×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Fiber Pondering 9 New Metro Areas

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the making-the-northeast-weep dept.

Google 172

New submitter GreyWanderingRogue writes "Google is looking to expand beyond the three current cities using Google Fiber. They're currently still in the discussion stages, but they've invited 34 cities in 9 major metropolitan areas to talk about deployment. They'll need to study 'topography (e.g. hills, flood zones), housing density, and the condition of local infrastructure' in each of the cities, so it will be interesting to see how many make it to completion. Check the map to see if you're one of the lucky few. The Atlanta, Portland and Raleigh-Durham areas each have a cluster of cities being considered. Not in one of these cities? It might be a while yet..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'd rather eat google fiber... (4, Interesting)

BisuDagger (3458447) | about 10 months ago | (#46289443)

then go one more day with Comcast. Jacksonville, Fl makes me a sad puppy. Looks like I'm waiting even longer for something good to come along.

Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... (2)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 10 months ago | (#46289553)

Part of your high fiber diet?

Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289601)

Part of your high fiber diet?

He needs help passing what he's been fed by Comcast.

Re:I'd rather eat google fiber... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289725)

He needs help passing what he's been fed by Comcast.

Considering that they keep giving less and less (while charging more and more!), that shouldn't be too hard. Seriously.

Good luck with all the coming ads (0, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about 10 months ago | (#46289617)

You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.

Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry

Private industry cannot produce an efficient systems-level product. They will always be overpriced compared to government. It is why it only costs 50 cents to deliver mail via USPS instead of $15 to deliver it via UPS/FedEx.

A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.

A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.

A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

Re:Good luck with all the coming ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289797)

You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.

Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry

OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.

A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.

A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.

A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

Awww, shit! A troll! I should have known better. Oh, well....

Re:Good luck with all the coming ads (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 10 months ago | (#46290523)

You would be saddened if you became fully aware of the percentage of voting adults in the US that could say those things and not be a troll.

Re:Good luck with all the coming ads (1, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | about 10 months ago | (#46290575)

OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.

The way socialism works is that rich people pay for the benefits of poor.

That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.

The rich need public education so that their employees can read and follow instructions and do math. They need roads to drive their goods. They need a military to protect their resources. They need everything government provides.

The poor do not give a shit about any of this. It is the rich that need this the most.

That is why they get to pay for it.

Re: Good luck with all the coming ads (0, Troll)

ncc74656 (45571) | about 10 months ago | (#46290063)

A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

Like Venezuela? How's socialism working out for them, idiot?

Re: Good luck with all the coming ads (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#46290521)

No.
Do you always here socialized and then compare it to WCS?

Idiot.
Not that I am surprised. You sig shows very clearly that you can't actually read. Or are so god damn stupid you can't actual understand facts.

Re:Good luck with all the coming ads (2)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 10 months ago | (#46290249)

A Co-op ISP looks to be the best bet, but I think it would be killed by the Telecom Cartel.

Cartel is when corporations scheme to price fix, and to equally screw the citizens.

Monopoly is when one company owns it all and crushes any competition.

Cartel can be far more subtle, and it is the current paradigm here.

What is wild is that the US taxpayer paid $300 billion for a broadband upgrade,
and the Telco's took the money and run.

Whole story here:

http://www.newnetworks.com/bro... [newnetworks.com]

Don't expect a fair and free trade experience from pirates, thieves, and looters.

San Antonio! (1)

Neruocomp (513658) | about 10 months ago | (#46289453)

Austin has all the big names, but San Antonio is just a better city.

Re:San Antonio! (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#46289639)

It's a great place to live, but good luck finding tech jobs there. And San Antonio is not exactly my definition of "densely populated". Sure it's like #9 or #10 in US city population, but it's like #29 or so in metro population because there isn't much of the metro area that consists of other incorporated cities. (Maybe it'll give Fry's a reason to finally build a store there, ha ha.)

Now if they can just get started on lighting up Austin, I'd be happy.

And I think RTP is a good choice for a GF city.

