Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Google Networking Technology

Is Google Planning To Fibre Britain? 184

Posted by timothy from the you're-fibred! dept.
Barence writes with this excerpt from PC Pro: "Google has emerged as a surprise contender to invest in Britain's fibre broadband network. The search giant yesterday announced plans to build a gigabit fibre broadband network in the US. The test network will see Google deliver fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections to up to half a million US homes. The move raises the possibility that Google is behind the Conservative Party's ambitious plans to deliver nationwide 100Mbits/sec connections by 2017. Parliamentary sources have told PC Pro that the Tories' plans were based on foreign investment in the UK broadband network."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Google Planning To Fibre Britain? More

Is Google Planning To Fibre Britain?

Comments Filter:
  • Someone has to do it... When they are done in Britain they should come and lay fibre all around New Zealand.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by neoprint ( 949158 )
      The main problem in NZ isn't between the home and the backbone, it's the international link and the pathetic download quotas our ISP's give us. Every single person in NZ could have fibre, and the net could actually slow down as everyone now tries to access overseas sites, saturating the southern cross cable
      • My old company had an offshore dev team in New Zealand and one morning (in 2004) I came into work to find that they couldn't access our UK based SVN server. While discussing it I browsed onto Slashdot and found a link to an article hosted in NZ (I think it was the guy who built his own jet engines and claimed he could build a Tomahawk cruise missile equivalent for 75k).

        Anyway, it turned out that the Slashdot effect didn't bring down the server, it brought down NZ's pipe to the outside wall.

        I for one welc

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xaxa ( 988988 )

      Someone has to do it...

      That's pretty much all the article says. Someone has to do it --> Google have some money --> maybe they'll do it.

      But it involves Google, so it's front page news.

  • They've tried this before (Score:3, Funny)

    by crimperman ( 225941 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @06:15AM (#31111238) Homepage

    Google have tried network infrastructure before - they even made it free to use: http://www.google.com/tisp/ [google.com]

  • Is Google Planning To Fibre Britain?

    No, because there is no such verb as fibre (nor fiber, for that matter).

  • all your base are belong to us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jabjoe ( 1042100 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @06:29AM (#31111324)
    Great, kick the ISPs with some heavy competition.
    But I'm getting a little scared of Google.....To many fingers in to many pies. We are meant to use a Google Thin Client, to access Google Services, over Google Fibre....

    They make their money by gathering data about us from our data. Shouldn't that make us question them owning so much of our data? They could have us by the short and curlies. Maybe "don't be evil" makes that safe for now, but who knows what the future holds? Even if Google can for ever be trusted, and don't give the data to those who can't be trusted, it's them who decide who to trust! We can not trust the markets to resolve this. Consumers will just blindly sleep walk into this if it makes for a easy life now. Which they might with Windows being so bad for malware, virus etc etc (because of the nature of Windows and it's users). "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1775

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )

      Maybe "don't be evil" makes that safe for now

      How does a soundbite make anything safe?

    • Re:all your base are belong to us (Score:4, Funny)

      by benz001 ( 1594447 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @06:52AM (#31111410)

      .....To many fingers in to many pies. We are meant to use a Google Thin Client, to access Google Services, over Google Fibre....

      Which is looking more and more like their undoing - like all big companies they start off well then spread themselves too thin. Search is great, Analytics is good, Gmail is ok, Docs is still just docs, Wave is just a ripple, Buzz is seriously lacking anything like caffeine and gears has lost a sprocket.

    • Re:all your base are belong to us (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Burb ( 620144 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:00AM (#31111438)

      You know, while I appreciate the sentiment about Google, here, I'm getting heartily fed up of the over-use of the Ben Franklin quote on slashdot. It's thought-provoking and makes a good rhetorical point, but it fails any attempt at decent analysis. All people deserve liberty and safety, in a "we hold the following truths to be self-evident" sort of way, so no one should be said not to deserve it. And by its wording it strongly implies that "liberty"==="essential liberty" i.e. all degrees of liberty are equally essential, and somehow denigrates the concept of "temporary safety".

