 Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
| It wont be complete google owned network. Course it wont be complete google owned network at all they would have to be using like level 3 or somebody to get bandwidth transport to KC, MO and I like to see the live speeds soon as they get these customers hooked up for real and not some BS lie so they can get money from these customers. | |
|
 | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | Re: It wont be complete google owned network. said by treichhart:Course it wont be complete google owned network at all they would have to be using like level 3 or somebody to get bandwidth transport to KC, MO and I like to see the live speeds soon as they get these customers hooked up for real and not some BS lie so they can get money from these customers.
Google has their own backbone to interconnect their data centers and POPs which has a lot of peering and yes they do connect to Level3 for transit to reach the networks that they do not peer with. Every other ISP has to rely on peering and/or transit to get data to and from their networks. Even if they did not use their own backbone for commercial Internet access but just to access their DCs for Google services it isn't as if there is a shortage of commercial transit bandwidth from the wholesale providers in the city. | |
|
| zed260Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN Reviews:
 ·Charter
1 edit | said by treichhart:Course it wont be complete google owned network at all they would have to be using like level 3 or somebody to get bandwidth transport to KC, MO and I like to see the live speeds soon as they get these customers hooked up for real and not some BS lie so they can get money from these customers.
google pays nothing for bandwith they are a tier 1 isp practicly with this launch
google pays nothing to connect to over half the net they have peering agreements with Comcast, time Warner cable, charter communications, cable vision, cox communications , rcn . and loads more they dont have to pay anything to transit those isps networks in fact rcn pays google for the rights to be able to direct connect to there nationwide network to bypass level 3 | |
|
| | | | Re: It wont be complete google owned network. That is incorrect..
Hop 7 of a trace to google.com
7 google-gw.customer.alter.net (152.179.50.62) 54.481 ms 49.640 ms 50.306 ms
UUNET (now Verizon) does not use $-gw.customer on peering routers, only customer routers, therefore google is paying as a customer, not a peer. | |
|
| | | zed260Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN Reviews:
·Charter
2 edits | Re: It wont be complete google owned network. said by jvanbrecht:That is incorrect..
Hop 7 of a trace to google.com
7 google-gw.customer.alter.net (152.179.50.62) 54.481 ms 49.640 ms 50.306 ms
UUNET (now Verizon) does not use $-gw.customer on peering routers, only customer routers, therefore google is paying as a customer, not a peer.
they dont have peering agreements with every isp thats true but with a large amount they do on a net basis google pays nothing
»www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/10/26/···dex.html
6 percent of internet traffic in 2010 probably close to same amount with such a large portion of internet traffic any isp who can get free transit from google can cut there costs for providing internet by 6 percent instantly so isps will fight to some degree to provide google with the cheapest most attractive option for internet
»www.wired.com/business/2009/10/y···ndwidth/
once you get big enough isps will fight to have you go over there network because if you dont go over there network they have to pay others to get access to your site
heres a question for you if your isps blocked google.com youtube.com etc and lowered your bill 6 percent would you take the lower bill or switch isps id switch instantly losing google.com and its search engine would not be worth it to me or to a lot of people google and major isps know this | |
|
| | | |  mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | Re: It wont be complete google owned network. said by zed260:heres a question for you if your isps blocked google.com youtube.com etc and lowered your bill 6 percent would you take the lower bill or switch isps id switch instantly losing google.com and its search engine would not be worth it to me or to a lot of people google and major isps know this
I'd keep using my VPN and save the 6% lol.
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | This is no different than any other business. ATT/VZN/Comcast/L3 all connect Google to the world, but that is their backbone divisions operating pretty much independent of their customer facing divisions. Much like how Apple is suing Samsung's phone division and competes with that division at the storefront. But their gadgets use parts from Samsung's chip fab and LCD panel divisions.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Currently GoogleFiber-KC uses Level3 and XO. My bet is that Google's own ASN will be added into that mix around launch. | |
|
|
|
1 edit | Re: Geez! Just start knocking on doors...its only $10! Karl, that report is old. Over 30% of hoods are now registered but it has slowed down to a crawl. The problem is many many people in valid fiberhoods are not able to register due to a bug. I can't register, my entire building cannot. There are major problems with the registration site. Google has acknowledged this but no media is mentioning it.
I've also tried addresses in low income areas and not many work. And nearly all of my hood cannot register even though it's a valid fiberhood.
Karl needs to report the registration problem. No other media is addressing the registration problems in valid hoods. | |
|
| | | | Re: Geez! Just start knocking on doors...its only $10! You can track registrations here...