Re:San Antonio! (1)

Neruocomp (513658) | about 10 months ago | (#46290059)

We have plenty of tech jobs, not of the kind glorified by Google or Facebook, but Rackspace and USAA are major employers. Also do your research, San Antonio is #7 in city population and #25 in metro population. Not to mention in the top 20 for fastest growing cities.

Re:San Antonio! (1)

mistapotta (941143) | about 10 months ago | (#46290071)

I wonder if the existence of miles of fiber just waiting in San Antonio [therivardreport.com] is part of the reason they're considering it.

Yup. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290601)

That's what I was thinking, tp. :)

Re:San Antonio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290221)

Oh, I don't know. San Antonio strikes me as good a place for a Gay Fuck as any other. Heck, those texans love to be fucked. After all, they elected W and then later, perry.

Re:San Antonio! (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 months ago | (#46290177)

apparently not. There is a real reason why those that can afford it and have to live in Texas, will choose Austin.
That is also why Google picked Austin over a place like San Ant.

NC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289469)

It's about time that Google looks towards the Triangle area in NC to possibly implement their fiber. Does the no server clause prevent a business from using this, or might they have business models? I tried to enter a chat on their website, but unfortunately since I'm not in a currently provided area they don't want to chat with me.

Re:NC (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#46289659)

IIRC, their answer to that is "we'll figure out what to do about it later". So right now they don't support that, but they know they will need to eventually. I don't think they'll mind people doing low-impact non-commercial server stuff, but that wasn't your question.

Re:NC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289751)

The "no server clause" was recently updated: https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/2659981?hl=en&topic=2440874&ctx=topic:

"To operate servers for commercial purposes. However, personal, non-commercial use of servers that complies with this AUP is acceptable, including using virtual private networks (VPN) to access services in your home and using hardware or applications that include server capabilities for uses like multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, and home security."

So non-commercial use is explicitly OK. Not that it helps with the business case.

I really hope... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#46289471)

...that they consider my area. The two consumer-grade broadband solutions kind of suck even though we were a pilot city for the original cablemodem spec, but oh, I would so love to have fiber to the NID, even if I'd have to buy my own single-mode gbic to make it happen...

Re:I really hope... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289691)

...that they consider my area.

Me too! Come over to Albuquerque, Google. Please! It's almost on a straight line between Kansas City and Phoenix, so it shouldn't be too hard to add us into your network.

Note to end of story... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289485)

Google bought the tax payer funded network in Provo, Utah for $1.

http://transmission.xmission.com/2014/02/19/google-fiber-in-salt-lake-city

Exchanging one bad master for another (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289531)

Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

Re:Exchanging one bad master for another (4, Interesting)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 10 months ago | (#46289753)

Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

Do it trust a company with a history of supporting open source software, and open standards, that lest me see the data the collected when i am using their services and edit and or delete it, more than I trust a cable company or cell service provider? yes I do trust Google more.

Is Google perfect? No they have made mistakes but they try to not be evil more often then not, and that is far more than I can say about most other companies in their line(s) of business.

Re:Exchanging one bad master for another (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 10 months ago | (#46290275)

Trust an advertising company to give you unfiltered internet access?

Unfiltered? Sure.
Untracked and without extra targeted ads? No.

Re:Exchanging one bad master for another (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 10 months ago | (#46290315)

You've obviously not had to deal with Comcast tech support.

I cannot think of a worse master.

Re:Exchanging one bad master for another (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 10 months ago | (#46290453)

Well most cable ISPs also provide advertising networks, so it's not a big jump to move to another one.

Google isn't actually an advertising company though, they just get revenue from advertising. Similarly Comcast is a cable company that also gets revenue from advertising.

No Love for the North? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289537)

Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison? Maybe they don't like the letter M.

Re:No Love for the North? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289851)

Boo hoo, somebody call the wahmbulance ... no the north is some sort of frigid hell that only the natives could love ... damn Inuits.

