how do they plan to give everyone up to 1Gbit/s? it would require major infrastructure changes in most countries and or cities.
also, i dunno if i like the idea of google being the owner of my internet connection...
Ya my guess is Google will pay for it mostly off adds from the personal information you send over the net.
But all the ISPs do this anyway.
DNS crypt and https everywhere try to spy on my internet bitches.
Right now I am happy with the 15/5Mbps connection I get with FIOS, no 2 year agreement, a decent fee of 50$ a month or something like that and its pretty fast, not the fastest, but still better than DSL, way better. If I can get a job soon, although not next month because of marching band I will Pay my parents to up it to 75/35Mbps for an extra what, $30? although I would kill for 1Gbps...
It varies depending on your area and what plan you have.
Even still, $300 for 1Gbps (considering the state of the US market) is actually an incredible deal. Comcast's $300 plan is only 50Mbps.
Doesn't Verizon FIOS Charge 300$ for 300/65Mbps?
Edit: I think they charge less, also I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity charges around 150$ for 50Mbps, at least in my area.
Doesn't Verizon FIOS Charge 300$ for 300/65Mbps?
Edit: I think they charge less, also I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity charges around 150$ for 50Mbps, at least in my area.
Again, it depends on your area, and what plan you were forced onto.
Just internet for us would have been $500/mo, so they forced us onto the phone/cable/internet (two of which we don't use at all and one of which isn't even hooked up) for $220.
We don't have anything but comcast here, verizon is ~10 miles away but they stopped expanding their network.
I've gone over this multiple times in other threads so I'll leave it at that.
Even still, you need to remember. $300 for 1Gbps is ridiculous. FiOS charging $300 for 300Mbps is one thing, but this is almost 3.5x that! And you can be sure that google fiber will likely have a higher upload as well.
Edit:
Looks like the 1Gbps line will be $70/mo or so.
They will also have a free tier ($0/mo) for old people/people who just need basic internet at 5Mbps.
The fact that that second option even exists both excites and infuriates me. It means:
Bandwidth is actually not anywhere near as clogged nor as expensive as the ISPs are saying, meaning this is pretty much proof (as if we needed any as is) that they are overcharging people to hell and back.
We won't have people paying $200 for a basic internet plan.
Edit:
Looks like the 1Gbps line will be $70/mo or so.
They will also have a free tier ($0/mo) for old people/people who just need basic internet at 5Mbps.
The fact that that second option even exists both excites and infuriates me. It means:
Bandwidth is actually not anywhere near as clogged nor as expensive as the ISPs are saying, meaning this is pretty much proof (as if we needed any as is) that they are overcharging people to hell and back.
We won't have people paying $200 for a basic internet plan.
The way i see it:
Google is a huge corporation pulling in huge, and I mean huge amounts of money already, they can afford to loose some money to a free internet service, they can just use Youtube's revenue or whatever to pay the fiber installers.
Verizon/Comcast are still big but not as big as Google, on top of that they have far more people that install/operate the services across the country, not just one small location, so they need more money to pay the employees.
Google is a huge corporation pulling in huge, and I mean huge amounts of money already, they can afford to loose some money to a free internet service, they can just use Youtube's revenue or whatever to pay the fiber installers.
Youtube hasn't generated google much in profit in a very, very, very, very long time. It is still having more videos uploaded to it than there is space on their servers. Hence why it takes upwards of an hour (or more) sometimes for a video to process. They still make some money, but not nearly as much as people would think. Honestly, the smartest decision business wise for google would be to get rid of youtube, but they seem to have plans for it and/or just generally like having a site like that.
Google has a lot of money, but they don't have nearly enough to do this kind of thing if statements by comcast/etc. were true. Remember now, they were quoting ~$140,000,000 just to get fiber into 1 city. If you do a bit of math, google's investment if that price were true would not pay off in the slightest, even in a timespan of 10-20 years.