      Yeah, I'm probably quoting Mr F out of context, and I'm not a political philosopher, so I'm sure my argument isn't watertight. So sue me. But I do feel that in some quarters the quote is designed to appeal the claque in here, in much the same way that "think of the children" - that much-mocked phrase - is used to appeal to the reactionary corner of society. It actually stops people from analysing the problem in hand by triggering some kind of American/Liberal hindbrain reflex.

      Can we think about it a little more, that's all I'm asking.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jabjoe ( 1042100 )
        It's a off the shelf quote for what is basically a old debate. Yes there is more to it then that, but that is a big part of it. I don't actually agree with leaving behind those who didn't understand until too late, especially in this instance because it drags us all down. Fair point.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eltaco ( 1311561 )
      I agree. with ever more worry do I watch google develop into some megacorp gaining more and more influence and data over people.
      I don't know how long we can still "trust" them - it's not like we ever really could.

      I am/was an avid user of gmail and their search engine, but I'm growing ever more weary of them and considering using bing and maybe even moving away from gmail.
      yes, you heard right; after all the shit apple and google have recently pulled, ms seems like a viable alternative!
      now aint that a f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )

      We can not trust the markets to resolve this. Consumers will just blindly sleep walk into this if it makes for a easy life now. Which they might with Windows being so bad for malware, virus etc etc ...

      Microsoft-bashing is of course always fun, but google has something even better going for them in this case. For most of us in the US, the alternatives are companies like Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc., which have the traditional local monopolies in most places, and which are all hated pretty much like The

    • But I'm getting a little scared of Google.....To many fingers in to many pies. We are meant to use a Google Thin Client, to access Google Services, over Google Fibre....

      While we're right to be vigilant, the basic problem is that ISPs and quite a lot of other internet companies are frankly.......shite. Here in the UK all the larger and cheaper ISPs are absolute crap, clearly don't have the technical expertise to make things work and if you move to a competent medium or small supplier they don't have the scale to continue and end up getting bought by said crap bigger suppliers. I would be happy just to see them go out of business, even at the risk of a bit of a monopoly beca

  • It Depends... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrpacmanjel ( 38218 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @06:37AM (#31111356)

    So at every juncture Google will be connected to everything?

    Potentially access the interner via a Goggle ISP, accessing Google DNS, using Google search, communicating via Google email, using Goole chat and Google Buzz with my friends.

    Am I being paranoid or will my privacy become a moot point?

    I do use Google search and gmail on a regular basis and it's also free of charge. In return they use my data - cannot complain about that.

    If it really bothered me I can use alternatives.

    I think it is commendable that Google are willing to roll-out fibre (in the USA only at the moment) and improve the technology.

    But "holy crap" that is an expensive undertaking!
    I read about this somewhere else and I think Google were going to charge a "competitive" fee for access.

    Broadband in the UK now largely sucks arse because the cost of improving/replacing existing lines is very expensive. No company is willing to take the risk so Google stepping forward ideally is a "good thing".

    However, if they can guarantee the same rights some other ISPs in the UK then great and I am willing to pay for it. If Google want to analyse all my packets of data and use it to advertise stuff to me then I'm not so sure I will like this development.

    Entities like Phorm, BT, Virgin & Tiscali (Talk Talk) are more than happy to follow the UK Government's / music industry's lead on intrusive surveillance. That's why I refuse to use thier services.

    If Google want to lay down infrastructure then that's fine - as long as I have a choice to do otherwise.

    This is mainly due to Eric Schmidt's comments on your expected privacy.

    I still want the freedom to choose while I have it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 )

      Potentially access the interner via a Goggle ISP, accessing Google DNS, using Google search, communicating via Google email, using Goole chat and Google Buzz with my friends.

      Fear not, you won't be forced to use Google Spellcheck if you don't want to.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jo42 ( 227475 )

      Sergey Brin [wikipedia.org] was born in Soviet Russia. The modus operandi of Soviet Communism was to control everything and know everything about everyone. Certainly explains Google's modus operandi, don't it?

  • fuck off, Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12, 2010 @06:47AM (#31111388)

    You still haven't delivered the algorithms you promised to open 12 years ago. Your top executives believe that no-one online is entitled to privacy (unless he is a top Google exec, who will deny press information to journalists who publish information about him). You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.