Full disclosure ... I live in the Twin Cities and the cost for service is extortionate just like everywhere that doesn't have GF

I just hope that when it gets here, it is reliable (4, Interesting)

erice (13380) | about 10 months ago | (#46289539)

A friend of mine has had Google Fiber in Kansas City for several months. She still keeps here DSL as backup because Google Fiber goes down frequently, sometimes several times in one day.

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289619)

Kansas Citian here. I've never had problems with Google Fiber going down. I've had instances where my wi-fi seemed to momentarily drop, but that happened occasionally with my old router too and it hasn't ever lasted more than a few seconds. The only prolonged outage that I've noticed was an hour or so when (ironically) I couldn't access google.com, but the rest of the internet still worked fine.

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (3, Interesting)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 10 months ago | (#46289713)

I've only had Google Fiber 3 weeks, but so far it's been solid. Maybe a 2-second hang here and there, but otherwise fine.

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289837)

I've had precisely zero problems with Comcast.

With Comcast.

Anecdotal evidence about ISPs is of the same value as anecdotal evidence about hard drive manufacturers.

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#46289919)

In my experience, the problems with Comcast have hardly ever been about poor connection quality; they've always been about deliberate sabotage (e.g. poisoning DNS, throttling Netflix, encrypting local cable channels, etc.) or hostile customer service (imposing sneaky BS fees, making customers go through Hell to get a CableCard instead of a set-top box, etc.)

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (1)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#46289923)

this is 2014
put everything on wifi with a few dozen of your neighbors and then blame the ISP for every hiccup

i used to have xbox live disconnect when playing single player. put everything on cat5 and most of my problems magically vanished.

Wifi is like the old Layer 1 networks. everyone is broadcasting all their traffic into the air around you and your router and devices are trying to filter it out. that's why it keeps disconnecting

Re: I just hope that when it gets here, it is reli (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 10 months ago | (#46290291)

Yeah seen same issues with Wifi, its not perfect.

My friend had problems with latency in real games, and
tried his cat5 and it all went away.

Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 10 months ago | (#46290205)

Well, in that case I'm glad that I have Time Warner at 113 with no dropouts or problems. Thanks for the competition, Google Fiber!

Re:I just hope that when it gets here, it is relia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290289)

I have had Google Fiber for 6 months now and I have never had an issue with it being down completely. Sometimes when I do a speed test the up or down speed might drop down as low as 200Mbps but it has never completely gone out on me. For the most part it has been pretty consistent at providing 800+ Mbps symmetrical transfer. Their wifi from the TV boxes is not what I would call stellar but if you hook up your own 802.11n, it works great.

Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (5, Insightful)

megalon (19030) | about 10 months ago | (#46289561)

Why not run fiber in the entire valley instead of just Scottsdale and Tempe? The north and west sides of Phoenix has a lot of families that could use 1 Gbs or 10 Gbs Internet.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (3, Informative)

Durrik (80651) | about 10 months ago | (#46289967)

I was thinking the same thing. Why not Chandler (SE side), where Intel has two fabs, Freescale has an office, Microchip is located and a bunch of other big high tech companies? You're going to have a hell of a lot of high tech workers just begging for gigabit Internet. But that may be the reason, they may not want tech savvy people at it, because then they'll have a heavy stress test.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 10 months ago | (#46290097)

From what I hear, it is mostly based on how much the city is willing to bend backwards to accommodate a quick rollout. Google doesnt have to work with uncooperative cities.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (2)

oracleofbargth (16602) | about 10 months ago | (#46290603)

From what I hear, it is mostly based on how much the city is willing to bend backwards to accommodate a quick rollout. Google doesnt have to work with uncooperative cities.

This is true. Overland Park [kctv5.com] got dropped because the city government was being uncooperative.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46290485)

Scottsdale and Tempe seem good, but Chandler/Gilbert seem pretty glaring omissions.

Nobody cares about the West Side except the stadium area. It's all slowly turning into Metro Center.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (1)

megalon (19030) | about 10 months ago | (#46290559)

It would not be that hard to do. Just follow the I-10, I-17, Hwy 101 and Hwy 303 for the backbone fiber.