Verizon/Comcast are still big but not as big as Google, on top of that they have far more people that install/operate the services across the country, not just one small location, so they need more money to pay the employees.
That is the thing though, they don't need to be as big as google. They already have similar amounts of money running through there.
You have to remember that they have been blatantly lying about all of the costs/etc for over a decade now (to the point where people in the field/engineers called them out on it and they "modified" their statements).
YouTube doesn't make money from videos, they make money from advertising. It doesn't matter if their servers are at capacity or their infrastructure is struggling, the sheer volume of traffic they get is immense, and traffic = revenue.
Traffic also causes bandwidth, which is very expensive, as is storage.
I can't find the link but last I recall their total profit from youtube in 2010 was something like $1.3mil. Considering how much it costs in upkeep, they aren't making much money at all in comparison.
Funny how google (and some other ISPs) make steps towards having 1Gbps in extremely select places when most people living in the country side have to deal with <5mbps... Hopefully they will remake the whole networks... I'd prefer every person having internet acces to have a constant 10/5 or so than less than 1M people having 1000/1000 and all the others having 1/0.1
how do they plan to give everyone up to 1Gbit/s? it would require major infrastructure changes in most countries and or cities.
also, i dunno if i like the idea of google being the owner of my internet connection...
Yeah, I addressed (well, mentioned) some of these concerns in a reddit post, lemme repost it here:
• There are numerous privacy concerns with having Google as your ISP.
• A gigabit isn't necessary, and is extremely difficult to use. More on this below:
Why?
• Content servers are throttled to maintain a stable experience for all users.
• Most content servers are on 100mbps lines, some may be on 1gbps lines, thus they cannot sustain large amounts of downloads. Very, very few servers are on 10gbps lines, as those are expensive and require large RAID arrays or SSDs to feed data fast enough.
• Speaking of data, your hard drive is going to be a little strained, trying to write at 1gbps (125MB/s).
• 1gbps botnet slaves are bad news. VERY bad news.
• Even multiple HD video streams cannot even start to saturate this line. The only thing that comes close is compressed 4K video, but that's nowhere near consumer-ready (we're talking 5-10 years at least before it'll be in a state that consumers can use).
• While a 1gbps upload would be nice for backup purposes, in reality, your backup server isn't going to be able to accept 1gbps of incoming data.
Now, before you downvote me... I'm just telling people that 1gbps isn't something that we're ready for. Yeah, it's cool, but other than being able to show off a fast upload speed to your friends, you can't do much with it. Yes, I have practical experience with fast connections, the dedicated server I rent to run my gameserver on has a 1gbps line, and while it's quite a bit of fun to play with, it's utterly useless from a consumer standpoint. Even I don't saturate it most of the time, except when I get attacked with large amounts of traffic (DDoS attacks are a pain to deal with as a gameserver operator, a gigabit makes them much easier to deal with).
also, are they truely delivering Fiber to your home. (and i mean truly to your home, with a fiber router port) or do they deliver it to the demarc / punchdown block?
if they deliver it to the demarc, its going to give you that 2 meter of copper that is going to be a huge bottleneck.
edit: also, what will this network box do except being an ISR? it would be really "useful" for google to have user data being transferred to them to use. (something cisco tried doing on consumer ISR"s with cloud connect)
Afaik, it's directly to your house.
Network box is a router/modem combo if I remember correctly. User data would either be captured on it, or back at Google's office (wait, what do you call a building where the ISP connects to the backbone? was there a term for this?).
Again, it depends on your area, and what plan you were forced onto.
Just internet for us would have been $500/mo, so they forced us onto the phone/cable/internet (two of which we don't use at all and one of which isn't even hooked up) for $220.
We don't have anything but comcast here, verizon is ~10 miles away but they stopped expanding their network.
I've gone over this multiple times in other threads so I'll leave it at that.