»fiber.google.com/cities/kcmo/#header=check
Note the E and S side and downtown (N) are low - is because very few people can register due to a bug. I live in the section on the N edge of Green loop wrapping around a couple hoods where very few can register.
Right now about 44/130 (33%) of valid fiberhoods are registered but its come to a near halt because few others are able to register.
I've tried dozens of addresses in valid fiberhoods that don't work. Sent it to the KC Star and they are silent. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Geez! Just start knocking on doors...its only $10! Google has acknowledged the issue (mostly multi-dwelling units) and said they are working as fast as possible to fix it.
I hope the people that tried originally but couldn't get their address registered try again instead of just giving up. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The Demand is insane As I said earlier, even if I had to wait the full 18 months I'd still be thrilled. | |
|
 mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ | Yep, I'd be all over this. I have an HTPC with a ceton cable card drv card here. Did that to bring down my cable bill. Still paying more then KC residents will pay with Google. Also with what they are using I wouldn't need the HTPC. Google come to NJ please! | |
|
|
| | | Re: Google FTW Finally another ISP that lies?
No matter what it costs, bandwidth still has a cost. There is no denying that. And of course physical cost of the network is important, it's a big number.
10 of google's 1gbit customers will not pay for a 10gbit router port anytime soon, and that's without the bandwidth cost.
As soon as they have multiple customers running 1gbit/sec 24x7x365, they'll certainly do something about those.
All ISP's run with the assumption that not all customers will use all of the physical network AND bandwidth at the same time, because it is expensive.
Google hasn't done anything magical here, they overbuilt a loss leader. It's great promotion for them.
I won't deny it's great for the individual that can get the cheap service. But that doesn't mean in the end that the service is being fully paid for. | |
|
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Google FTW said by skuv :Google hasn't done anything magical here, they overbuilt a loss leader. It's great promotion for them. Exactly. I'm not sure why other people don't seem to get this. Google will lose money on this network which is subsidized by their massive advertising revenues and people will claim that every ISP could do a gigabit for $70/mo. As you stated, at $70/mo, they may never recoup their costs on the physical infrastructure, much less the ongoing costs of getting that bandwidth there. | |
|
| | Moving to Kansas City I'm seriously considering moving to Kansas City now. Before I'd never cared for the place and it wasn't even on my radar but this is a serious quality of life benefit the city is about to get.
Seems like it's turning into a high-tech city - the perfect place for people with computer science degrees. | |
|
| |
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | my only gripe I absolutely love this, but my only gripe is the "no servers" bit. | |
|
| | | Re: my only gripe said by FBGuy:I absolutely love this, but my only gripe is the "no servers" bit.
Kinda like no servers on every single other residential connection?
--
20/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old | |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: my only gripe Servers are not SUPPORTED on most residential connections. On Google Fiber, they are NOT ALLOWED/PROHIBITED/etc.
There is a very big difference here. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: my only gripe said by FBGuy:Servers are not SUPPORTED on most residential connections. On Google Fiber, they are NOT ALLOWED/PROHIBITED/etc.
There is a very big difference here.
A lot of consumer connections servers are NOT ALLOWED/PROHIBITED/etc. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: my only gripe I don't know how Google would enforce 'no servers'. If they do I suspect they would not limit outbound bandwidth but might limit the number of outbound connections on the uplink to a dozen or so concurrent. That would be reasonable as you could still use things like Orb or Playon for personal/family use. | |
|
| | | | |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Re: my only gripe This is not the kind of limit they will enforce, it's a cover-your-ass rule.
Google is selling a residential service. This sort of service makes assumptions about typical use cases in order to make financial sense at the price offered. A business or enterprise, however, would have a very different usage profile, and the ISP could either lose a lot of money on that customer, or they could even cause congestion (more on that in a bit). As such, ISPs will put in the no-server clause so that if some business does start using and abusing the connection, they have a clause in the AUP that lets them terminate problem customers. This is not intended so much to catch your home server, but so that if a small business tries to power their rack of servers on the thing, there is grounds for termination.
That said, let me address the bandwidth for a moment. Google is promising 1 gigabit symmetrical, and they're delivering that over GPON. I believe I've heard the split Google will use is 1:32 (32 customers per node), but I can't confirm that. GPON supports, per node, a shared speed of roughly 2.5 Gbps down and 1.25 Gbps up. For a typical residential scenario, that's enough that people aren't going to have speed concerns, but throw an enterprise on there with a rack of servers and things get iffy.
A home user isn't going to max out a gigabit upstream all day long, but a business could easily do that 24/7. Suddenly, the other 31 users on the node have only 250 megabit of shared bandwidth available (although in practice a second customer would see about 600ish). There's not enough bandwidth to go around with GPON for large businesses to be sharing it with residential users; enterprises should be on dedicate fibre.