Re:Phoenix AZ Google Fiber (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46290583)

303? The retirement communities on Lake Pleasant Parkway need fiber, for sure, but I'm not sure they need faster internet.

Fuck you, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289569)

I live in rural PA and I can't get DSL or a cable modem.

How about hooking us po' folk up instead?

Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 10 months ago | (#46289661)

What pisses me off is that Google goes to areas that are already well serviced by other vendors, and taking FOREVER to roll out. At this rate, they'll manage 10% coverage in the US by the turn of the next century.

Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289825)

Places that aren't already serviced just aren't going to be anytime soon. Those folks living in the sticks will need to wait for a good wireless service. The low population density makes it hard to see a return on any investment.

Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 10 months ago | (#46289941)

I just wish I knew their criteria. I got tired of waiting so I moved 20minutes outside of Raleigh in Garner, there is a lot of houses, I have 50m cable, but will that get fiber if it comes to Raleigh.

Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 10 months ago | (#46289871)

lol.

You sound like this is a govt. initiative or charity?

Google are building momentum and are most likely choosing the most economical places first. The fact you are under serviced is because....

In my country the government are currently rolling out fibre to the home all over the nation.
And guess where they are starting? The cities where they already have high speed ADSL with full coverage. (NB: aside from a couple of wealthy "test" towns in the proof of concept)
In the country you are lucky to have ADSL at all or be on a 12 month waiting list for connection to a VERY crappy service.
And you want to know the worst of it? The uptake on the fibre in the city areas where its been implemented have been exceptionally low. Why? Because they don't need it!

WE have something bitch about. :)

Re:Google will get to you... by 2354A.D. (1)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#46289939)

google is in the business of making money, like every other company in america. in fact google has higher profit margins than almost every other greedy and evil corp as branded by slashdotters and netizens

going into well served areas means a lot of potentially angry customers who can't wait to switch

Re:Fuck you, Google (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 10 months ago | (#46290321)

You could try some of the horrible satellite internet, but it beats dial up to be sure.

Other option would be a community funded fiber line and then a wireless ISP
for the town there.

Some rural towns have down their own Internet Co-ops, if your small enough
the Tecos won't sabotage you too bad.

http://www.ncic.net/ [ncic.net]

http://www.micemn.net/ [micemn.net]

atl/ga corruption (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289573)

coworkers & I were just talking about need to proactively appoint an independent prosecutor w/expedited subpoena/investigative power to find/expose and financial ties between comcast/at&t and any politicians who will inevitably try to block/obstruct this!

And what about Alpharetta? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#46290253)

The tech jobs in GA posted on Slashdot are heavily based in Alpharetta, and yet it's not in the list of cities they are considering. (And getting them to extend it down the 316 corridor is also wishful thinking, but Athens sure could use some options.)

Screw Alpharetta (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#46290441)

All this exurban sprawl to Alpharetta needs to stop. The only thing that has been accomplished is that people living elsewhere in the metro area are screwed because all the infrastructure is designed to facilitate a commute towards downtown, while now the center of mass for jobs is near (or outside) the Perimeter. It is absurd that people can live right next to downtown, yet are forced to suffer through an hour commute anyway. Anything that shifts development back inside the Perimeter is a good thing!

New Slogan for Google (1)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | about 10 months ago | (#46289625)

"No matter how much we suck, we still don't ComcastTimeWarner suck. Yet."

Re:New Slogan for Google (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 10 months ago | (#46289731)

Based on my experience with TW internet, and my mom's with TW cable, it would take a hell of a lot of suck to compete with them. Don't know about Comcast, but it sounds like they're no improvement over TW.

Re:New Slogan for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289875)

Based on my experience with TW internet, and my mom's with TW cable, it would take a hell of a lot of suck to compete with them. Don't know about Comcast, but it sounds like they're no improvement over TW.

(Former) Comcast customer here. Yes, you are correct: it would take a whole lot of suck to compete with them. Anything--and I mean anything up to and including going completely free of all cable service--would be better than those rubes.

