Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Networking The Internet

Google Fiber Adds 14th City: Lee's Summit 81

Posted by samzenpus
from the welcome-to-the-club dept.
symbolset writes "On Thursday night the Lee's Summit city council passed three resolutions to welcome Google Fiber to their community. This is the 12th community in the Kansas City Metro Area to welcome Google Fiber and the 14th city overall. The KC map now covers almost all of the KC metro area with parts in both Kansas and Missouri. 8 months into the rollout two fiberhoods have been completed, 30 more are underway and 50 more are to start by the end of summer. This covers most of the territory of both Kansas Citys ahead of schedule and completes before the end of winter so the timeline has been accelerated. As Google runs their fiber across town it appears they're putting backbones down the major thoroughfares to be trunks out to the wider communities. With Provo wired with fiber already, Austin to start next, it looks like Google Fiber's ambitions are not to deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered, inexpensive fiber Internet to just a few privileged enclaves. They still have over 1,000 cities left to go who have already petitioned to be Google Fiber cities, so it's not like they're going to run out of work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fiber Adds 14th City: Lee's Summit

Comments Filter:
  • I don't really care if people who can already get broadband can get faster broadband. I only care if people who can't get broadband (FCC definition: 6mbps. Fastest connection I can buy: 2Mbps) can actually, you know, get broadband.

    It's shameful how we lag behind other technically developed nations in high-speed penetration (huh huh huh) but it's even more shameful that the nation that invented the internet has such poor broadband access.

    • by nospam007 (722110) *

      "I don't really care if people who can already get broadband can get faster broadband."

      But yes, I welcome a couple of million seeders with 1GB/1GB lines.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      As Google invades territory controlled only by cable and phone companies, it pushes those former monopolies to consider branching out to areas with less competition such as your backwoods town.

      Compared to other developed nations that have better speeds, we also have lower population densities. Japan and South Korea, who boast gigabit broadband, have 10 and 16 times our density meaning they have something like 10-16 times less fiber per person and it makes it much more cost effect to supply them. How shamef

      • by Bengie (1121981)

        Japan and South Korea, who boast gigabit broadband, have 10 and 16 times our density

        Actually, the density of their cities are not 10x-16x of ours, but their cities are 10x-16x the densities of our farmlands.

  • I live in one of the few KC suburbs that doesn't have fiber. It's really quite annoying.
    • by hottoh (540941)
      Move across town. Problem solved.
    • by raptor_87 (881471)
      Also, why are the skipping Overland Park?
      • by hottoh (540941)
        Simple. They have not given enough away yet to attract GF. Read tax abatements. Read up on how KCK became the first choice, why goog was behind on the rollout of the GF service.
  • Worry not people, the KC metro area is not that great a place to be. Yeah it seems better if they were in your neighborhood.

    Remember they are getting version 1.0 of the service, you will get the upgraded version.
    • Worry not people, the KC metro area is not that great a place to be. Yeah it seems better if they were in your neighborhood.

      Remember they are getting version 1.0 of the service, you will get the upgraded version.

      But everything's up to date in Kansas City - They've gone about as far as they can go!

  • unfiltered my ass (Score:3, Informative)

    by jdogalt (961241) on Sunday June 23, 2013 @01:56PM (#44086193) Journal

    deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered

    Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:

    (Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau)
    --- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 ---
    Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
    service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
    this text-

    "You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
    to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
    infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
    the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

    where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
    "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
    so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
    connection"

    In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
    the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
    believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

    [1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com] [google.com]
    [2]
    http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com] [google.com]

    --- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357 [slashdot.org]
    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745 [slashdot.org]
    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877 [slashdot.org]
    http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf [cloudsession.com]

    • by mysidia (191772) on Sunday June 23, 2013 @02:37PM (#44086591)

      Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:

      Prohibitions against resale of their service to third parties, by providing many people internet connectivity: or by running a web server or other commercial service to consume their resources and derive profit from them.

      Are common restrictions: they are contractual rules, not filtering of applications, or non-neutrality.

      And the rules benefit the subscribers. It means that Netflix can't swoop in there, setup a residential datacenter: pay $30 a month for Google fiber, and saturate the network connections.

      Similarly... it means that ISPs or Tunnel/Proxy providers, or web hosting farms, cannot come in and abuse the service -- degrading service for other users, or imposing undue costs on Google, to pay for attempts to commercially exploit a service that is being provided for personal use.

      • by jdogalt (961241)

        Prohibitions against resale of their service to third parties, by providing many people internet connectivity: or by running a web server or other commercial service to consume their resources and derive profit from them

        There is a difference between wiring up my next door neighbor, and operating a web server including a wiki that provides a service over the general purpose internet to both my neighbor, and perhaps my friend on the other side of the globe, and perhaps the global public at large.

        By your logic, operating a web or any server with many clients is tantamount to "resale of their service to third parties" because *technically* operating a wiki server is distributing the utility/value(of)internetservice to both my

        • by LiENUS (207736)

          I wish I had internet access that didn't have inbound port blocking, no caps and 1gigabit speed all for $70 a month. Instead I have internet access where I'm not even allowed to vpn in to work, tons of port blocking inbound and outbound, 300gb a month cap and only 50mbit speed down with 10mbit speed up, all for $70 a month. Mind you my isps restrictions on servers isn't just TOS but actual port blocking, port 25 outbound is blocked, port 53 inbound is filtered, port 80 inbound is filtered plus god knows wha

      • by jdogalt (961241)

        Prohibitions against resale of their service to third parties, by providing many people internet connectivity: or by running a web server or other commercial service to consume their resources and derive profit from them.

