Google Fiber

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
greyhound86's picture

I just saw the annoucement.  1 Gigabit per second internet connection for less than I’m paying for Fios now, and the option for free interenet at current speeds.  It’s only available in Kansas City right now, but I definitely think this is something to get excited about.  

https://fiber.google.com/about/

Analti_Calte_Equity's picture

it looks pretty awesome

did google have to put up a lot of money to build the infrastructure?

ACEaceAnaltiCalteEquityACEanalticalteequityACE

http://tinyurl.com/axn8cua

aceofheartscapitalmanagement@_____________

 

ZeroBonus's picture

I’ll be a customer in a heartbeat if and when they launch this in NY

They don’t really reveal much on how they can generate speeds this fast when current cable companies can’t.

greyhound86's picture

I don’t know for sure.  It looks like Google has been working on this for a while now.  I think a lot of the fiber optic infastrucutre already existed, but Google has to set up their systems to service the information flow from all the users.

bromion's picture

Interesting… you would think this would have been offered first in the Bay Area… not that I am biased or anything. Sounds amazing.

“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes

ohai's picture

ZeroBonus wrote:

I’ll be a customer in a heartbeat if and when they launch this in NY

They don’t really reveal much on how they can generate speeds this fast when current cable companies can’t.

Well, the name explains it right? Google is building fiber optic cables into Kansas City houses. Cable companies use normal cables, which are much slower. Google is probably going to take a big loss on this project - it’s really more of a jump start/experimental thing. Once this sort of thing becomes economically viable, I’m sure cable companies will become more interested.

“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”

ohai's picture

bromion wrote:

Interesting… you would think this would have been offered first in the Bay Area… not that I am biased or anything. Sounds amazing.

They did offer it in the Bay Area first! Kansas City is #2. It’s just that no one knows about these programs due to the very small scale. 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/26/google-brings-ultra-fast-internet-to-homes-near-stanford/

“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”

greyhound86's picture

Apparently there were a few different cities trying to be the test subject for this.  I would imagine that they picked a smaller place on purpose so 1) they would be able to better manage their client base and 2) so if the whole thing blows up the event is a little more isolated.

In reference to number 2, when I lived in Indiana as kid the McDonalds there would test out all of there new items.  If bombed chances are no one else ever heard about it.  Obviously a little different with an internet company like Google, but still applicable.

higgmond's picture

ZeroBonus wrote:

I’ll be a customer in a heartbeat if and when they launch this in NY

They don’t really reveal much on how they can generate speeds this fast when current cable companies can’t.

I’m assuming they don’t have to reserve bandwidth for 1,005 cable channels, many of which are now HD and 3D.  This is an internet only service, right?

Verizon Fios is fiber to the house, but is coaxial inside the house.  I assume this is fiber directly to the modem.

EDIT:  Nevermind, took a closer look at the site and it is TV and internet.  Not sure why Verizon Fios wouldn’t be able to match the speed.

You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

Sweep the Leg's picture

Ah yes.  I’ll be able to travel the Internet 100x faster than you all!

And greyhound86, the Kansas City metro area is actually huge.  Originally Google was just going to lay fiber in Kansas City, KS.  When they realized that only criminals live in KCK they expanded it to the whole metro area.   

I’ll be sure to let you all know how much better my…movie…watching experience is.

greyhound86's picture

Sweep, I was worried my statement about Kansas City might be a bit off, but it does look like it’s about half the size of San Fran and significantly less than the New York metro area.  It sounds like KC will be a great test city though.  I really hope it works well and they start rolling it our all over.

1recho's picture

Why is Google after bandwidth?

They tried to bid for wireless bandwidth a while back but were rebuffed by Telcos. So now they are trying wireline. Maybe they could buy a lot of dark fiber left over from the dotcom boom.

If they succeed, they will control the hardware (tablet), the OS (Android), the browser (Chrome), the portal (Google search) and the conduit (fiber). All that will be left independently standing will be the servers (but wait till they offer Amazon-like cloud hosting) and content, which muppets will churn out for free.

Keep in mind and Google, Facebook, Wordpress, LinkedIn, YouTube etc will have zero valuation were it not for user-generated content. Their whig is enormous - users who make them popular, get paid nothing. Great business model.

Do no evil my ass.

--
One Rec Ho

ZeroBonus's picture

1recho wrote:

Keep in mind and Google, Facebook, Wordpress, LinkedIn, YouTube etc will have zero valuation were it not for user-generated content. Their whig is enormous - users who make them popular, get paid nothing. Great business model.