Re:New Slogan for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289989)

I used to be on Comcast and now I'm on Time Warner. It's difficult to decide which one is worse. Both have abysmal tech support.

I had a power surge at my house that fried their modem(nothing else on my surge protector was damaged...just their modem). None of the lights came on, and it still took me 40 minutes on the phone with TWC to convince them that I needed a new modem, at which point they told me: we can be there Tuesday from 8AM - 2 PM, and if we don't show up on Tuesday we'll be there on Wednesday probably. I know its hard to guess how much time a tech will spend on one job, but ffs...a 2 day window is ridiculous. I can't take off 2 days just because their modem is shit.

I told them to not worry about it, that I would buy my own modem to fix the problem. Then they tried to set up a time to pick up their defunct equipment with the same crazy 2 day bull shit. I told them I'd drive it to their location at my own convenience, and they actually seemed upset by that.

The second I can switch away from TWC I'm going to. There's a local ISP here that is far superior, I've had them before, but they don't service my area. Whoever moves internet into my area next gets my business.

Re:New Slogan for Google (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 10 months ago | (#46290229)

See, this is strange. Because I'm a former Adelphia current Time Warner customer and I have no complaints. I even called twice this week to upgrade my speed (first call they agreed to the free 100Mbps upgrade, made notes and told me to get a DOCSIS 3.0 router).

They answered the calls in about 5 minutes and took care of everything very professionally. And now I have great speed and it hasn't been down for the whole year (maybe once or twice at 4am).

Re:New Slogan for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290471)

The same happened to me on comcast. They said they will allow me to pick up the router at their local center, and in 2 hours I was back online.

Good (4, Interesting)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46289635)

Competition is needed. Meanwhile, for all the people who are pissed off about Comcast, there is a solution.

Buy a controlling share in the company.

Before you scoff, consider all the companies that would benefit from Comcast not being an obstacle (Google, Netflix, Apple, Charter, Twitter, plus about 100,000 startups). For about $67 billion at the current share price, Comcast could be under new ownership.

$67 billion is chickenshit money up against the assets and revenue of all the parties with a horse in this race.

Vote out the board, fire the management, vote in a new board, hire new management, and turn Comcast into a defender of net neutrality instead of a problem.

That's how capitalism works. You know what the best part is? Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it. The company is publicly traded.

Re:Good (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 10 months ago | (#46289833)

Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good (0)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46289943)

http://articles.philly.com/201... [philly.com]

A sufficiently motivated takeover coalition with sufficient capital can defeat any gimmick.

My original statement stands.

Re:Good (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 10 months ago | (#46289953)

If we all combined to buy 51% that would not kick in, unless we bought it as one entity.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290027)

I don't want Comcast to have new ownership. I want them gone. All cable companies need to be wiped off the face of the map. TV is antiquated technology that has no place in the 21st century, and the sooner people realize that the better.

Ever heard of poison pills? (4, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | about 10 months ago | (#46290085)

Buy a controlling share in the company.

There are tools that corporations use [1] [2] to prevent such efforts. Often it's to protect them from a hostile takeover, but the same tools could be used to prevent a populist uprising as well.

The corporatocracy will not allow us (say even if you did get a kickstarter or other such crowd funded initiative) to dominate Comcast. If this initiative were started, Comcast would have no shortage of tools to put it down.

Majority fan/employee owned ventures are the exception, not the norm, for this reason (amongst others - coordinating large groups of diverse interests is not easy).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ever heard of poison pills? (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46290339)

The corporatocracy will not allow us (say even if you did get a kickstarter or other such crowd funded initiative) to dominate Comcast.

By doing what? Comcast is publicly traded.

Comcast would have no shortage of tools to put it down.

You sound paranoid. Carl Icahn has made a living off of buying companies using hostile bids and (in his words) "fucking bad management." All of these tools (some allegedly wielded by far more nimble companies than Comcast) were available to them, and didn't stop him.

