Google Fiber

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Google Fiber

Postby kiklion » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

First some links:

https://fiber.google.com/about/
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/how- ... -20120726/

Google is unveiling how it's attempt at becoming an isp will work out. Neighborhoods are split into groups, get enough people to register and google will lay the lines to the area. Then everyone in that group will be able to purchase a plan from google with a one time connection fee of $300 (waived with the largest plan). They have free connections for 7 years of 5 down 1 up speed if you pay the connection fee, and other plans that give you 1Gbps up and down. Gbps is different than GBps, I read that the conversion is 1 Gbps = 125 MBps in a measure more people are used to. You would also get up to 8 concurrent recordings, a 1 TB storage (for recordings I assume) and a nexus 7 tablet for $120 a month. Not sure on how much monthly each T.V's set box would be.

Overall this seems to beat any other ISP offering within the US by a large margin. Beyond the fact that I don't believe any ISP offers 7 years of free, albeit slow, connection for $300, 125 MBps for $120 a month is 5 times the speed offered to me from FIOS for pretty much the same cost depending on the per setbox cost.

If I lived in KC, I would go door to door to convince people the moment I left work.

Enokh
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:55 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Enokh » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

I would immediately and without hesitation do this. Doing my best in assisting Google in any way I can just because I think they're the most likely to accidentally create Skynet.

One Datamine to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:28 pm UTC

.Bind() them you mean.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:33 pm UTC

The "free" option for people who have paid the connection fee intrigues me quite a bit. My only worry with this is that Google is quickly growing to become the information juggernaut of the web, and acting as ISP might be the final push in that direction without some significantly improved privacy policies (maybe there is one for this even! I haven't checked) or new regulations.

kiklion wrote:Gbps is different than GBps, I read that the conversion is 1 Gbps = 125 MBps in a measure more people are used to.

I can't tell from your phrasing if it's something you know or something you just just read, but the reason for this is that GB/s is gigabytes per second, while Gb/s is gigabits per second. There are 8 bits to a byte, so to convert from Gb/s to GB/s (or for mb, or kb, or..), you divide by 8 -- 1/8 = 0.125.

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Google Fiber

Postby faranim » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

This sounds awesome. I always found it odd/annoying that all of my neighbors are paying for TV/Internet/Phone separately from each other (possibly from different providers, etc). Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet). But it's awesome that they provide the basic high-speed internet without a monthly fee.

I currently pay $50 / month for Verizon FIOS basic internet (15 Mbps down / 5 Mbps up). It sounds like Google Fiber's "free" internet would be slightly slower than this, but it might still be fast enough for what we use our internet for (mostly online gaming and streaming non-HD stuff through Netflix).

The main problem with Comcast/Verison is that in addition to the price of the "plan" (usually around $100/month) you also have to pay extra fees per-STB, sometimes for the router, extra for DVR, etc. which pumps the monthly bill way up (e.g. $180/month) This is one of the main reasons we dropped TV from our FIOS plan, because it was way too expensive with all the device-fees and extra crap they forced you to pay for.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Endless Mike » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

The actual cost is that you have to live in Kansas City, and that's nowhere near worth it.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:The actual cost is that you have to live in Kansas City, and that's nowhere near worth it.

Very true, but I think the hope is that if this succeeds, Google will expand it out to better places. Though I think I remember them talking about this in the 4-5 year ago range, so that might be a long wait.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

faranim wrote:I always found it odd/annoying that all of my neighbors are paying for TV/Internet/Phone separately from each other (possibly from different providers, etc). Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet). But it's awesome that they provide the basic high-speed internet without a monthly fee.
What other billing format would there be?

I would buy this so hard, but there's basically no way it's ever coming to where I live. :cry:

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Yakk » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

I haven't seen anything about traffic shaping or quota or "can I run a server off this".
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

From https://fiber.google.com/help/
Are there any data caps on my internet connection?
No way! We want you to use and enjoy your broadband or gigabit connections. There are no caps or limits to the amount of data you can send or receive.
Can I run a server from my home?
Google Fiber is intended as a residential Internet service. Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server.
Doesn't really say anything about torrents or similar currently (if that's what you mean by traffic shaping). And they don't really define server other than saying "any type of server", so I wonder if that would mean nothing like a minecraft server or similar (and how restrictive they will be of that).

