UPDATE II, from the Google blog (same link as below): "Update 4:15PM: We’ve heard from some communities that they’re disappointed not to have been selected for our initial build. So just to reiterate what I've said many times in interviews: we're so thrilled by the interest we've generated—today is the start, not the end the project. And over the coming months, we'll be talking to other interested cities about the possibility of us bringing ultra high-speed broadband to their communities."

UPDATE: Kansas City, Kansas is the smaller KC -- population a little more than half of GSO, with population density much lower than ours. The huge (2009 assets: $1.75 billion) Kauffman Foundation, headquartered across the river in the big KC, includes "innovation" among its core interests; CEO Carl Schramm says the foundation is "enthusiastically supportive of Google’s initiative," and Google says it will be "working closely" with Kauffman and the University of Kansas Medical Center.

Google:

After a careful review, today we’re very happy to announce that we will build our ultra high-speed network in Kansas City, Kansas. We’ve signed a development agreement with the city, and we’ll be working closely with local organizations, businesses and universities to bring a next-generation web experience to the community.

Too bad, but from my limited view a reasonable decision.

Let's get Bob Page to spearhead our own effort.

Comments

[JustCorbly]

Wonder if any NC Republicans are happy it didn't come here, considering their insistence that cities have to play second fiddle to the corporate monopoly provider?

[ew]

Asheville Citizen Times online headline:
Google chooses Kansas City over Asheville for new network

The story does mention that 1100 other cities didn't make the cut.

[Ed Cone]

EW, Philly papers were famous for that kind of perspective -- we used to refer to a certain type of headline as "Pope Shot; Sixers Win", or, "Delaware Valley Couple Injured in Nuclear Holocaust."

[Hugh]

I don't think infrastructure had anything to do with Greensboro's loss. Racial enmity, ridiculous city politics and a lawsuit rampant mentality among public servants are reasons enough.

Besides, Kansas City has better restaurants.

Then again, Asheville being Beer City was a plus.

[Billy Jones]

From the linked article: "In selecting a city, our goal was to find a location where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government and community organizations. We’ve found this in Kansas City."

Now you know what Greensboro doesn't have.

[triadwatch]

hopefully the transparency will be there to see what the contracts entail but am sure it will be a huge cost to the city once the contracts are signed.

[Billy Jones]

triadwatch wrote: "hopefully the transparency will be there to see what the contracts entail but am sure it will be a huge cost to the city once the contracts are signed."

Ditch diggers and linesmen expect to get paid well for their services.

[Ed Cone]

Yes, KC was chosen over more than 1,0000 cities, but clearly this decision is evidence of Greensboro's awfulness.

TW, where do you see the huge costs to the city coming from?

[triadwatch]

ed per this statement
"Google said on Wednesday that it has signed a development agreement with Kansas City and expects to begin offering service in 2012, pending approval from the city's board of commissioners."

it would be interesting to see that development agreement and what it entails. Also , the commissioners need to take a fine tooth comb at this agreement

this from blog gigaom

"When I said that Google’s plan was audacious, I said so because of the cost. For starters, Google wants to offer 1 gigabit-per-second speeds to some 50,000 to 500,000 people. At 2.6 people per household, that roughly translates to between 20,000 and 200,000 homes. Our friend Ben Schachter, Internet analyst with Broadpoint AmTech, estimates that it will cost Google between $3,000 and $8,000 per home, or roughly $60 million to $1.6 billion, depending upon the final size and footprint of the network. If Google reaches, say, 100,000 homes, it would cost the company about half a billion dollars."

Let's see how much incentive money is involved on the local and state level and what is in the development deal with the city.

[Billy Jones]

I'm with TW, this isn't going to come cheap to KC but in saying, "where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government" I suspect what Google really meant was, We've found a city ready to part with a whole lot of cash.

And there you have the one thing that KC has that 1100 other cities including Greensboro either doesn't have or aren't prepared to spend.

Like I said, "Ditch diggers and linesmen expect to get paid well for their services." and at upwards of $75.oo per hour including taxes and benefits the bill is going to be astronomical considering that almost every home and business will have to get fiber.

And that doesn't take into account the cost of materials.

In other words, imagine new wires being run to every home and business in the entire city.

[Thomas]

This is purely speculation on my part, but it seems to me that Google is smart enough to know that if they stick the first city with a huge bill, they won't get a second chance anywhere else.

[Triadwatch]

Thomas that is a good point

[Ed Cone]

Yeah, that's been my thought, too, Thomas.

A bait and switch would be a huge PR mistake. The company has $35 billion in cash on hand, and it has an interest in promoting high speed networks that makes this a reasonable investment.

I'd guess there will be some costs to the city, but not the major ones. And I do wonder what Kauffman's role might be.

Interesting -- none of the articles about KCK's big win even mention Greensboro as the big loser. It's almost as if this was a huge national contest involving more than 1,000 contestants, not a referendum on our city.

[Thomas]

You know why we didn't get it? The Coliseum.