    Only an idiot today would think you "do no evil". You're just like any nasty group in its early years - start off promising the world, slowly reneging on promises which matter, and one by one revealing your true intentions. You give people the sense of security they'll so easily swallow until it's too late to clamour for alternatives.

    We don't want you in the UK. BT is a heap of steaming shit, but at least their gross incompetence limits their ability to cooperate effectively with the Crown Estate of Mandelson.

    • You're just like any nasty group in its early years - start off promising the world, slowly reneging on promises which matter, and one by one revealing your true intentions.

      Sounds like they're a shoo-in for running the government in most countries.

    • Re:fuck off, Google (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12, 2010 @09:52AM (#31112944)

      You still haven't delivered the algorithms you promised to open 12 years ago.

      Which algorithms and promises were those ? (honest question).

      Your top executives believe that no-one online is entitled to privacy (unless he is a top Google exec, who will deny press information to journalists who publish information about him).

      No, he said that if you do something and get it on record, there's a chance a law enforcement agency will request said record with a judge signature on top and Google (or whatever company they're requesting it to) will have to comply.

      You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.

      Care to point an example of this ?

      Bla, bla, bla...

      • As to Schmidt, I believe you're paraphrasing and putting a ludicrously positive spin on:
        "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authoriti

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wamatt ( 782485 ) *

      Your top executives believe that no-one online is entitled to privacy (unless he is a top Google exec, who will deny press information to journalists who publish information about him). You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.

      Only an idiot today would think you "do no evil". You're just like any nasty group in its early years - start off promising the world, slowly reneging on promises which matter, and one by one revealing your true intentions. You give people the sense of security they'll so easily swallow until it's too late to clamour for alternatives.

      We don't want you in the UK. BT is a heap of steaming shit, but at least their gross incompetence limits their ability to cooperate effectively with the Crown Estate of Mandelson.

      As amusing as your paranoid rant is, Reality is not amused. Here are the facts:

      1) Eric Smidt never said "no-one is entitled to piracy" . He simply said the reality is if your want privacy don't use Google because the reality is it records a lot of info. Youtube video [youtube.com]

      2) Secondly google hired a high profile NSA employee Matt Cutts and suddenly its a prequisite for an "important position"? Please. That is misinformed conspiracy theory loony. Some jobs require NSA clearance. You have no proof to backup the

      • As amusing as your paranoid rant is

        Belittling someone you disagree with by calling their argument "amusing" or "loony" is schoolyard politician's rhetoric, of no benefit to your viewpoint.

        Eric Smidt never said "no-one is entitled to piracy [privacy]".

        Actually, that's precisely what he implied. This post [slashdot.org] hopefully clarifies it. "Don't do it if you don't want someone knowing about it," is a blanket statement that you are not entitled to privacy.

        He simply said the reality is if your want privacy don't use Google

        Indeed, and you find it difficult to extrapolate from that an explanation for why we wouldn't want to welcome Google as a fibre backbone provider in the UK?!

        Don't

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by wamatt ( 782485 ) *
          Leavingy our complaint about the "style" of my reply aside: Lets look at it. The GP made a specific claim:

          You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.

          This is a false statement. No strawman, its not an exaggeration. Those are his words. It is false. Google employ nearly 20 000 people. And most of those are engineers. Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size. If there where listings for hundreds of jobs, I'd say you had a point. But there is not. That is my claim. If you have evidence t

          • Your strawman to AC was:

            You have no proof to backup the claim that all the top google engineers are all NSA.

            It is a strawman in the following ways:

            (1) "Are NSA" suggests that they are part of the NSA. This is not the same thing as having "NSA clearance" by any reasonable interpretation. I'd interpret "NSA clearance" to mean "security clearance performed by the NSA", and I'd even forgive the obtuse interpretation "has security clearance to work at the NSA" (which might be made by someone unaware that NSA is involved in processing US security clearances in general), but I can't come to the i

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by wamatt ( 782485 ) *

              It is a strawman in the following ways:

              (1) "Are NSA" suggests that they are part of the NSA. This is not the same thing as having "NSA clearance" by any reasonable interpretation. I'd interpret "NSA clearance" to mean "security clearance performed by the NSA", and I'd even forgive the obtuse interpretation "has security clearance to work at the NSA" (which might be made by someone unaware that NSA is involved in processing US security clearances in general), but I can't come to the interpetation "works for the NSA".