Keep in mind Walmart, Apple, Exxon, etc will have zero valuation were it not for people buying their product. It is ridiculous, people who buy their crap get paid nothing. Great business model

Black Swan's picture

I don’t think this is a good idea for them.  They’re moving outside their realm of focus and if successful will be strapped with having to staff a major maintainance team along with large amounts of capital and cable company like profit margins.  Just makes no sense to me, I don’t see the synergies.

I used to smoke pot and go to class.  

Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.  

Slink down low at my desk.  

Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.

I was the best teacher ever.

1recho's picture

ZeroBonus wrote:

Keep in mind Walmart, Apple, Exxon, etc will have zero valuation were it not for people buying their product. It is ridiculous, people who buy their crap get paid nothing. Great business model

Eh? Apple and Exxon make their own products. Walmart analogy might fit, but even they have to pay their suppliers. The Internet portals pay their suppliers nothing.

--
One Rec Ho

Sweep the Leg's picture

greyhound86 wrote:

Sweep, I was worried my statement about Kansas City might be a bit off, but it does look like it’s about half the size of San Fran and significantly less than the New York metro area.  It sounds like KC will be a great test city though.  I really hope it works well and they start rolling it our all over.

Nope.  The Kansas City metro area includes both KCK and KCMO, not to mention numerous suburbs.  The metro area is 7,952 sq mi.  San Fran is 3,524 and NY is only 468 sq miles.  Small compared to Anchorage though…over 26,000 square miles.

At any rate, Google is laying some serious pipe, or fiber.  And, they’re not hooking up the whole city by the launch date.  They’re going to do all of KCK and the core of KCMO, then it’ll be by neighborhood demand.  Neighborhoods will need 10% of households to commit before Google will connect them. 

greyhound86's picture

1recho wrote:

Keep in mind and Google, Facebook, Wordpress, LinkedIn, YouTube etc will have zero valuation were it not for user-generated content. Their whig is enormous - users who make them popular, get paid nothing. Great business model.

Do no evil my ass.

That is true, but the users also get the services for free.  The same could be said for Analyst Forum, and I think most of us are glad it’s here and agree that it’s useful… even if Chad doesn’t pay us for all the valuable information we provide on HCBs.

Sweep the Leg's picture

Also, Google is an advertising company.  I wouldn’t call what they do “user generated” in the least.

higgmond's picture

Black Swan wrote:

I don’t think this is a good idea for them.  They’re moving outside their realm of focus and if successful will be strapped with having to staff a major maintainance team along with large amounts of capital and cable company like profit margins.  Just makes no sense to me, I don’t see the synergies.

I guess they want to be the GE of the 21st century.

You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

ohai's picture

Depending on how you define it, Google does depend on “user generated” content. 95% of their revenue comes from Search. Without “user generated” websites, Search is useless. So, the growth of the internet is crucial to Google’s business. 

Of course, this does not mean that Google is “evil”. They provide a great service, and it’s free. Arguably, even the ads are a service to users. I want to see advertisements for products that might interest me based on Google’s information. 

As for why Google is buying up bandwidth… who knows. They say they want to keep the internet “free”, but there might be an ulterior motive. If you ask me though, they are just sitting on a big pile of cash, so when someone asks “why”, they just say “why not? Muaa ha ha haa”.

“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”

Black Swan's picture

ohai wrote:

Depending on how you define it, Google does depend on “user generated” content. 95% of their revenue comes from Search. Without “user generated” websites, Search is useless. So, the growth of the internet is crucial to Google’s business. 

Of course, this does not mean that Google is “evil”. They provide a great service, and it’s free. Arguably, even the ads are a service to users. I want to see advertisements for products that might interest me based on Google’s information. 

As for why Google is buying up bandwidth… who knows. They say they want to keep the internet “free”, but there might be an ulterior motive. If you ask me though, they are just sitting on a big pile of cash, so when someone asks “why”, they just say “why not? Muaa ha ha haa”.

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

I used to smoke pot and go to class.  

Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.  

Slink down low at my desk.  

Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.

I was the best teacher ever.

Alladin's picture

I think Google may want to be the frontrunner in the inevitable internet-television market

______________________________________________________

You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you

http://alphahive.wordpress.com/

Black Swan's picture

Alladin wrote:

I think Google may want to be the frontrunner in the inevitable internet-television market

Apple’s gonna be there with the devices.

I used to smoke pot and go to class.  

Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.  

Slink down low at my desk.  

Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.

I was the best teacher ever.

ohai's picture

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

That is the argument that some people make. It is also why Larry/Sergei only sell second tier shares to outside investors. They want to maintain control of the company so they can pursue ideological goals which might have no short term financial benefit. It doesn’t seem like outside investors really care - if they did, they would sell the stock. Google is a cash machine. As long as they keep making money, they can do whatever they want. 

