canada please!
You know what'll make google the best ISP? The fact is they only care about getting you online and keeping you there, which is much different to most ISPs who only care about you <i>paying</i>. As long as you've paid that month, why bother when you're offline for a day or two?<p>Plus I bet they'll have the best first line techs.
A company <i>like</i> Google could make a better ISP, but to cheer a growing internet monopoly just seems ridiculous.<p>> Free internet at today's average speeds<p>> $300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and fees<p>Google is going full circle. I wonder if the cost for Google to give internet to people who didn't otherwise have it (and at no charge to them) actually paid dividends very soon because that person is going to immediately generate new revenue for google from the inevitable use of Google/adwords. I think John D. Rockefeller would tip his hat, tbh.