              You've turned the claim of requiring clearance to that of being part of the NSA.

              (2) "Top engineer" is not the same as "significant technical position". There are some academically excellent people at Google, i.e. top engineers, who may have very little input in the technical direction of the company.

              You've reworded a suggestion about decision makers at Google into one about great engineers at Google.

              "Are NSA" in the context meant "NSA cleared employees" . Just before I submitted I was reading the preview and wondered if someone would get confused but was in a rush so didn't change it. So I guess I've learnt my lesson. Hence you can go and add "Are NSA cleared" to my sentence. The underlying refutation however stays the same.

              Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size.

              (a) Why would you assume that?

              (b) What have other companies got to do with it? The NSA's interest is information about people, so you only need be very concerned about a company with a bunch of NSA-cleared decision makers if the company's prime asset is information about you.

              I would think Microsoft and Facebook also have similar quantities of NSA certified engineers in ratio to their size. My point was simple, there would appear to be nothing out of

              • I would think Microsoft and Facebook also have similar quantities of NSA certified engineers in ratio to their size.

                Don't guess; provide evidence. Then explain why it's a problem that Facebook, an isolated provider of a social entertainment service which anyone can avoid, might be closely monitored. As to Microsoft, it would be of concern if there was evidence their software was leaking private information, but 30 years of Microsoft have shown us otherwise. Google wants all your information on their machines, whereas Microsoft has grown by making sure its software is on your machine. It is Google which is considering a s

      • Why does an international service company require NSA clearance unless it serves to some American intelligence purpose and/or holds American secrets?

  • That extra speed, and the saving in subscription (should it be cheaper than my rubbish ADSL) means I can run a VPN out of the country and not worry about the privacy implications!

    Win/win for the nerdy.

  • Language abuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrumpetPower! ( 190615 ) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:00AM (#31111442) Homepage

    Please stop verbing nouns.

    That corporate whores enjoy fucking with language is no good reason for us to bend over and spread ’em.

    Cheers,

    b&

    • Re:Language abuse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IBBoard ( 1128019 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:47AM (#31111694) Homepage

      Quick, someone with mod points mod this "+1 ironic" for matching the "corporate whores" by turning the noun "verb" into a verb ;)

  • It would take a company with the clout of Google to lay down new infrastructure here to give an option to the duopoly we have. I wish they would do that

    I guess i'll just keep dreaming then...

    Tom...

  • HTTP-only? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:12AM (#31111508) Homepage
    But will this service be HTTP-only like the Wifi Google provides at some airports? After all protocols other than HTTP and maybe XMPP don't really fit into Google's way of doing business.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ma8thew ( 861741 )
      Don't be stupid. There's a difference between airport WiFi and a service people are paying for. Even regular users would notice pretty quickly if Xbox Live weren't working.

  • The problem in Britain is the last mile (Score:3, Informative)

    by bheer ( 633842 ) <rbheerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:14AM (#31111522)

    There are lots of places as little as 2 miles from the town center that have piss-poor broadband because of the way telephone exchanges are located. Fiber to the Home/Fiber to the Cabinet is the obvious solution, but British Telecom have a monopoly on last-mile wiring in the UK*, and have very little incentive to deliver high-speed broadband to homes. And let's not even talk about exchange capacity, or their traffic-shaping practices. So yeah, if Google or anyone else is going to get involved, more power to them. Britain's positively stick-in-the-mud compared to Scandinavia, Korea and Japan**, and it'll take a lot of doin' to bring it into the 21st century.

    *except for Hull and some cabled areas (and I think Virgin's cable ducts were dug by BT)

    **though to be fair, most of the high-speed internet in these places is to be found only in densely populated urban areas. Anyone know what broadband in lightly populated small towns/villages is like in Scandinavia/Korea/Japan?