EDIT: This may be relevant though. So they may limit based on congestion, but won't favor specific protocols/data/applications.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Yakk » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

ToS doesn't mention running a server. It does mention "sharing the connection", which might apply in many cases (but would also apply for peer-to-peer games, like starcraft)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:49 pm UTC

TOS wrote:Using Google Fiber Services

You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper, infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others’ enjoyment of the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here.
Bolded the link so it's more visible. Just searching for "server" in the TOS isn't sufficient.

User avatar
Ptolom
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:55 pm UTC
Location: The entropy pool
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Ptolom » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

There's not much point in having that kind of bandwidth if you can't run a server of any kind. I suspect they just mean something like a web server or a public file server though.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby kiklion » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:55 pm UTC

Ptolom wrote:There's not much point in having that kind of bandwidth if you can't run a server of any kind. I suspect they just mean something like a web server or a public file server though.


I would hope that their idea is that if it is not for profit, and/or limited connections they wouldn't do anything about it.

"Google Fiber is intended as a residential Internet service. Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server."


Assuming that their ToS prohibits running a server because residential purposes do not include needing a server, and that 'server' is not a clearly defined word, they should allow smaller servers around that use little bandwidth. My opinion, is that this language is included in order to not allow people to get the residential services for their 120 man accounting firm. Entertainment such as a minecraft server should be fine as it is a residential activity. I am fairly sure most ISP's have the no server clause and I am also fairly sure that several games that have one of the players as a host are allowed to run even though that could be considered a server.

Personally, that kind of bandwidth appeals to me because I would like to start streaming. When I was in an apartment I had a 15Mbps up that was available to me and was able to stream, living back with my parents we are sharing one line among 8-10 people at one time with 3 of us 'heavy' users.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

My favorite thing about this is that it means Google can index not only every search you make through them but literally everything you do on the internet!

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Obby » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:04 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:My favorite thing about this is that it means Google can index not only every search you make through them but literally everything you do on the internet!

If it means I get a modern internet connection, Google is more than welcome to know that I play far too many video games.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:My favorite thing about this is that it means Google can index not only every search you make through them but literally everything you do on the internet!


Hell, with this amount of bandwidth, you can run TOR all day and hide your traffic in the masses. All the traffic is encrypted, and even if they decrypt it they wouldn't be sure if its "your" traffic that's coming from your box, or someone else's traffic that happened to be routed through your proxy.

Although running a TOR proxy sounds awfully like a "server", and might be considered against the TOS.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:16 pm UTC

faranim wrote:Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet)

Why is this a problem? I don't want TV, why should I pay for it?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby kiklion » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:My favorite thing about this is that it means Google can index not only every search you make through them but literally everything you do on the internet!


Hell, with this amount of bandwidth, you can run TOR all day and hide your traffic in the masses. All the traffic is encrypted, and even if they decrypt it they wouldn't be sure if its "your" traffic that's coming from your box, or someone else's traffic that happened to be routed through your proxy.

Although running a TOR proxy sounds awfully like a "server", and might be considered against the TOS.


Irregardless, you can still connect to everything through HTTPS to encrypt the content, which only lets them see what site your household is connecting to, with multiple people in your house and an open wi-fi you still have the same plausible deniability that you would get with TOR AFAIK. You may need to use a router that is not their set box as their set box could possibly remember what computer internally connected to what computer externally at what time.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:40 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:Irregardless, you can still connect to everything through HTTPS to encrypt the content, which only lets them see what site your household is connecting to, with multiple people in your house and an open wi-fi you still have the same plausible deniability that you would get with TOR AFAIK. You may need to use a router that is not their set box as their set box could possibly remember what computer internally connected to what computer externally at what time.

It's not about plausible deniability though -- letting them see where you are going on the internet is one of (if not the) bigger issues here. You can already find out a huge amount of data from someone's search history. Add in the sites they visit absent searches and you'd probably know more about them then many of their friends.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:10 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:Irregardless
*stab*
kiklion wrote:Irregardless, you can still connect to everything through HTTPS to encrypt the content, which only lets them see what site your household is connecting to, with multiple people in your house and an open wi-fi you still have the same plausible deniability that you would get with TOR AFAIK. You may need to use a router that is not their set box as their set box could possibly remember what computer internally connected to what computer externally at what time.
What exactly do you need plausible deniability for? They're not going to be using it in court, they just want to harvest your/your family's ad preferences. - Aaaand, ninja'd. Possibly before I hit reply, I should read more.

