I haven't seen the full plan yet but investing in wannabe ISPs (i.e. Google) would be a bad investment. Let them use their own money to crank out projects. Knowing the FCC and previous government investments in internet infrastructure (the 1990s), I'm going to assume most of that money will be spent on upgrading and expanding Tier 1 networks. Those will be the companies that will be putting "it" in place. Heck, we might even get a new transoceanic fiber line to Australia.




I'm not against Google coming here. The more ISPs the merrier in my opinion. But being a ISP alone does not mean they're a vital component to the internet itself. They're just a gateway. Some gateways are smaller than others. Having a larger gateway doesn't mean much if all you're hitting, once online, is a bunch of Pentium IIs sitting on 1950s copper lines. The real internet is the fat pipes that are owned by Tier 1 companies. Thats what everyone (including Google) is/will be selling access to.

I highly recommend the tea at Global Infusion, as well as The Sparrows.
Both places are my favorite tea-parties in town.

Got a couple new gadgets for my bike. Well, I guess an iphone bike mount and a tail-light aren't technically gadgets, but now I'm able to locate myself on a map, get directions, and track my routes/speeds/distances/times/accumulated total climbing/descending height... and do so more safely with my little red taillight.

If the Federal Government pushes the FCC broadband plan through, won't it take communications companies (ie Google) to put it into place? That article even mentions that the FCC is praising Google Fiber.

As I understand it, Google doesn't plan to just lay some fiber in the ground, recruit some customers, and call it a day; they plan to use the network to do R&D on potential new technologies/applications. You've gotta start somewhere. Google's going to do it somewhere, why not here?

I think that was the plan all along. With the re-branding of Klingmans, the Other Store became redundant competition, canibalizing it's own sales. No real biggy here.

Exactly my point.



Leave? I don't think you quite understand what Tier 1 networks are. They're the backbones of the internet. Your internet connection is going to use them no matter how much you hate those companies. Doesn't matter if you're using Comcast, AT&T, Google Fiber, Verizon, or anything other ISP; your data packets have a high probability of traveling on Tier 1 networks. They are, quite simply, THE internet.

Here is a tracert I ran to steampowered.com to illustrate my point:
http://i39.tinypic.com/jac66e.jpg

- First hop is my router
- Second hop is my ISP's first switch
- Third through fourth hop, I'm still sitting on my ISP's network
- Fifth hop, I'm on AT&T's network - a fat pipe located in Kansas
- Sixth hop I hit Qwest's border network (probably just east of the rockies and a clear bottleneck which says to me that east coast data packets are put in a queue as they line up to cross the rockies..cause, well, its difficult terrain to build fiber lines through so there are not alot hence the need to prioritize traffic on the limited amounts of lines there are)
- Seventh hop I hit a Qwest core line (probably over the rockies)
- Eighth hop I scream out of Qwest's network at near the same time I came in at (103ms to 119ms..only 16ms spent inside Qwest's network but the backlog at the rockies slowed me down)
- Ninth hop I finally hit my destination somewhere near Bellevue, Washington.

Two Tier 1 networks in just one packet's simple journey to a webpage. And you can see once I hit Qwest's network, my latency (measured in milliseconds) jumps from a 66ms average to 103ms in just ONE hop. This perfectly demonstrates that other companies can and do play a role in another company's service. Google Fiber is NOT going to change this very fundamental way the internet was designed to work.

A much bigger (makes Google Fiber look like a joke) and more important step in the right direction of increasing internet speeds is the current FCC broadband plan being discussed. But it seems everyone else would rather salivate at the teet of Google than care about something REALLY big.

Difference is, Tier 1 internet providers don't give a crap whether you like their service or not.

It would be significant for GR, and it would make Tier 1 Internet providers take notice, especially if we all leave.

"Make a profit"? Google hasn't even dropped a ballpark number on what they think "affordable" fiber optic is and we're already discussing profits? How many of those Facebook fans are going to stick around if Google's "affordable" turns out to be $200 bucks a month?

I've been online since 1994 and craved every increase in speed since but the support of 20,000 people could better be suited to encouraging other companies to increase their speeds. Lets not forget that 80% of US internet traffic passes along a AT&T owned network at some point in it's journey. That is a gigantic amount of information from others ISPs that relies on AT&T's network being robust enough to handle that demand. Even Google's cancer cure will require AT&T's backbone to transfer Google Fiber user's data. Tier 1 providers should be the main target of calls for bandwidth increases; not some stretched-too-thin megalith that is offering .0021%* of current internet users a boost in speed.


*Based on Google's offer to 500,000 and a US internet user population of 227,719,000.

The large number of supportors shows Google that they can make a profit in this area above the cost of intalling the fiber network here.

The idea of the "flashmob" event is confusing to me. Exactly what is it going to accomplish? Is Google invited? So they get several hundred (or thousand) folks DT dressed in one of Google's colors...what's the return on investment for the corporate benefactor?

While I am still in the "fan" group on FB, I had to hide their updates (something like ten per day, and reiterated by the usual suspects). Things got aggravating when a community advocate asked a legitimate question, and was pounced on by respondents who implied that the project will cure the case of cancer that he'll eventually contract. (No kidding. Google cures cancer -- I read it on teh interwebs!)

This whole "effort" to attract Google to cities (not just GR) seems cheesy and almost exclusively groupthink. ...
I'm disheartened by the herd mentality that has recently taken over the internet infrastructure discussion more so in everyday conversation than on here. ...

I know the health/medical industry could benefit from Google Fiber but how would the film industry?

Okay, I guess I'll test the waters with this teabag for your cup:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=685

~John

I live in Ann Arbor where we have all of these stores, and all I can tell you is that Plum is ridiculously expensive. Trader Joe's is much more reasonable.

re: Plum's

Looked at the website -- wondered who the brothers were (I used to work in that industry). Jonna rang a bell - and sure enough, they were from Merchant of Vino. Can't remember the sequence of it all . . .
Fresh Fields, Wild Oats and Whole Foods all came to the midwest within a few years of each other. Whole Foods took over Fresh Fields. Merchant of Vino was taken over/purchased by them (not certain if it was before or after FF was taken over by WF). The Jonna's probably had to sign a non-compete for a given period which has now expired.

Fresh Fields was east coast, Wild Oats was Colorado, Whole Foods is headquartered in Austin TX.

I'd much rather see Plum's come to GR than Trader Joe's (swiss/german/dutch? owned) or Whole Foods.