“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”

ZeroBonus's picture

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

The death of a tech stock occurs when it announces its first dividend.

higgmond's picture

ohai wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

That is the argument that some people make. It is also why Larry/Sergei only sell second tier shares to outside investors. They want to maintain control of the company so they can pursue ideological goals which might have no short term financial benefit. It doesn’t seem like outside investors really care - if they did, they would sell the stock. Google is a cash machine. As long as they keep making money, they can do whatever they want. 

I have not read the book, but I recently attended a luncheon where the keynote speaker was the author of “The Idea Factory:  Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation”.  One of the things he pointed out was that the scientists at Bell Labs were free to explore ideas without concern for time or an immediate market.  The world we know today likely would not exist it they hadn’t had that freedom.

You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

Palantir's picture

ZeroBonus wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

The death of a tech stock occurs when it announces its first dividend.

Apparently you havent heard of IBM.

Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!

Black Swan's picture

Announcing a dividend must happen at some point or the stock is fundamentally worthless unless the company is sold.  Waiting too long to issue a dividend just means wasting cash for appearance.  Enron tried to play similar games to manufacture unrealistic expectations of growth.  All companies and stocks plateau, it’s a fact of life.  If you ignore it you’re no different than the 50 year old guy standing in the back of a dance club with a belly and about 15 feet of awkward space in either direction… you just look ridiculous in the aftermath.

I used to smoke pot and go to class.  

Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.  

Slink down low at my desk.  

Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.

I was the best teacher ever.

Black Swan's picture

higgmond wrote:

ohai wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

That is the argument that some people make. It is also why Larry/Sergei only sell second tier shares to outside investors. They want to maintain control of the company so they can pursue ideological goals which might have no short term financial benefit. It doesn’t seem like outside investors really care - if they did, they would sell the stock. Google is a cash machine. As long as they keep making money, they can do whatever they want. 

I have not read the book, but I recently attended a luncheon where the keynote speaker was the author of “The Idea Factory:  Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation”.  One of the things he pointed out was that the scientists at Bell Labs were free to explore ideas without concern for time or an immediate market.  The world we know today likely would not exist it they hadn’t had that freedom.

That concept cherry picks the few successful examples at the cost of ignoring legions of firms that pissed away shareholder value until there was only a husk of it’s former self left.  Furthermore, that research must be guided in a direction that makes sense.  Research and ideas, fine.  Rolling out massive ill advised infrastructure intensive experiments?  Bad idea.  They should have sold the technolgy to an interested cable company or refocused the efforts toward something within their scope.  The whole thing, like Google+ reaks of hubris.

I used to smoke pot and go to class.  

Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.  

Slink down low at my desk.  

Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.

I was the best teacher ever.

Analti_Calte_Equity's picture

Black Swan wrote:

higgmond wrote:

ohai wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

They should be returning that cash to shareholders rather than creating more Google + type of junk.

That is the argument that some people make. It is also why Larry/Sergei only sell second tier shares to outside investors. They want to maintain control of the company so they can pursue ideological goals which might have no short term financial benefit. It doesn’t seem like outside investors really care - if they did, they would sell the stock. Google is a cash machine. As long as they keep making money, they can do whatever they want. 

I have not read the book, but I recently attended a luncheon where the keynote speaker was the author of “The Idea Factory:  Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation”.  One of the things he pointed out was that the scientists at Bell Labs were free to explore ideas without concern for time or an immediate market.  The world we know today likely would not exist it they hadn’t had that freedom.

 The whole thing, like Google+ reaks of hubris.

ACEaceAnaltiCalteEquityACEanalticalteequityACE

http://tinyurl.com/axn8cua

aceofheartscapitalmanagement@_____________

 

higgmond's picture

Black Swan wrote:

That concept cherry picks the few successful examples at the cost of ignoring legions of firms that pissed away shareholder value until there was only a husk of it’s former self left.  Furthermore, that research must be guided in a direction that makes sense.  Research and ideas, fine.  Rolling out massive ill advised infrastructure intensive experiments?  Bad idea.  They should have sold the technolgy to an interested cable company or refocused the efforts toward something within their scope.  The whole thing, like Google+ reaks of hubris.

If they sell the technology to a cable company, they won’t know what you watch, when you watch it, what you DVR, how often you change the channel, whether or not you watch porn on you PC while watching the 700 Club on TV, how many TV’s you have in your house, how many email accounts you access, etc., etc., etc.  Within 2 months (making up that number) Google will know everything there is to know about Google Fiber subscribers, and get paid in the process.  I just think the capital intensivity of this business line as well as the employee base required for maintainance and the lack of cost synergies makes it a costly game to play and one that is ultimately a distraction to their central model.

You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

Pages

Subscribe toComments for "Google Fiber"