Even still, you need to remember. $300 for 1Gbps is ridiculous. FiOS charging $300 for 300Mbps is one thing, but this is almost 3.5x that! And you can be sure that google fiber will likely have a higher upload as well.
Edit:
Looks like the 1Gbps line will be $70/mo or so.
They will also have a free tier ($0/mo) for old people/people who just need basic internet at 5Mbps.
The fact that that second option even exists both excites and infuriates me. It means:
Bandwidth is actually not anywhere near as clogged nor as expensive as the ISPs are saying, meaning this is pretty much proof (as if we needed any as is) that they are overcharging people to hell and back.
We won't have people paying $200 for a basic internet plan.
Bandwidth is expensive, Google is taking a huge loss on this network. Most ISPs aren't willing to take massive losses on it. From what I've seen, $300 for 1gbps seems to be what most ISPs charge, and those ones are making a profit on it.
Bandwidth isn't all that expensive, and the relative cost becomes exponentially lower as your traffic increases.
Google have never released profit figures for YouTube, but they did state that their annual profits doubled in 2010. And considering the amounts of advertising revenue some of the top YouTube Partners are being estimated at, I think it's fair to assume that $1.3m in annual profit is rather far from the mark.
Go try to buy some bandwidth direct. It's fairly cheap, but not enough that Google's pricing is going to make them profit.
backbone bandwith is expensive. especially if you want to have the "critical" uptime of 99,999%. The relative cost can increase if the amount of traffic increases (especially if a network is not designed to be expandable easily)
Yeah, my bet is that they'll do an unusually high level of overselling (much more than other ISPs, since nobody will be using all of their line), and keep the backbone as basic as possible. Probably using cheap transit.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
No, not all the ISPs do that. Google as an ISP worries me greatly, they are well known for being careless with privacy.
Please find me one ISP that does not log your traffic information for at least a month.
Time Warner Cable
Time Warner informed us that they store IP-address logs for up to 6 months.
Interestingly, the company is the only ISP we contacted that also posts information regarding its data retention on its website. Comcast
Comcast did not respond to our inquiries but has mentioned a 180 day retention policy for IP-addresses in BitTorrent-related court documents. On some occasions cases have been dismissed because logs were no longer available, meaning that alleged infringers could not be identified.
The 180 day policy is also mentioned in the Comcast Law Enforcement Handbook that leaked in 2007. Verizon
Verizon’s Privacy Office informed TorrentFreak by email that information about IP address assignments is retained for 18 months, the longest of all ISPs who responded to our request. Qwest/Century
The Qwest/CenturyLink Law Enforcement Support Group informed us that IP-address logs are kept for approximately 1 year. As is also the case with other Internet Providers, Qwest/Century noted that personal details are only disclosed when the company receives a subpoena. Cox
Cox failed to reply to our inquiry, but previously it has mentioned a 6 month retention policy for IP-address assignments in the press. In Cox’s “Lawful Intercept Worksheet” the company also mentions that logs are kept for “up to 6 months.” AT&T
AT&T’s IP-address logging practices are not public. Initially the company did not reply to out inquiry, but upon publishing AT&T’s Privacy Policy Team promised to get back to us as soon as they find out how long logs are kept. We will update this article as soon as their response arrives. Charter
Charter lists no information about their IP-address retention in its privacy policy. However, a reader alerted us to an answer on Charter’s website where it states that residential IP-addresses are retained for one year.
also, what interfaces does the network box have? what kind of interface is used to supply the 1Gbit?. will the fiber go straight into the network box? because cable will not reach 1Gbit speeds and ethernet is not suitable for long distances that the WAN link has to travel to a switch box or PoP.
Aha, the PoP, I had forgotten about that name. Thanks.
Here's the pic I posted earlier of it.
I'd imagine it'll have a fiber port, a gigabit ethernet port (maybe 2-4 of them), and a power connection.