There's a wrinkle here, though. Typically you don't deliver 1 Gbps on GPON because there's not a lot of bandwidth go go around. You would want at least 10GPON for that, but 10GPON isn't really seen in the real world yet. If you throw a gigabit connection at every customer, it gets really easy to saturate the entire node's upstream capacity with BitTorrent or something. It doesn't take many users running BitTorrent on gigabit connections to saturate that total of 1.25 Gbps...
For this reason, we may see Google being more aggressive with the no-servers clause than residential ISPs typically are.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
|
| | | | | |  somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: my only gripe said by Guspaz:This is not the kind of limit they will enforce, it's a cover-your-ass rule.
Google is selling a residential service. This sort of service makes assumptions about typical use cases in order to make financial sense at the price offered. A business or enterprise, however, would have a very different usage profile, and the ISP could either lose a lot of money on that customer, or they could even cause congestion (more on that in a bit). As such, ISPs will put in the no-server clause so that if some business does start using and abusing the connection, they have a clause in the AUP that lets them terminate problem customers. This is not intended so much to catch your home server, but so that if a small business tries to power their rack of servers on the thing, there is grounds for termination.
That said, let me address the bandwidth for a moment. Google is promising 1 gigabit symmetrical, and they're delivering that over GPON. I believe I've heard the split Google will use is 1:32 (32 customers per node), but I can't confirm that. GPON supports, per node, a shared speed of roughly 2.5 Gbps down and 1.25 Gbps up. For a typical residential scenario, that's enough that people aren't going to have speed concerns, but throw an enterprise on there with a rack of servers and things get iffy.
A home user isn't going to max out a gigabit upstream all day long, but a business could easily do that 24/7. Suddenly, the other 31 users on the node have only 250 megabit of shared bandwidth available (although in practice a second customer would see about 600ish). There's not enough bandwidth to go around with GPON for large businesses to be sharing it with residential users; enterprises should be on dedicate fibre.
There's a wrinkle here, though. Typically you don't deliver 1 Gbps on GPON because there's not a lot of bandwidth go go around. You would want at least 10GPON for that, but 10GPON isn't really seen in the real world yet. If you throw a gigabit connection at every customer, it gets really easy to saturate the entire node's upstream capacity with BitTorrent or something. It doesn't take many users running BitTorrent on gigabit connections to saturate that total of 1.25 Gbps...
For this reason, we may see Google being more aggressive with the no-servers clause than residential ISPs typically are.
»en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/in···s-161-km
We follow with interest every step you take Google's new experimental fiber network that is unfolding in Kansas City. On this occasion, one of its leaders explains how each household connected individually to the Google Fiber Huts, which unlike GPON networks such as Telefonica can offer 1 Gbps symmetrical.
John Toccalino, project manager, explains that being installed in various parts of the city a few huts or nodes called Google Fiber Huts. Inside house the OLT equipment that connect the pairs of fiber, which then hung from utility poles, reach every home. For its explanation, we understand that Google is not using a GPON network like the one in Spain is installing Telefónica.
Google does reach each individual fiber from Google Hut Fiber to the home. The main advantage is that each line is independent and can use their full capacity for a single user. The disadvantage is that a deployment of this type is more expensive than the displays in a tree, as used by Telefonica, in which each fiber coming from the OLT is divided into several stages into sub-segments by splitters, so that all Users are both the same optical signal, but each uses it only for the fraction of time allocated to it.
With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Yeah, I could see Google limit the number of concurrent uplink connections that would be reasonable enough for personal use. They'll probably have to either limit bandwidth or # of concurrent uplink connections in the end. It would be too easy to abuse the service. For marketing purposes they are saying 1Gbit unlimited and not many would understand concurrent uplink connection limits so they could likely get away limiting the latter w/out taking a PR hit. | |
|
| | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Care to show me where it says that they are not allowed? You can start with your own ISP. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: my only gripe said by FBGuy:Care to show me where it says that they are not allowed? You can start with your own ISP.
4. COMMERCIAL USE
If you are a commercial subscriber of Suddenlink, this paragraph 4 shall not apply to your subscription to the Internet but only to the extent that your subscription expressly addresses such use.
The Internet Service is provided for personal and family use within a single residential household. You agree that you will not use, nor allow others to use, the Internet Service to operate any type of business or commercial enterprise or to use the Internet Service as an Internet service provider. You may set up one (1) Web page per e-mail account for personal use using the Internet Service, but you may not establish a web page using a server located at your home. You agree that you will not use, nor allow others to use, your home computer as a Web Server, FTP Server, file server or game server or to run any other server applications. Customer will not resell or redistribute, or allow others to resell or redistribute, access to the Internet Service in any manner, including by wireless means.