Also, wouldn't TOR be a massive bottleneck on the connection? Seems like a travesty to have basically the only residential 1Gbps connection in the country and throttle it through a proxy. :cry:

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Yakk » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

Easy -- set up a high-bandwidth TOR that bounces among people with 1GBS connections only. :) (ie, TOR with currency, where node has a credit history, and pays for incoming/outgoing connections using said currency, and somehow stays anonymous...)

Wait, by easy, I meant nearly intractable.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Google Fiber

Postby faranim » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
faranim wrote:Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet)

Why is this a problem? I don't want TV, why should I pay for it?


I guess I just secretly want internet and TV access to work the same way as electricity and water. Make it available to everyone, and charge me based on my usage.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Ormurinn » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

faranim wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
faranim wrote:Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet)

Why is this a problem? I don't want TV, why should I pay for it?


I guess I just secretly want internet and TV access to work the same way as electricity and water. Make it available to everyone, and charge me based on my usage.


Would that disincentivise TV advertising?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Jplus » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The "free" option for people who have paid the connection fee intrigues me quite a bit. My only worry with this is that Google is quickly growing to become the information juggernaut of the web, and acting as ISP might be the final push in that direction without some significantly improved privacy policies (maybe there is one for this even! I haven't checked) or new regulations.

Endless Mike wrote:My favorite thing about this is that it means Google can index not only every search you make through them but literally everything you do on the internet!

Exactly what I was thinking... for me these are reasons to not consider taking it.

(Though I live in Europe, so for the time being I probably won't have the option anyway.)
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Google Fiber

Postby faranim » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

I guess TV pricing/billing would have to work differently than the Internet. Perhaps allow me to choose which specific TV channels I want to be able to view, and bill me based on that.

Just about the only thing I ever watch on TV is live sporting events. Anything else I can wait for it to come out on DVD or Netflix/Hulu it. But the cheapest TV plan available to me from Verizon FIOS is something like $50/month (when you include the price of the Set Top Box, taxes, fees, etc). There's no way I'm going to pay $50 a month just so I can watch a few hours of football every weekend. But I would gladly pay $5 a month for it.


This is just sort of a generic complaint I have about the way ISPs/Cell phone companies only offer "bundled" pricing options, and the cheapest/smallest available bundle is still way more than I would ever need or use, so I end up paying a whole lot more for services that I never utilize.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:16 pm UTC

faranim wrote:Just about the only thing I ever watch on TV is live sporting events.

Ah. For what it's worth, you can get specific networks on internet plans. I only internet, and I have HBO through my girlfriends dad via my Xbox. I think ESPN probably has something like, where you can get ESPN through a PS3 or Xbox or whatnot?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

I don't get bundled anything, just my internet, but I'd be wary of any usage base billing stuff. Especially since the last time Time Warner was going to try and implement it, it would have been bad.

I use something like ~200GB/month between netflix, hulu, games, and general internetting (note: I don't torrent), so basically no matter what I'd be screwed. I already pay for their highest available tier (where I'm located) so I don't see my bill going anywhere but up in the case of usage billing.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby kiklion » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:18 pm UTC

AI may have misunderstood the original TOR post. I was under the belief that they were going to run a TOR exit node, utilizing the increased bandwidth and hiding as their connections would be going through the same TOR exit node as thousands of other connections.

If you have 20 people in your house, each with multiple devices connecting through your router, the outside has the same inability of linking a connection to a computer inside of the network. Using HTTPS the content of each message should be encrypted, and your ability to hide among the masses is limited to the number of people/devices in your household. Perhaps TOR obfuscates the connections in ways that I don't understand. In that case, how does running your own TOR exit node protect you more than having multiple people/devices within your network? Except for the scale of connections.

faranim wrote:I guess TV pricing/billing would have to work differently than the Internet. Perhaps allow me to choose which specific TV channels I want to be able to view, and bill me based on that.

Just about the only thing I ever watch on TV is live sporting events. Anything else I can wait for it to come out on DVD or Netflix/Hulu it. But the cheapest TV plan available to me from Verizon FIOS is something like $50/month (when you include the price of the Set Top Box, taxes, fees, etc). There's no way I'm going to pay $50 a month just so I can watch a few hours of football every weekend. But I would gladly pay $5 a month for it.


This is just sort of a generic complaint I have about the way ISPs/Cell phone companies only offer "bundled" pricing options, and the cheapest/smallest available bundle is still way more than I would ever need or use, so I end up paying a whole lot more for services that I never utilize.