Fiber will go straight to the network box as far as I remember, but Google didn't really say much about that.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Please find me one ISP that does not log your traffic information for at least a month.
Time Warner Cable
Time Warner informed us that they store IP-address logs for up to 6 months.
Interestingly, the company is the only ISP we contacted that also posts information regarding its data retention on its website.
Comcast
Comcast did not respond to our inquiries but has mentioned a 180 day retention policy for IP-addresses in BitTorrent-related court documents. On some occasions cases have been dismissed because logs were no longer available, meaning that alleged infringers could not be identified.
The 180 day policy is also mentioned in the Comcast Law Enforcement Handbook that leaked in 2007.
Verizon
Verizon’s Privacy Office informed TorrentFreak by email that information about IP address assignments is retained for 18 months, the longest of all ISPs who responded to our request.
Qwest/Century
The Qwest/CenturyLink Law Enforcement Support Group informed us that IP-address logs are kept for approximately 1 year. As is also the case with other Internet Providers, Qwest/Century noted that personal details are only disclosed when the company receives a subpoena.
Cox
Cox failed to reply to our inquiry, but previously it has mentioned a 6 month retention policy for IP-address assignments in the press. In Cox’s “Lawful Intercept Worksheet” the company also mentions that logs are kept for “up to 6 months.”
AT&T
AT&T’s IP-address logging practices are not public. Initially the company did not reply to out inquiry, but upon publishing AT&T’s Privacy Policy Team promised to get back to us as soon as they find out how long logs are kept. We will update this article as soon as their response arrives.
Charter
Charter lists no information about their IP-address retention in its privacy policy. However, a reader alerted us to an answer on Charter’s website where it states that residential IP-addresses are retained for one year.
Logging isn't the issue. Google will use this information for targeted advertising, and maybe even sell it to third parties. All ISPs keep logs for the feds to use, those logs aren't sold to marketers or used for targeted advertising.
To sign up for Fiber, users will be asked to provide an existing Google Account or to create a new one. You may be asked to provide additional personal information, such as billing address, service address or location, or bank account information when you sign up for Fiber.
We may also obtain and use information about our Fiber users from outside sources for marketing purposes (such as commercially available demographic, geographic, or interest information).
All information we collect about the use of Google Fiber TV (including use of programs and applications available through Google Fiber TV) may be associated with the Google Account being used for Google Fiber TV.
Technical information collected from the use of Google Fiber Internet for network management, security or maintenance may be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, but such information associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber will not be used by other Google properties without your consent. Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google except in the circumstances (such as with your consent, with domain administrators, for external processing and for legal reasons) as more fully set out in the Google Privacy Policy.
We may share non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like content providers, publishers, advertisers or connected sites.
Read through the lines I quoted, maybe you'll understand now while I'm worried about privacy.
is there any information about this being "locked in"? like. will you be able to use a different router with google fiber? or is there some kind of authentification going on, which will only allow you to acces the network and internet through the network box?
Sorry, I have no clue. Please tell me if you find out!
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
I am a bit worried about the privacy thing. But cox has been good to me the past few months, better than previous months. It's been giving me the advertised download speed and a bit extra in upload speed.
All this when I'd kill for a 5Mb/s line with decent latency.
Them bastards at Verizon have a line a few hundred yards away and outright refused to expand it ANY. The place I worked for was across the street from the same line and tried to deal with them. Verizon refused again.
Well, I'd kill for a 5Mb connection. That's probably what you meant anyway though. 5MB is 40Mb. Uppercase "B" is megabytes, lowercase "b" is megabits, and a byte is 8 bits.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between a bit and a byte... I've had multiple computer science class, and I've been programing since 2010.
My current connect(over satellite), when the stars align, will get up to 2.2Mb/s(Yes, bits)(that doesn't
make up for the god awful latency, and majority of the time at .35Mb/s or less). When that happens I can usually stream 360p YouTube video well enough. I assume with twice that I'd be able stream 360p at a decent rate. If I had decent pings I might even be able to play an game online! How wonderful that would be!
Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between a bit and a byte... I've had multiple computer science class, and I've been programing since 2010.
My current connect(over satellite), when the stars align, will get up to 2.2Mb/s(Yes, bits)(that doesn't
make up for the god awful latency, and majority of the time at .35Mb/s or less). When that happens I can usually stream 360p YouTube video well enough. I assume with twice that I'd be able stream 360p at a decent rate. If I had decent pings I might even be able to play an game online! How wonderful that would be!
Does it record it actually or just store it on the Internet?
I am assuming it integrates with play and that kinda kills off the use of the Nexus Q.
Does it use the internet bandwidth over fiber?
I guess the Nexus Q would be more for people who aren't in the Kansas city area to get some of the features.
Ya my guess is Google will pay for it mostly off adds from the personal information you send over the net.
But all the ISPs do this anyway.
DNS crypt and https everywhere try to spy on my internet bitches.
A boring, flat, land locked state.
You'd need internet like that to distract from how terribly uninteresting your region is.
Its not only in Kansas its in Kansas city it spans two states.
Ocean sucks anyway and its not actually flat most of its pretty hilly.
Better then the deep south.
$220/mo.
It varies depending on your area and what plan you have.
Even still, $300 for 1Gbps (considering the state of the US market) is actually an incredible deal. Comcast's $300 plan is only 50Mbps.
Doesn't Verizon FIOS Charge 300$ for 300/65Mbps?
Edit: I think they charge less, also I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity charges around 150$ for 50Mbps, at least in my area.
Just internet for us would have been $500/mo, so they forced us onto the phone/cable/internet (two of which we don't use at all and one of which isn't even hooked up) for $220.
We don't have anything but comcast here, verizon is ~10 miles away but they stopped expanding their network.
I've gone over this multiple times in other threads so I'll leave it at that.
Even still, you need to remember. $300 for 1Gbps is ridiculous. FiOS charging $300 for 300Mbps is one thing, but this is almost 3.5x that! And you can be sure that google fiber will likely have a higher upload as well.
Edit:
Looks like the 1Gbps line will be $70/mo or so.
They will also have a free tier ($0/mo) for old people/people who just need basic internet at 5Mbps.
The fact that that second option even exists both excites and infuriates me. It means:
Google is a huge corporation pulling in huge, and I mean huge amounts of money already, they can afford to loose some money to a free internet service, they can just use Youtube's revenue or whatever to pay the fiber installers.
Verizon/Comcast are still big but not as big as Google, on top of that they have far more people that install/operate the services across the country, not just one small location, so they need more money to pay the employees.
Google has a lot of money, but they don't have nearly enough to do this kind of thing if statements by comcast/etc. were true. Remember now, they were quoting ~$140,000,000 just to get fiber into 1 city. If you do a bit of math, google's investment if that price were true would not pay off in the slightest, even in a timespan of 10-20 years.
That is the thing though, they don't need to be as big as google. They already have similar amounts of money running through there.
You have to remember that they have been blatantly lying about all of the costs/etc for over a decade now (to the point where people in the field/engineers called them out on it and they "modified" their statements).
Yes, but next to nobody knows this.
I can't find the link but last I recall their total profit from youtube in 2010 was something like $1.3mil. Considering how much it costs in upkeep, they aren't making much money at all in comparison.
Everyone with a basic knowledge of anything related to computers would know this.
Mb, MB and MiB are three different units.
Yeah, nobody focuses on rural areas
Yeah, I addressed (well, mentioned) some of these concerns in a reddit post, lemme repost it here:
No, not all the ISPs do that. Google as an ISP worries me greatly, they are well known for being careless with privacy.
Afaik, it's directly to your house.
Network box is a router/modem combo if I remember correctly. User data would either be captured on it, or back at Google's office (wait, what do you call a building where the ISP connects to the backbone? was there a term for this?).