Majority fan/employee owned ventures are the exception, not the norm,

So? The Internet needs a solution to the net neutrality problem. Buying Comcast would solve the problem for 10% of users outright. Other companies would follow suit for obvious reasons.

coordinating large groups of diverse interests is not easy

Yet according to you, the "corportocracy" is a single-minded entity that will oppose the Internet at every turn.

Raise $100 billion and go after them hard. Even if the initiative fails it will be the last time an American cable company fucks with the Internet.

Re:Ever heard of poison pills? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 10 months ago | (#46290493)

Sorry you're bitter about it. I've lived it, been through 2 hostile acquisitions (one on one side, one on the other) as an employee of one of the companies. In the end what sealed both of them is the same investor class (i.e., professionally managed pension funds and private big-money hedge funds) owned both the companies that were being acquired and doing the acquiring, and they were essentially bought off on the deal.

Look at Comcast: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?... [yahoo.com]

Go pitch this to them, and see what they say. Your empty-mouthed diatribe: "Comcast is publicly traded." - belies the fact that the public securities market is by no means a free market. There are big players and if you do something they don't like, they can and will stop you and the SEC can or won't do anything about it.

Re:Ever heard of poison pills? (2)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46290587)

Sorry you're bitter about it.

Stop the childish attempts to put me on the defensive. Grow up and discuss the subject matter like an adult.

Go pitch this to them

How Comcast feels is irrelevant. You go to their shareholders and you buy the stock, and keep buying until you get a 50.1% majority, then vote the board out.

You make this sound like science fiction. A large enough block of cash and stock controls the discussion. Comcast can fall just like U.S. Steel and Texaco and TWA and Marvel and Hostess all the other companies that have been bought out. It's just business.

Re:Good (1)

MattGWU (86623) | about 10 months ago | (#46290135)

Wouldn't this just open the newly-managed Comcast up to the shareholder action for not maximizing the value of their investment? I'm sure they'd have little trouble proving in court that the monopoly status they've enjoyed for so many years is critical to their shareholder value, and you'd have taken pretty obvious, deliberate steps to erode that market advantage and therefore that value. For the good of everybody else, sure, but the remaining 49% of shareholders will probably be pissed.

Re:Good (1)

satsuke (263225) | about 10 months ago | (#46290243)

Completely impossible .. according to their ownership structure, 83% of the outstanding shares are owned by institutional investors.

Meaning, even if you created an artificial scarcity by buying up all shares available at any given time .. you'd still be way short of enough to effect change (and in any event, a bunch of individual investors wouldn't have any representation on the board).

You might be able to do it with an activist institutional investor like Carl Icahn .. but someone like him wouldn't be motivated to do anything like that. (e.g. against his own interests).

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290257)

Ain't a fucking thing Comcast can do about it.

Poison pill. You bought half the shares in the company? Great! The executive board just issued itself a billion more class A (votes at 10x) shares, enjoy your stack of overpriced stock with 2% voting power.

You don't even begin to have an idea of what it takes for a hostile takeover. By the time you get to 15% of the stock your intentions are going to be known and the gentle rise of the stock from 51 to 60 will spike up to 80 or so. Meanwhile the existing power structure is going to be busy stacking the board of directors against you. You finally get to 51% of the voting stock ownership and what happens? The board puts out their slate of executives on the ballot, and it's the same guys as before. Do you put your 51% vote on "Yes"? Or do you put it on "Abstain"? You can go the Ichan route and force an election with your own slate of executives. All the filing paperwork and tracking down and sending out notices to all the other stockholders, I think he mentioned it only costs him tens of millions of dollars. As you say, "chickenshit money"

Re:Good (0)

The Cat (19816) | about 10 months ago | (#46290403)

We bought half the shares in the company and the Executive Board was fired before they made it to the meeting room.

You don't even begin to have an idea of what it takes for a hostile takeover. By the time you get to 15% of the stock your intentions are going to be known

Our intentions are known when we file our 13-d at 5% ownership. You have no idea what I know. Stop lecturing.

You finally get to 51% of the voting stock ownership and what happens?

You vote out the board and install your own. Or, even better, you sell off the assets and distribute the proceeds to the shareholders, turn off the lights and go home.

