 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| It's too bad... they didn't choose a more sensible critieria like "the backhaul is installed in area 23 and the poles are ready, so it's a good time to start HERE and work down the street.
This method is more a promotional "DO it NOW!"
I do understan it makes sense to flash build a whole neighborhood at once, and then not come back for a year (or until everyone else is done) but this reeks of redlining which is not legit give the level of subsidy the cities has provided Google on this |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by tshirt: they didn't choose a more sensible critieria like "the backhaul is installed in area 23 and the poles are ready, so it's a good time to start HERE and work down the street.
This method is more a promotional "DO it NOW!"
I do understan it makes sense to flash build a whole neighborhood at once, and then not come back for a year (or until everyone else is done) but this reeks of redlining which is not legit give the level of subsidy the cities has provided Google on this
Except that this is the exact opposite of redlining.
Redlining is when the company states: "We will not go into an area because we feel that the area will not generate income quickly enough to satisfy our investors".
Google, otoh, had lower requirements for mostly-minority areas from the start. Then a week ago they lowered the requirements even more to get more poor neighborhoods wired up.
Moreover, Google will be wiring the entire city anyways. These rallies are simply to determine who gets it *first*.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
| said by tiger72:Google, otoh, had lower requirements for mostly-minority areas from the start. Then a week ago they lowered the requirements even more to get more poor neighborhoods wired up.
Moreover, Google will be wiring the entire city anyways. These rallies are simply to determine who gets it *first*.
Sort of. KCK had lower requirements than KCMO to begin with as KCK was intended to be first. They lowered the requirements for KCMO's lower income E Side later when accounting for foreclosures. They also had major registration problems for several weeks. My condo building/hood could not register until the last week or so.
It's interesting that Google picked lower income areas for the most part when starting this. The wealthier metro burbs and N/S KCMO were never part of the plan. And yet it's the lowest income areas that showed least initial interest. Is also curious that before the adjustment, immigrant low income areas showed more interest than non-immigrant low income areas.
But yeah, this was more about order/priority of rollout than anything. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to tshirt
While network topology and availability should drive which neighborhoods get lit up first, there is merit on focusing where demand is....egads, the incumbents have been right all along 
I'm more curious about Google changing it's criteria for determining neighborhood interest (I'm not calling them fiberhoods). With 73 new qualifying neighborhoods, Google would have barely broken 50% with its previous qualification criteria....definitely not good for the ole' marketing machine |
|
|
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to tiger72
said by tiger72: Except that this is the exact opposite of redlining.
Redlining is when the company states: "We will not go into an area because we feel that the area will not generate income quickly enough to satisfy our investors".
But since this has no chance of being profitable based on monthly charges (and thats not it intent) redlining in this case is a company saying "you are not showing enough interest in getting everyone signed up (i.e. acomplishing the companies goal)"
I am truely amazed at the outpouring of support google is getting, not for the overall project, but for the ring master like way they are hyping this signup circus...had AT&T even offered the same deal with the same sort of subsidies and the minimal (2year) commitment on their part, mean of the same people praising and defending google actions (like turning neighbors into 24 hour free of charge saleman, just to get it first) would be calling for pitchforks and torches at every CO.
The level of manipulation people who don't even live there are willing to heap on the effected residents, thinking it somehow will fool google into fibering their town next is bizarre. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:I'm more curious about Google changing it's criteria for determining neighborhood interest (I'm not calling them fiberhoods). With 73 new qualifying neighborhoods, Google would have barely broken 50% with its previous qualification criteria....definitely not good for the ole' marketing machine
Totally agree, that alot of this is about the appearance of sucess, and focusing the build out(there is no doubt it will eventually be everywhere, and the flash build is more efficient then sign up a few, and hope those few will go out a passionately sell others afterwards (you know those early adoptors will be glued to their computers/tv's/xboxes/etc. as soon as they are lit up, until they die ) but if you think they may do this elsewhere look at the model they are building... demand to CITIES, "What will you give Google to get us there?" and neighborhoods "What you answered doesn't meet OUR needs, google need ALL your info, and your first born child, or NO FIBER(soup) FOR YOU! |
|
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:But since this has no chance of being profitable based on monthly charges... Please, oh wise one that knows all about this, tell how exactly you know this?
And please tells... when you say it has no chance do you mean it wont be profitable the first month, the first year, the first decade or at anytime that it is up and running anytime in the future period?
I would be willing to bet you that Google will be profitable on this within 18 months. |
|
tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:said by tiger72: Except that this is the exact opposite of redlining.
Redlining is when the company states: "We will not go into an area because we feel that the area will not generate income quickly enough to satisfy our investors".
But since this has no chance of being profitable based on monthly charges (and thats not it intent) redlining in this case is a company saying "you are not showing enough interest in getting everyone signed up (i.e. acomplishing the companies goal)" Any particular reason you didn't quote the second half of my post which already countered your "point"?
What part of "every neighborhood will get Google Fiber access" is so difficult to comprehend? They'll be deploying everywhere in Kansas City within 2 years. The signups merely dictate who gets it first.
I am truely amazed at the outpouring of support google is getting, not for the overall project, but for the ring master like way they are hyping this signup circus...had AT&T even offered the same deal with the same sort of subsidies and the minimal (2year) commitment on their part, mean of the same people praising and defending google actions (like turning neighbors into 24 hour free of charge saleman, just to get it first) would be calling for pitchforks and torches at every CO.
I'm sure your memories escape you, but a very similar level of excitement surrounded Fios when it was first being deployed. Communities beg (and still beg) to get Fios. Verizon chose to stop deploying in new areas due to "the economy". ATT cheaped out and went with FTTN->VDSL. Let's note that ATT and VZ profit margins on internet access are sky-high, and during the "bad economy" where they've chosen to cut deployments their profits have only increased.
It's actually more unfortunate for Time Warner, since they've been the ones who (for the entire time I lived there at least) drove competition and prices in the area.
Either way, they all had their chances. Glad to see Google doing what the other guys chose not to.
The level of manipulation people who don't even live there are willing to heap on the effected residents, thinking it somehow will fool google into fibering their town next is bizarre.
I know, I know. People in the midwest are so stupid and gullible! That's probably why Google chose to start there! They're so easily manipulated! 
It's cool though. The midwest is quite used to hearing about our stupidity from the likes of you on the west coast.
Have you even *been* to KC?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by tiger72:Have you even *been* to KC?
Yes I have, and I think you are not understanding, my complaint isn't about the people in KC, It is the people here and on other forums fawning over google, ignoring the incredible/intense/blatant social engineering/manipulation that google is putting the people of KC through to MAYBE be first, by a year or so.
Does being first really mean that much?
I'd rather be 6 months or so later and hope to get a cleaner install, by an experienced installer.
if the payback was really going to be that quick why would google need the ROW fees wavied? (say it's $10 per pole per year, if KC let them on 25,000 poles that's $250k a year..not huge for google, but over a 40 year lease, that's $10 million that isn't there when pole replacement time comes, and why should TWC or the telco pay either or even the electric company, so now you are at least $40 million short.
Same with electric bills, if google gets it free (no meter install fee, no grid improvement charge, no actual bill) no only are you out the amount for google you present the chance of no other provider being required to pay, particularly since they choose to cross a state line, you bring in federal regulations... Is the city / googles relationship "unfair" to competing providers. |
|