From SuddenLink's latest updated file. Oddly enough SL terms seem to indicate I'm not even allowed hosting a game from my house, lol.
--
20/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: my only gripe yea that makes no sense. it's impossible to use the internet without technically having server applications on your computer. | |
|
| | | | | |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
| said by moldypickle:From SuddenLink's latest updated file. Oddly enough SL terms seem to indicate I'm not even allowed hosting a game from my house, lol.
If that's absolutely true/enforced, no more game consoles. That term must be broken by everyone in this day and age. | |
|
| | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Excite@Home, ATTBI, ATT DSL, Comcast, TWC, Charter - just about every company i've ever paid for residential service has prohibited hosting servers.
At one point, ATTBI used to actively scan their network to search for HTTP servers... At the time their only offering was 1.5mbps down, and 128kbps up...
Typically, the part about hosting servers being prohibited in your contract is actually just an excuse for them to cancel your service if it becomes clear that you're using a cheap residential connection to run a profitable server hosting business. Otherwise, most companies dont want to bother with actually policing their network.
--
"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 | |
|
| | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
| Re: my only gripe My previous ISPs(Mediacom and AT&T and Comcast) all said that they would not support it, but it was allowed for personal use. This pretty much is in line with what you said about not making money on your internet connection for a server hosting business. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: my only gripe said by r81984:Every residential provider prohibits servers.
»www.xmission.com/legal#au
Server Services on DSL and Residential UTOPIA
XMission allows DSL and UTOPIA subscribers to run and maintain their own servers.
My FTTH ISP residential provider is cool w/servers... | |
|
| | | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: my only gripe Very rare.
Obviously there will be small local anomalies to servers, but almost all dont allow them in their terms for residential.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by r81984:Every residential provider prohibits servers.
The issue though is your computer is always a server on the internet, so it never made any sense.
As long as you are not running a high traffic business website then no one is going to care.
I honestly think the real reason this is in most TOS is not just to limit network congestion but also limit angry phone calls. If someone hosted their business at home on a non business rated conenction and the service goes down they will be calling in complaining and crying about lost money.
I have a feeling anybody with a really tech smart member of their WoW guild might want them to host the Vent/TS3/Mumble on a spare linux box though.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by r81984:Every residential provider prohibits servers.
Not "every". My ISP allows residential users to obtain static IP addresses, and allows servers to be run on those statics. My IP address rDNS does not reflect who my ISP is, only my domain.
Also, my former ISP, at least up to the purchase (I was an SBC Global customer then) did not prohibit servers on residential accounts.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Do they have a business connection that allows them? | |
|
| | | Every ISP states this but they never enforce it.
I'd be surprised to see Google enforce this unless someone decides to open up the next Megaupload and host it right on their Google Fiber connection | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | | said by FBGuy:I absolutely love this, but my only gripe is the "no servers" bit.
To be honest, it's for their own protection should it get escalated to the abuse department.
I can think of 2 legit reasons they have the "no server" bit rule.
1) An ISP topology is NOT setup for servers. A legit server has crazy traffic spikes, and can push upwards of 6000 - 1TB traffic on a 100Mbit port. They don't want you saturating their connection.
2) The NOC would be inundated with pointless quality of service tickets because you will get a few people running servers and killing the experience for the rest of the ISP customers.
IMO if you're going to run a legit server, you should just go with a dedicated server/hosting company.
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."-Malcolm X
| |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: my only gripe Everything you said is valid, but a single server should never be able to degrade service on any ISP. | |
|
| | The problem will be media content owners The internet side looks good but the TV side might end up been a clusterfark.
/Think Dish or Google TV | |
|
| | looks like most current fiberhoods will get it If you look closely at the list, most of the areas need less than 100 more signups.
I think the best thing about this $10 thing is that you're basically mapping all the areas where google will need help promoting their service. | |
|
| | The Google paranoia! I'd be almost scared to death to use Google for an ISP!
Who knows what that may be spying on then? 
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
|  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Re: The Google paranoia! said by cork1958:I'd be almost scared to death to use Google for an ISP!
Who knows what that may be spying on then?
Well then, don't. As if other ISPs like AT&T doesn't spy. | |
|
| | ... Google takes your $10 and throws it into a huge pool with everyone else's $10 and collects all the interest while it takes 8 years to finally complete the fiber install in said city and they gives you your $10 back. Genius. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