T.V billing is probably largely constricted based off of the contracts signed with the content providers. I wouldn't suppose anyone would have one of those contracts available to them? They are probably not posted publicly. For instance, just offering any T.V channel to a customer may cost $50 a month, so if you only ordered one channel it may still be $50 a month to support the backend of providing you with T.V. In this case you aren't paying for channels you don't use, you are getting channels for free.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Xeio » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:AI may have misunderstood the original TOR post. I was under the belief that they were going to run a TOR exit node, utilizing the increased bandwidth and hiding as their connections would be going through the same TOR exit node as thousands of other connections.

*snip* Perhaps TOR obfuscates the connections in ways that I don't understand. In that case, how does running your own TOR exit node protect you more than having multiple people/devices within your network? Except for the scale of connections.
It obfuscates it better in that 10,000 users (or some other arbitrarily large number) is much more than, say, 10. But the actual process isn't particularly different than just adding more users to your network.

I have a feeling trying to run a TOR exit node would probably be a strain on how lenient Google are with that "any server" clause though. Granted, since we have no one with past experience of Google as an ISP, they might not be as strict as the TOS implies.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Yakk » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:38 pm UTC

faranim wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
faranim wrote:Unfortunately Google Fiber appears to still use the same billing format (each household pays separately based on whether they want TV and/or Internet)
Why is this a problem? I don't want TV, why should I pay for it?
I guess I just secretly want internet and TV access to work the same way as electricity and water. Make it available to everyone, and charge me based on my usage.

The thing is, one of the expensive parts of electricity, water and internet is setting up the cables and wires and tubes to your house to carry it. For water and electricity, the tubes and wires tend to come in a few standard sizes. (Did you know that you can pay for a thicker wire/higher power service from the electricity company? I don't know about water, but I don't see why you couldn't pay for a thicker pipe their either)

The vast majority of people are fine with a rather cheap connection for both (yet, that price is still baked into your home price). The equivalent for internet would be owning a fiber tail for your house to the nearby hub: something that some communities have experimented with.

It is only after that fiber tail, and the infrastructure to network it in, is paid for that it makes sense to have usage based billing. And you (probably) aren't interested in paying that price up front, are you? What is worse is that with the rate at which technology is evolving, the wire to power your house and the pipe is going to be an asset in 30 years when the house is sold, but people tend not to expect a 30 year old internet connection to be worth much to the house. So the price of that connection needs to be amortized really fast, yet slowly enough that the consumer isn't sticker shocked into saying "I'm not paying 3000$ (or whatever) to get an internet hookup on my house?!"

Huge amounts of telecoms pricing garbage are about amortizing that up front cost (which the telecom bears) into an easy to swallow monthly cost for the consumer.

The ongoing costs do exist. And once they have you hooked up to their system, they behave with pseudo-monopolistic pricing policies to extract maximum rent out of their initial investment while engaging in predatory pricing whenever a competitor tries to get into their game... but that doesn't remove the requirement that the capital cost has to be paid down via down stream profits, or nobody will hook you up.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby iamspen » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

Not to mention predatory costs that one would expect to be built into a service, but aren't. It's something the vast majority of us have dealt with; "YOUR equipment is broken, YOUR line hookups are going bad, YOUR installer did it wrong, but you want to charge ME $120 for a service call?"

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Qaanol » Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Huge amounts of telecoms pricing garbage are about amortizing that up front cost (which the telecom bears) into an easy to swallow monthly cost for the consumer.

The ongoing costs do exist. And once they have you hooked up to their system, they behave with pseudo-monopolistic pricing policies to extract maximum rent out of their initial investment while engaging in predatory pricing whenever a competitor tries to get into their game... but that doesn't remove the requirement that the capital cost has to be paid down via down stream profits, or nobody will hook you up.

And that is why basic infrastructure services that form natural monopolies should be handled by the government: public water supply, public roads, public sanitation, electrical grid, fiberoptic cables, cellular towers, and so forth.

As an added bonus, a major infrastructure project (say, to install nationwide broadband, or to build millions of wind turbines across the country) would cut unemployment to virtually nothing, instantly jumpstarting the economy. And if done right, by reallocating military and war-on-drugs resources, employees, and private contractors, the cost to taxpayers would be the same as we’re spending now, but we’d actually be getting something useful for our tax money.

