City moves on Google project.
There will be a public meeting on Weds 2/24 at 6pm in the Council chambers to solicit public input.
City press release after the jump.
Ultra-High Speed Internet Service Coming to Greensboro?
City holds public
meeting on why Google should choose Greensboro as
testing site for new broadband network
The City of Greensboro is holding a
public meeting to get your input on why Greensboro should be chosen as a
testing site for the new service. The meeting will be held at 6 pm Wednesday,
February 24, in Council Chambers of the Melvin Municipal Office Building, 300
W. Washington St. City staff wants your opinions on why Greensboro needs
Google, why Google needs Greensboro, what it will mean for the city to have
Google here, and what makes Greensboro unique.
Google is planning to test its
ultra-high speed broadband network in a small number of cities across the
country. If selected, Google will offer service that is more than 100 times
faster than what most Americans have to Greensboro residents at a competitive
price.
Geeks unite!
Posted by: mick | Feb 17, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Hmmm.....
No comment about "net neutrality" regarding this development?
Or are we all so GaGa over Google that the ramifications are lost on us?
Posted by: Bubba | Feb 17, 2010 at 09:23 PM
hey bubba, why don't you enlighten us heathens to how this google initiative and net neutrality have anything to do with one another instead of sniping from upon high?
Posted by: sean coon | Feb 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM
Google's initiative is a move to shore up net neutrality. They plan to allow multiple providers to provision service over their new network.
Posted by: Roch101 | Feb 18, 2010 at 08:18 AM
Looks like wishful thinking is alive and well in Greensboro's online community.
Don't worry your little heads about Google, gang. If you believe they've got altruistic reasons to support "net nuetrality" specifically, and no desire to influence public policy in general to their great advantage, far be it for me to change your mind.
Go back to sleep.
Posted by: Bubba | Feb 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Bubba, first you wondered why there was no concern about net neutrality, then when told that Google's efforts will support net neutrality you changed the subject to how Google profits from net neutrality. OK.
Posted by: Roch101 | Feb 18, 2010 at 02:29 PM
This initiative is more about video than it is about pure internet. Nearly everyone predicts the end of the current CATV pricing model, and a birth of a pay-per-view for everything - you only watch HGTV & NatGeo, that's all you pay for. The way CATV is delivered now is not conducive to pure pay-per-view, but the current 'broadcast' model and the way we pay now. With 1GBPs, streaming on-demand video, for multiple sets per home should not be a problem.
Google's intentions are to give you higher quality, lower cost internet & 'cable' TV. As ominous as an invisible hand...
Posted by: Jim Caserta | Feb 18, 2010 at 02:44 PM
"..then when told that Google's efforts will support net neutrality you changed the subject to how Google profits from net neutrality. OK."
Google's support of net neutrality was no big secret. Also no big secret are their motives for doing so.
"Net neutrality", as currently proposed, is a simple effort at control. Evidence shows Google has no qualms about massaging an advantage to gain control.
On the other hand, they're not unique in doing something like that. but they do possess the capability to dominate in a fashion no other company can if they manage to gin the system.
Be careful. Google has the capacity to make its rivals look like rank amateurs in this game. There may come a time when some will look back wistfully at TWC's tenure.
Posted by: Bubba | Feb 18, 2010 at 03:19 PM
I'm a satellite guy but have often wondered why there were not more pick and choose options. There are numerous channels in our package that we never watch.
Buyer beware but Gso should explore options. But this is the BIG BIG LEAGUES. Ed has documented the Lenoir process. I dont recall it being pretty.
Posted by: mick | Feb 18, 2010 at 03:38 PM
This is a wholly different situation then Lenoir. My back of the napkin calculations show that a 2k/home investment on 500k homes is $1Bil. 50/mo/home -> 600/yr/home -> $300Mil. That's a gross 30% ROI. Rolling the fiber will be labor intensive for the months it takes.
Look at Verizon's FiOS. Google's will be FiOS on steroids, with a dramatically different interface for TV.
This is complete speculation on my part, but higher BW -> video, and dismantling the CATV price structure and pure HD video-on-demand are both dreams of providers & users. Imagine if you missed Lost, but don't want ABC's interface or to watch on your PC. You go through a set-top-box and either stream it instantly or put a request in and DVR it after-the-fact.
Unless they are asking the localities to foot the bill for the fiber roll-out, this seems like a very good play for both the cities & for Google. Real capitalism generates win-win transactions, and I see this being in that mold.
Posted by: Jim Caserta | Feb 18, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Here's some additional perspective on the Google deal:
"I'm consistently amazed at how much Google resembles the Microsoft of the mid-'90s. Which is to say, a company with a core business so successful that it hides the fact that they fail at nearly everything else they touch.
....Not to worry. Whatever Google does next--Slate tells us that they're getting into the ISP business--you can be sure that the media will still pre-sell it as revolutionary and brilliant and destined to change the world. Again."
Posted by: Bubba | Feb 19, 2010 at 04:52 PM
from the same article, "even the "successful" acquisitions Google has made--Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Docs, were all purchases, too--have taken up resources without creating significant revenue."
for the time being, revenue outside of search is not the primary concern in mountain view. not even close. google products, extraneous to google search, do two specific things for the google business model:
1) they attract users to the google domain, which increases their search numbers (and search revenue)
2) they detract from yahoo and the rest of the competition's user base
comparing google to microsoft is like comparing the space shuttle to a model t ford. sure, the shuttle can blow up every now and then, but shit man, it's going to outer space!
Posted by: sean coon | Mar 19, 2010 at 12:29 AM
Fail? Do you use mapquest or google maps? And the map function is very useful combined with search - especially with the street view where you can see what things will look like when you get there. And local based ads have to be more effective than non-local. Google docs is a different beast and points to the use of cloud computing & their Chrome OS - very long term project.
Now - what was the first comparison I made to Google's initiative - to Verizon's FiOS, showing how revolutionary Google's idea was. What will potentially be revolutionary is HOW GOOGLE DELIVERS VIDEO - see Ed's more recent post. I believe they will abandon the traditional CATV pricing model, and in that you will see others follow. Consumers will be helped, but content providers will suffer because they will only get paid for the people that actually want their product.
The barrier to entry for search is not the same as for OS & applications. MSFT used to withhold their source code for new windows versions, so Win95 comes out, you have new versions of Office right away, but it would take longer for Lotus123 or WordPerfect to get new versions out. That was their anti-competitive action, not anything to do with browsers. (I still think I could have made a better case than David Boies). Apple's OS being on Intel platforms (should be portable to PCs) and having access to office should give real competition to Vista & 7.
I would question an article referencing cell phones that can't spell Motorola correctly...
Posted by: Jim Caserta | Mar 19, 2010 at 08:23 AM