        There is a difference between wiring up my next door neighbor, and operating a web server including a wiki that provides a service over the general purpose internet to both my neighbor, and perhaps my friend on the other side of the globe, and perhaps the global public at large.

        By your logic, operating a web or any server with many clients is tantamount to "resale of their service to third parties" because *technically* operating a wiki server is distributing the utility/value(of)internetservice to both my

        • by mysidia (191772)

          where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority"

          Yeah well... Tim Berners-Lee did not do this for free. And CERN was not buying a cut-rate residential service; if anything, they were paying business and above rates for their telecommunication services, which did not restrict their use --- but they paid for every amount of resource that was available to use to

          • by jdogalt (961241)

            where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority"

            Yeah well... Tim Berners-Lee did not do this for free. And CERN was not buying a cut-rate residential service; if anything, they were paying business and above rates for their telecommunication services, which did not restrict their use --- but they paid for every amount of resource that was available to use to them.

            I'm not suggesting people deserve free bandwidth. Where did you get that idea from my words? As far as "cut-rate" internet service- yes I am fully aware that Google is both technically able, and could see a profitable path offering an internet service that charges different traffic rates for Google service usage that stays on it's combined ISP/content network, and then charge 10 times that amount for traffic that goes to destinations outside of the Google-sphere. But that is precisely the kind of intenti

            • by mysidia (191772)

              If there were in fact a legal concept of "cut-rate" internet service that nullified my arguments,

              There doesn't have to be a legal concept. Google has a right to price products below the absolute highest possible cost to Google of users' usage, and use terms of use contract restrictions to prevent the usages that are physically possible, but likely to cause the usage to exceed Google's costs.

              And this is likely to be effective, if the lower-cost usage is all that their target customer wants.

              You don

  • Like anyone else, I'm more interested in clearing up this NSA matter before I go about selling my consumerist soul any further.

    • by jdogalt (961241)

      Like anyone else, I'm more interested in clearing up this NSA matter before I go about selling my consumerist soul any further.

      +1. I genuinely believe that the FCC has obstructed justice in regards to my complaint against GoogleFibers "Any kind of server prohibited without written permission" terms of service. It's kind of interesting to note how the predominance of such persecution against server operators achieves the ends of having the global populace gathered around a dozen large information watering holes provided by companies whose names fit on a single powerpoint slide. However, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's

      • by swillden (191260)
        Out of curiosity, why did you pick Google Fiber to complain about? Every ISP includes the same terms.
        • by jdogalt (961241)

          Out of curiosity, why did you pick Google Fiber to complain about? Every ISP includes the same terms.

          reasons, not necessarily in any order-

          1) I was a kansas city resident at the time
          2) I have a degree in computer engineering
          3) about 20 years ago in college (and in fact in college when I was still attending high school), I enjoyed smoking pot, and playing doom at my university's computer center. After my subsequent education and carreer beginnings, I became passionate about pursuing the dream of running my own business, with my own server, at home. With enough freedom of speech on the internet to effectiv

          • by swillden (191260)

            I know of 2 large cable modem ISPs that have no general server ban

            Which?

            • by Bengie (1121981)
              I would like to know also. A quick google of some large ISP's ToS.

              Comcast: No Servers
              COX: No Servers
              AT&T: No Servers
              Sonic.Net: No Servers
              TWC: No Servers
              Frontier: No Servers
              Charter Comm: No Servers
              Verizon: No Servers
              Google Fiber: Non commercial Servers
              SpeakEasy: Can run servers from residential lines
          • by Bengie (1121981)

            Google Fiber FAQ: Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged.

            Just make sure your servers are non-commercial.

      • by tibman (623933)

        Every ISP says that. If you want commercial options you have to buy a commercial connection : / That being said i've ALWAYS hosted a website at home. It has never been blocked or filtered. But it also only gets like 2 visitors a month. So who cares.

  • I'm fairly intelligent... I'm a native English speaker with a strong technical background. And I've been reading /. quite regularly for an obscene numbers of years. But I've never seen a summary so completely incomprehensible as this one.

    I got that it's about Google Fiber running into another city, but that's absolutely all I got. It seems to jump around talking about several completely random factoids about a completely different subject... the fiber rollout in Kansas City, where it started, never real

  • Remember (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Second Horseman (121958) on Sunday June 23, 2013 @03:20PM (#44086913)

    You can't spell "Kansas" without "NSA".

  • by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Sunday June 23, 2013 @03:37PM (#44087017) Journal

    Not much of a city.

    • That's almost a metropolis in Simcity.
    • It's the birthplace of Pat Metheny. Thank alone makes it deserve Google fiber.
    • I think 92,000 is in the range of small city or big town. Though in all likelyhood it is more of a suburb of Kansas City. I think it would be more accurate to state Google has deployed in 2 cities. And that it is still trying to reach all the entire metro area of Kansas.
  • Hoping for Fiber or the balloon wifi to come to my city.

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...