The reason it makes sense to use military-industrial complex dollars for these projects, is that they are national security issues. Especially the development of clean renewable domestic energy, but also information connectivity, water security, and the rest of it.
wee free kings

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby sardia » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:51 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:And that is why basic infrastructure services that form natural monopolies should be handled by the government: public water supply, public roads, public sanitation, electrical grid, fiberoptic cables, cellular towers, and so forth.

As an added bonus, a major infrastructure project (say, to install nationwide broadband, or to build millions of wind turbines across the country) would cut unemployment to virtually nothing, instantly jumpstarting the economy. And if done right, by reallocating military and war-on-drugs resources, employees, and private contractors, the cost to taxpayers would be the same as we’re spending now, but we’d actually be getting something useful for our tax money.

The reason it makes sense to use military-industrial complex dollars for these projects, is that they are national security issues. Especially the development of clean renewable domestic energy, but also information connectivity, water security, and the rest of it.

Spoiler:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending

Would reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Would also reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and funding for nuclear research and development, missile development and space-based missile defense.
$19 billion $38 billion

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe

“This option,” according to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, “would cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia at 100,000 personnel, which is 26 percent below the current level and 33 percent below the level planned for the future. All told, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn.” The option would also reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.
$25 billion $49 billion

Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets

Under this option, the Navy would build 48 fewer ships and retire 37 more ships than now scheduled. Overall, the battle fleet would shrink to 230 ships, from 286. In addition, the Air Force would retire two tactical fighter wings and reduce the number of fighter jets it planned to purchase.
$19 billion $24 billion

Cancel or delay some weapons programs

This option would cancel the purchase of some expensive equipment, like the F35 fighter jet and MV-22 Osprey, with less expensive equipment that the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force judged to have similar capability. It would delay other purchases. Research and development spending, which the task force considered a relic of the cold war arms race, would be reduced.
$19 billion $18 billion

Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead

Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises. The military would also reduce the length and frequency of combat tours. No unit or person will be sent to a combat zone for longer than a year, and they will not be sent back involuntarily without spending at least two years at home.
$23 billion $51 billion
Foreign troop levels: Choose one or none


Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Today, the United States military has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq. The Obama Administration plans to reduce these numbers in coming years but has not specified troop levels. Defense and budget experts say this 60,000 option would be faster than what is now planned. The savings is the difference between the administration's projected spending and the spending under this option.
$51 billion $149 billion

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030.

Infrastructure spending needs is around 2-3 trillion over 10 years, or 200-300 billion dollars a year. Ending the war on drugs would save 80$ billion a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Dru ... _taxpayers
Half from savings on enforcement, half from taxing all drugs, not just pot.
Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude, or were you just arguing for an additional $80 billion dollars/year worth of infrastructure spending? The plans in the spoiler is how to get real money out of the military. You fell into the classic trap of large numbers. Just because the US spends billion on drugs, and needs billion on infrastructure; it doesn't mean you can equate the two programs.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Soralin » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Qaanol wrote:And that is why basic infrastructure services that form natural monopolies should be handled by the government: public water supply, public roads, public sanitation, electrical grid, fiberoptic cables, cellular towers, and so forth.

As an added bonus, a major infrastructure project (say, to install nationwide broadband, or to build millions of wind turbines across the country) would cut unemployment to virtually nothing, instantly jumpstarting the economy. And if done right, by reallocating military and war-on-drugs resources, employees, and private contractors, the cost to taxpayers would be the same as we’re spending now, but we’d actually be getting something useful for our tax money.

The reason it makes sense to use military-industrial complex dollars for these projects, is that they are national security issues. Especially the development of clean renewable domestic energy, but also information connectivity, water security, and the rest of it.

Spoiler:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending

Would reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Would also reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and funding for nuclear research and development, missile development and space-based missile defense.
$19 billion $38 billion

Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe

“This option,” according to the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, “would cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia at 100,000 personnel, which is 26 percent below the current level and 33 percent below the level planned for the future. All told, 50,000 personnel would be withdrawn.” The option would also reduce the standing size of the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down.
$25 billion $49 billion

Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets

Under this option, the Navy would build 48 fewer ships and retire 37 more ships than now scheduled. Overall, the battle fleet would shrink to 230 ships, from 286. In addition, the Air Force would retire two tactical fighter wings and reduce the number of fighter jets it planned to purchase.
$19 billion $24 billion