All the filing paperwork and tracking down and sending out notices to all the other stockholders, I think he mentioned it only costs him tens of millions of dollars. As you say, "chickenshit money"

Tens of milions of dollars is chickenshit if you control Comcast.

Carl Icahn is worth $20 billion. I think his approach worked.

Google Doesn't want to deploy fiber.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289675)

They just want to scare the MSOs (Comcast/ATT/Verizon) into upgrading their networks and thus making it easier for google to continue their core business model which benefits to bigger pipes to customers.

There is a reason they have so few cities, and they deploy in places that are the easiest to manage. They really do not want to do this... its a horrible business.

Re: Google Doesn't want to deploy fiber.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46289781)

Fine by me! Competition is better for everyone, especially with a few gorillas who have strangleholds on the DSL and cable markets.

The condition of local infrastructure (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 10 months ago | (#46289789)

The condition of local infrastructure

Translation: If you've already basically laid most of the fiber for us, we'll buy in and finish it up.

Re:The condition of local infrastructure (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 10 months ago | (#46289927)

As a first step, this seems reasonable. Any sane company would take this approach.

Take over a half-finished product and see it through to completion. The hope, going forward, is that Google can leverage the revenue generated from the roll outs thus far to start building all new infrastructure.

Fingers crossed.

Can't wait (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 10 months ago | (#46289827)

I can't wait for them to keep rolling out everywhere! I want competition with the telecommunication oligopolies who keep playing games with the bill to squeek out more money. If they're not silently raising rates, they start billing you more often than once a month. I can't wait for Google Fiber. I'm excited.

Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! (1)

MillerHighLife21 (876240) | about 10 months ago | (#46290015)

http://www.wearefeelinglucky.c... [wearefeelinglucky.com]

Re:Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290199)

Greenville, SC doesn't need it. When I lived in a foster home there over ten years ago, Charter(I think it was called Telecable at the time) had service that is tenfold faster than what I can get even now near downtown Seattle. Seattle is much denser and has much worse infrastructure. It would make more sense to provide service here than in a city with already excellent infrastructure that has a serious urban sprawl problem.

Damn right about Seattle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290369)

I've done contract work in quite a few businesses all over the South including in upstate SC, and the places with Charter were all fast as hell. Greenville, SC does not need Google Fiber. Most of the businesses with Comcast had more than 20 Mbps. They make my 1.5 Mbps connection at home in Seattle for almost $70/month feel pitiful. Of course I'm one of the lucky ones because my neighborhood is right on the edge of the length limits for DSL so a few of my neighbors have unreliable connections of less than 1 Mbps. Comcast has been at capacity in the area for nearly a decade so they can't add new customers. Seattle sure as hell needs someone to start offering faster service.

Re: Come on Google, don't forget about Greenville! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290409)

Admittedly, you are right. I was commenting more on the basis of what Greenville did to try to get Google Fiber in the first place.

Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities (3, Interesting)

Koreantoast (527520) | about 10 months ago | (#46290029)

It's good to see some real competition, but it's disappointing that most of the locations chosen are simply further upgrading areas that already have a large tech presence. In some ways, it almost feels like it's further growing the gap between technologically advanced cities and the rest of the country.

Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities (2)

RubberDogBone (851604) | about 10 months ago | (#46290211)

None of the cities in the Atlanta area could be considered technologically advanced. Most of them are actually just suburbs, and not well-off suburbs at that. Sandy Springs would be the only well-off exception.

As an example, the cities of College Park, Hapeville and East Point don't have a single Walmart between them, One is about to open soon and the residents are thrilled to finally have a shopping option. Compare that to a more typical suburb which might have several stores and protesters blocking more.

What those three cities DO have is plenty of dark fiber and railroad ROW to lay in more, and local governments who would probably welcome Google with open arms.

Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#46290549)

None of the cities in the Atlanta area could be considered technologically advanced. Most of them are actually just suburbs, and not well-off suburbs at that. Sandy Springs would be the only well-off exception.

