Google Fiber Shifts Into High Gear

Showing that it's much more than a mere science experiment, Google Fiber aims to bring its trademark 1Gbit/s broadband service to up to nine more US markets, including some of the biggest and fastest-growing areas in the nation.

Google Fiber Inc. , which is operating in the Kansas City and Provo, Utah, areas and plans to expand to Austin, Texas, by the summer, spelled out its plans Wednesday. In a blog post on its website, the company said it's weighing 1 Gbit/s launches in some promising markets: Atlanta; San Jose, Calif.; San Antonio; Phoenix; Salt Lake City; Charlotte, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; Nashville, Tenn.; and Raleigh/Durham, N.C. (See Google Fiber Proceeds in Provo .)

In all, Google Fiber is targeting 34 cities in the nine metro markets. The Google unit said it plans to decide where to build its FTTH networks next by the end of the year.

"We've long believed that the Internet's next chapter will be built on gigabit speeds, so it's fantastic to see the momentum," Milo Medin, vice president of Google Access Services, wrote in the blog post. "And now that we've learned a lot from our Google Fiber projects in Kansas City, Austin, and Provo, we want to help build more ultra-fast networks."

As this map from Google Fiber shows, the FTTH provider is eyeing markets across the US, especially in the SE and SW.
As this map from Google Fiber shows, the FTTH provider is eyeing markets across the US, especially in the SE and SW.

Notably, the nine markets selected by Google Fiber have a few things in common. Nearly all of them are in the Southeast or Southwest, meaning they should be relatively free of winter weather hazards that could hamper fiber network construction. And even Portland, the northernmost market on the list, doesn't get much snow or ice.

For another thing, several of the markets, like San Jose and Raleigh/Durham, are well-established technology hubs that would particularly welcome 1Gbit/s speeds. Plus, most of the markets are in states where labor unions are weak, which should result in lower construction and labor costs for Google Fiber.

Coincidentally or not, the nine markets are mainly areas where AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) is the dominant telco. Among the major US broadband providers, AT&T generally offers the lowest maximum broadband speeds, though it is upgrading its network in Austin to deliver 1Gbit/s speeds. CenturyLink Inc. (NYSE: CTL) and Frontier Communications Corp. (NYSE: FTR) operate in the other markets. Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), whose FiOS Internet service offers maximum speeds of 500 Mbit/s, is conspicuously absent from the list. (See AT&T's Austin GigaPower Debuts at 300 Mbit/s .)

No such pattern is evident on the cable operator side of the ledger. Google Fiber, which already competes against Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC) in Kansas City and Austin and against Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) in Provo, would mostly go up against one or the other in the nine new markets, as well. The sole exception is Phoenix, where Google Fiber would take on Cox Communications Inc. for the first time.

In his blog post, Medin wrote that his unit will "work closely with each city's leaders on a joint planning process" over the rest of the year to "map out a Google Fiber network in detail" and "assess what unique local challenges we might face." Google Fiber will "work on a detailed study of local factors that could affect construction." The cities "will complete a checklist of items that will help then get ready for a project of this scale and speed." For instance, Google Fiber expects the cities to produce maps of local conduit, water, gas, and electricity lines and help it access utility poles.

Medin warned that Google Fiber will not necessarily go forward in all the targeted cities, for reasons ranging from landscape issues to construction headaches to planning snafus to regulatory red tape. But he said even the cities that didn't make the grade would benefit from the comprehensive planning. "While we want to bring fiber to every one of these cities, it might not work out for everyone. But cities who go through this process with us will be more prepared for us or any provider who wants to build a fiber network."

— Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, Light Reading

Page 1 / 6   >   >>
Susan Fourtané 4/26/2014 | 1:07:50 AM
Re: "High Gear"? Yes, pcharles. We can't do anything about that. 

pcharles09 4/25/2014 | 8:22:46 PM
Re: "High Gear"? Yupp. Where there's $$, there's power which trumps all else. Sad but true.
Susan Fourtané 4/22/2014 | 11:11:13 PM
Re: "High Gear"? pcharles,

It's just another case of what you previously said: "there's so much $$ involved . . ." 


pcharles09 4/22/2014 | 9:48:15 PM
Re: "High Gear"? Yes. Very true.

The sad part is that people still use them even though they are very forthcoming with all the NEGATIVE side effects. Talk about ironic.
Susan Fourtané 4/19/2014 | 10:59:01 AM
Re: "High Gear"? pcharles, 

"I don't know if there will be a happy medium in the US since there's so much $$ involved in making these decisions, not morals."

Precisely. That's one of the main problems. There is a need of a radical change. Unfortunately, it won't happen. We are talking about the land where prescribed drugs are advertised on TV. 

pcharles09 4/18/2014 | 11:07:33 PM
Re: "High Gear"? I agree with you totally. I was just playing devil's advocate because I can see both sides of the argument. I don't know if there will be a happy medium in the US since there's so much $$ involved in making these decisions, not morals.
Susan Fourtané 4/3/2014 | 4:47:57 AM
Re: "High Gear"? pcharles, 

Yes, parents --in theory-- should know how to handle their children's wants. However, more than not advertising works against parents. 

In some European countries like Finland, for example, advertising cigarettes and alcohol is not permitted. The reasons are obvious. If you decide to buy something that is not good for your health it's your own responsibility and there is no advertising contributing to it. 

In the same way, there could be a similar law for advertising products that are not good for children. If parents decide to buy those products to their children it would be their own responsibility instead of the influence of advertising. You see my point? :)

pcharles09 3/30/2014 | 12:24:19 PM
Re: "High Gear"? I don't disagree with what you said at all. It's possible.

"they should attend parent school, remember?"

This point is an interesting one. Probably worthy of a new thread elsewhere but this is probably the most important factor when discussing advertising to children. If the parents don't know how to handle theire children's wants, whether good or not, that's probably the biggest part of this story.
Susan Fourtané 3/28/2014 | 3:46:58 AM
Re: "High Gear"? pcharles, 

I thought of mentioning about that, too, in my previous comment. Then I forgot. :( 

More times than not those situations trigger conflict between parents and children, especially when the children are still too young to comprehend the marketing tricks. 

A kid can be highly influenced by advertising and he may want something that is not healthy, not good for him, or too expensive for the parents' pocket. When the parent refuses to buy the product there is a conflict created.

Not all the parents know how to deal with these situations (they should attend parent school, remember?), the issue can create other problems, or the kid can develop negative feelings as he sees his parents as the bad guys who don't want to buy the great things the marketers want him to have. That, in a nutshell. 

pcharles09 3/27/2014 | 10:39:37 PM
Re: "High Gear"? The thing to remember is that even when kids are marketed to, their parents still have the final say since they don't have the $$ to buy things on there own.
Page 1 / 6   >   >>
Sign In