Re: Fair Use Policy

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

I just wish that someone...Google or ANYONE else would do something like Google Fiber in the technological wasteland 
where I live instead of focusing only on hotbeds of high-speed internet and well-connected customers like Kansas City, 
parts of North Dakota, Minnesota, etc.

Here in my bandwidth ghetto, TPC can't do better than 1.5Mbps/384kbps and Cable has different limitations (ridiculous 
fees for static addresses, for example[1]), extremely variable performance (most days, I do pretty well getting 
50-70Mbps/10-30Mbps on a line where I pay for 30/10, but often enough to be annoying, I get 7Mbps/3Mbps for 8-10 hours 
at a time...Just long enough to go through the trouble report process but not long enough to still be a problem when 
the tech shows up to address the issue.), etc.

I'd love to ditch the DSL line and relegate the Cable circuit to backup status (and move to a lower pricing tier on it) 
with my primary on FTTH.

[1] I _HAVE_ business class cable service, but I find the idea of $5+/month for an address that costs them less than 
$0.001/year ridiculous.


Where is this barren wasteland of bandwidth you may ask? It's in San Jose, California. Capitol of Silicon Valley. If I 
stand on the top of my roof, I can see 55 South Market Street on a clear day. (but I have to stand in just the right 
spot and look through just the right piece of the 280x680x101 interchange).

If anyone wants to do a fiber build in my neighborhood ala Google, I will happily go door to door soliciting my 
neighbors on their behalf.

Owen

On Aug 22, 2012, at 18:46 , Benjamin Krueger <benjamin () seattlefenix net> wrote:

> A unique position? Unlike those poor residential ISPs who only have literally millions of subscribers to use as 
> leverage in peering negotiations. Perhaps more accurately, rather than saying "Google can afford to start almost any 
> project they want" we should say "Google doesn't suffer the temptation of wringing every last penny out of their 
> aging infrastructure to ensure maximum profits from minimal investments".
>
> I don't want to turn this into a long-drawn debate, so I'll simply say that I take Google at their word when they say 
> this is profitable from Day 1 and I surely take their product offering at its word. I'm not sure who proposed we 
> require anything, but I suppose we can let the market decide what ISPs are "required" to do. I can say that I don't 
> know anyone who wouldn't drop any existing residential service for what Google is selling. Perhaps they will succumb 
> to some unforeseen boogeyman as you allude to, but to be honest that sounds a whole lot like the wishful thinking of 
> an industry that has been deftly out-manueverd at its own game and now finds itself dramatically behind the curve. 
> Frankly, if I were in the ISP business I would be shitting my pants.
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> > On 8/22/12, Benjamin Krueger <benjamin () seattlefenix net> wrote:
> > > Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.
> >
> > Google can afford to start almost any project they want,  and they are
> > in a unique position to negotiate peering and access to a ton of
> > bandwidth, with their Youtube, Google Search et al. As to whether  it
> > will be profitable, well, obviously, that is their claim. It's yet to
> > be demonstrated.
> >
> > I gotta reject the idea that broadband providers should be required to
> > follow in Google's footsteps though.
> >
> > For now, Google fiber is another risky experiment,  that could have a
> > great payout if successful, or could be shuttered within a year or so,
> > or fees/rate incs tacked on,  when they figure out just what a mess
> > they have gotten into.
> >
> >
> > > http://fiber.google.com/
> > > http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/
> > --
> > -JH