Decatur and the northeastern half of the City of Atlanta are well-off, along with Roswell and Alpharetta. Metro Atlanta is a pretty big tech hub (mostly the midtown and buckhead neighborhoods in Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Roswell and Alpharetta, plus some in Duluth).

What those three cities DO have is plenty of dark fiber and railroad ROW to lay in more, and local governments who would probably welcome Google with open arms.

Alas, the City of Atlanta's government is too incompetent regardless of how much lip service they'll pay to it. Google wants expedited permitting, and that isn't going to happen (it takes 6-12 months to get a permit under normal circumstances!).

Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities (1)

satsuke (263225) | about 10 months ago | (#46290263)

While Kansas City has some tech companies (Sprint, Cerner, Garmin) and a fair number of engineering firms .. it's not exactly a burgeoning tech center.

Re:Just Supporting Already Strong Tech Cities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290435)

I disagree. Many tech areas do not have good access. For example, the fastest connection I can get here near downtown Seattle is less than 1 Mbps. It's DSL from CenturyLink and so slow because of old cabling and the distance from the CO. I know the Internet isn't important to Microsoft and their associated companies in the area, but either extremely slow or unavailable access is hurting the economy here. Comcast has fast, but unreliable, service in some of the city, but they just don't cover the entire city.

No NYC (3, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | about 10 months ago | (#46290121)

Crap, we're not on the list. Somehow, even the biggest city in the US can't get a decent fiber roll-out. That's how you know the "population density" arguments are BS.

Re:No NYC (1)

MattGWU (86623) | about 10 months ago | (#46290145)

Are you crazy? The Northeast will never, ever, ever see this.

Re:No NYC (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 10 months ago | (#46290187)

Yeah, well apparently we won't see decent internet from anyone else, either. DSL is unavailable. Verizon has no plans to install FIOS. I thought it was bad being stuck with TWC, but with the Comcast purchase, it's going from bad to worse.

Re:No NYC (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#46290265)

Google is just looking for Low hanging fruit, to make it seem like they are making a change, while side stepping solving the problem.

We got Big Cities NY, LA, Boston... That Google will not go too, because they will have a big fight against the current carriers.
We got Rural and small cities area... That need band with too, however Google won't go there because they are too small to sound good. So they go with these mid sized cites.

Not doing evil, doesn't mean you are doing good.

Re:No NYC (2)

danlip (737336) | about 10 months ago | (#46290459)

Or they are using the low hanging fruit to learn the ropes, and will eventually tackle the harder regions (if they turn a profit).

Re:No NYC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290527)

Why not Zoidberg? Indianapolis could use the bandwidth, and I know ot would be relatively easy to run (A steam line running the length of the downtown area will be shut down next year, stick it in there) but the reason it will never come here is because of our politics. Some stupid local politician would sell us out because Comcast, Brighthouse, Verizon or ATT (or all of them) offered to make generous campaign donations....

Need for a Stretch Goal for Google (3, Funny)

sckienle (588934) | about 10 months ago | (#46290181)

If Google really wanted to prove out fiber, they would look to a less densely populated area. Consider what putting fiber successfully and profitably in a more rural area would do: pretty much kill the "It's too expensive" arguments for pretty much anywhere. Google needs to be put their weight and minds in trying to solve the last mile problem for all of America, not just the easy parts.

Re:Need for a Stretch Goal for Google (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 10 months ago | (#46290239)

Would be nice, but they are in it to make money. And they need a certain number of subscribers to do it.

Okay, I Get It Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46290247)

You hate Microsoft, so you're going to punish everyone that lives near them by keeping Seattle off the list. Well, fuck you! A lot of us hate Microsoft too. A lot of us have been personally burned by Microsoft's paranoid kill/crush nonsense back in the day when your very first crawler was stretching its legs on our web sites, so you guys are assholes for lumping us in with them. C'mon, man, don't be jerks about this. Give us some light.

Metro? (1)

linear a (584575) | about 10 months ago | (#46290615)

"Metro?" Ugh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?