Cancel or delay some weapons programs

This option would cancel the purchase of some expensive equipment, like the F35 fighter jet and MV-22 Osprey, with less expensive equipment that the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force judged to have similar capability. It would delay other purchases. Research and development spending, which the task force considered a relic of the cold war arms race, would be reduced.
$19 billion $18 billion

Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead

Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises. The military would also reduce the length and frequency of combat tours. No unit or person will be sent to a combat zone for longer than a year, and they will not be sent back involuntarily without spending at least two years at home.
$23 billion $51 billion
Foreign troop levels: Choose one or none


Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Today, the United States military has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq. The Obama Administration plans to reduce these numbers in coming years but has not specified troop levels. Defense and budget experts say this 60,000 option would be faster than what is now planned. The savings is the difference between the administration's projected spending and the spending under this option.
$51 billion $149 billion

Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

Reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030.

Infrastructure spending needs is around 2-3 trillion over 10 years, or 200-300 billion dollars a year. Ending the war on drugs would save 80$ billion a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Dru ... _taxpayers
Half from savings on enforcement, half from taxing all drugs, not just pot.
Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude, or were you just arguing for an additional $80 billion dollars/year worth of infrastructure spending? The plans in the spoiler is how to get real money out of the military. You fell into the classic trap of large numbers. Just because the US spends billion on drugs, and needs billion on infrastructure; it doesn't mean you can equate the two programs.

US Department of Defense spending in 2012: 707.5 billion
US Department of Defense spending in 2000: 311.7 billion

Bringing the military back down to year 2000 levels would give us nearly $400 billion/year.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Yakk » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:39 am UTC

But Defence contributions to politicians has gone up from 65m in 2000 up to a peak of 150m in 2008. How will politicians replace that money if they cut Defence spending?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:06 am UTC

Soralin wrote:US Department of Defense spending in 2012: 707.5 billion
US Department of Defense spending in 2000: 311.7 billion

Bringing the military back down to year 2000 levels would give us nearly $400 billion/year.


Hold on. Its not that simple. Part of the reason why we cut back so much on military spending was winding down on the Cold War stuff. And as staff levels shrink, high-ranking bureaucrats become private citizens. Of course, 9/11/2001 happened, and a pressing need came for those experts to come back. But it was too late. These former experts are now private contractors, and they can charge significantly more money for their expertise. Its part of the reason why Washington has to spend so much money... the experts are no longer Government Workers, but instead private Government Contractors. And those experts are making companies, and sharing their expertise with their own employees instead of training Government Workers.

Arguably, dropping spending to year 2000 levels was part of the problem. Instead of training up experts within the Government, they were firing staff and shrinking budgets. (But in a pre-9/11 mindset, there are no more enemies left after the Soviet Union)

Life isn't quite as easy as "stop spending money" of course. Sometimes, you gotta spend money to save money. And year 2000 level spending is arguably a lesson on that. Enough money needs to be spent to retain experts in the Government, as opposed to raising and lowering spending... which only encourages experts to leave Government Jobs.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Google Fiber

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:28 am UTC

The U.S. military could have cut spending well below 2000 levels and still retained valuable staff and programs. They elected instead to cut that staff and maintain more expensive, unnecessary programs.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Google Fiber

Postby Dauric » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:00 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:The U.S. military could have cut spending well below 2000 levels and still retained valuable staff and programs. They elected instead to cut that staff and maintain more expensive, unnecessary programs.

To be fair, the Pentagon would love to drop some systems, such as the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, it's a cold-war platform that doesn't have a lot of use in the situations that we're engaged in or are likely to become engaged in in the forseable future. The problem is Congress is forcing the pentagon to maintain a certain amount of consumption for these systems, it lets the congressthings claim that they supported job creation and "Pursued policies that prevented layoffs".

I believe the Pentagon hit a similar snag with regards to General Electric's production of a fighter engine for the Joint Strike Fighter a few years ago or so as well, but I can't find the article at the moment. Grand upshot was the Pentagon said "We don't want these things" and the Congressional committee for the defense budget effectively told them "Tough shit, you're buying them anyway."
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Google Fiber

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:30 am UTC

Don't forget the personnel costs for the current soldiers, and then future healthcare costs for all the injured soldiers. They threaten to devour the entire budget since people are living longer overall, more soldiers are getting long term injuries instead of dying, and more wars mean more injuries.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Raidri and 11 guests