Bandwidth is expensive, Google is taking a huge loss on this network. Most ISPs aren't willing to take massive losses on it. From what I've seen, $300 for 1gbps seems to be what most ISPs charge, and those ones are making a profit on it.
Yeah, but people will ignore this. It's a pity.
Go try to buy some bandwidth direct. It's fairly cheap, but not enough that Google's pricing is going to make them profit.
Yeah, my bet is that they'll do an unusually high level of overselling (much more than other ISPs, since nobody will be using all of their line), and keep the backbone as basic as possible. Probably using cheap transit.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Please find me one ISP that does not log your traffic information for at least a month.
Time Warner Cable
Time Warner informed us that they store IP-address logs for up to 6 months.
Interestingly, the company is the only ISP we contacted that also posts information regarding its data retention on its website.
Comcast
Comcast did not respond to our inquiries but has mentioned a 180 day retention policy for IP-addresses in BitTorrent-related court documents. On some occasions cases have been dismissed because logs were no longer available, meaning that alleged infringers could not be identified.
The 180 day policy is also mentioned in the Comcast Law Enforcement Handbook that leaked in 2007.
Verizon
Verizon’s Privacy Office informed TorrentFreak by email that information about IP address assignments is retained for 18 months, the longest of all ISPs who responded to our request.
Qwest/Century
The Qwest/CenturyLink Law Enforcement Support Group informed us that IP-address logs are kept for approximately 1 year. As is also the case with other Internet Providers, Qwest/Century noted that personal details are only disclosed when the company receives a subpoena.
Cox
Cox failed to reply to our inquiry, but previously it has mentioned a 6 month retention policy for IP-address assignments in the press. In Cox’s “Lawful Intercept Worksheet” the company also mentions that logs are kept for “up to 6 months.”
AT&T
AT&T’s IP-address logging practices are not public. Initially the company did not reply to out inquiry, but upon publishing AT&T’s Privacy Policy Team promised to get back to us as soon as they find out how long logs are kept. We will update this article as soon as their response arrives.
Charter
Charter lists no information about their IP-address retention in its privacy policy. However, a reader alerted us to an answer on Charter’s website where it states that residential IP-addresses are retained for one year.
Aha, the PoP, I had forgotten about that name. Thanks.
Here's the pic I posted earlier of it.
I'd imagine it'll have a fiber port, a gigabit ethernet port (maybe 2-4 of them), and a power connection.
Fiber will go straight to the network box as far as I remember, but Google didn't really say much about that.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Logging isn't the issue. Google will use this information for targeted advertising, and maybe even sell it to third parties. All ISPs keep logs for the feds to use, those logs aren't sold to marketers or used for targeted advertising.
Also, read this stuff from the TOS.
https://fiber.google.com/legal/privacy.html
Read through the lines I quoted, maybe you'll understand now while I'm worried about privacy.
Sorry, I have no clue. Please tell me if you find out!
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Them bastards at Verizon have a line a few hundred yards away and outright refused to expand it ANY. The place I worked for was across the street from the same line and tried to deal with them. Verizon refused again.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between a bit and a byte... I've had multiple computer science class, and I've been programing since 2010.
My current connect(over satellite), when the stars align, will get up to 2.2Mb/s(Yes, bits)(that doesn't
make up for the god awful latency, and majority of the time at .35Mb/s or less). When that happens I can usually stream 360p YouTube video well enough. I assume with twice that I'd be able stream 360p at a decent rate. If I had decent pings I might even be able to play an game online! How wonderful that would be!
That's... extremely sad (and slow).
The average consumer wouldn't know this.
My friend's dad: "I have a 40 megabyte per second internet connection!"
Me: "Ok, sure."
Which is why introductory computer science classes should mandatory in U.S. schools, not just that "how to use Microsoft Word" garbage.