    PS. There's a great site for UK Slashdot readers -- Broadband Notspots UK [broadband-notspot.org.uk], it's worth a visit if you're checking out what a particular place is like broadband-wise.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )

      Fortunately, you are wrong.

      BT is mandated by OFTCOM (Office of Fair Trading - Telecommunications) to allow competitive and fair access to the last mile and termination space in exchanges, so any competitor that is willing to supply their own infrastructure can supply the same services to the end user without the worry of the last mile.

      With regard to the Virgin Media fiber - its laid by whomever Virgin contracts it to be laid, and they dig their own trenches. They made a nice mess several years ago cabling

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gbjbaanb ( 229885 )

        Yes, and that's the problem - companies willing to supply their own infrastructure.

        See, most of them are willing.. but only to the places where there are lots of people, putting in cables to rural areas is just as expensive as town, but you find you have 1 or 2 subscribers instead of 1 or 2 thousand.

        Virgin happens to be very lucky in that the companies who originally dug up the roads to lay the cables all went bust, so Virgin bought out the good bits and ignored the old debts. Otherwise there'd be no cable

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Inda ( 580031 )
          Not strictly true.

          Swindon was the first town in the UK to be cabled. This was done by Swindon Cable.

          Many, many years later, NTL dug up all the old cables to make way for new "high speed" cables.

          Virgin do not install cables in new-build houses in Swindon. It has some people pulling their hair out.

          *RANT*

          STOP CALLING US BRITAIN! If you are trying to reduce keystrokes, call us The UK. Bloody foreigners. British people are from the UK, not "Britain". No one says Britain here. In fact, very few people class thems

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Tim C ( 15259 )

            STOP CALLING US BRITAIN! If you are trying to reduce keystrokes, call us The UK. Bloody foreigners. British people are from the UK, not "Britain". No one says Britain here. In fact, very few people class themselves as British even if their passports say so. I'm English. Others are Welsh or Scottish.

            Speak for yourself mate. Pretty much everyone I've actually spoken to about it uses Britain and the UK more or less interchangeably. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing anything described as being "from the UK"

          • It was my impression that (Great) Britain referred to the island of England/Wales/Scotland while the UK also includes Northern Ireland among other places. If not what is the island itself called?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by VJ42 ( 860241 ) *

              It was my impression that (Great) Britain referred to the island of England/Wales/Scotland while the UK also includes Northern Ireland among other places. If not what is the island itself called?

              You're right, however it's not that simple, check out the Great British Venn diagram [wikimedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bheer ( 633842 )

        My understanding that BT (or rather its subsidiary OpenReach) is the only one allowed to muck about digging ditches and inserting wires/cabinets on the street for phone/xDSL/FTTx lines. (Can't say about cable, although I've heard BT has dug for Virgin in some places -- perhaps under contract as you say).

        What OFCOM (Office of Communications -- not OFTCOM) does mandate is *access* to the last mile. So all providers in the UK (say Virgin (yes, they do provide DSL), Tiscali, etc should be able to use the last m

  • Pure speculation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tfountain ( 619557 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:25AM (#31111596) Homepage
    From the article: "Parliamentary sources have told PC Pro that the Tories' plans were based on foreign investment in the UK broadband network. Google is one of the few companies with the necessary capital and motivation to invest in British broadband" so this story is based soley on the fact that Google is a foreign Internet company with money?

  • Now I have to wait 7 years for 100MB? Ouch.

  • too much power

    i don't care how benevolent it is now, it is laying a groundwork that can potentially be abused with a change in attitude later

    and with so much focus on insinuating itself into how so much of the web works, disengaging from google won't be that easy

    google is pursuing a sound business strategy for growth, and those toiling away at google are doing so in the most noble of intentions: making the web a better place for all of us

    i just wish there were a way to chop google in half, or into dozens of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eltaco ( 1311561 )
      agreed!
      lately, I've been coming back around to an old thought; IT technology is advancing too quickly for us. The movies Terminator, matrix, etc.are foreboding. Not in a sense, that zombie machines are going to eat my brain, but that we create something with technology that we cannot or do not want to control anymore.

      the average user enjoys the benefits of a nice gui, social networking, simple searches, etc. and is oblivious to the actual problems arising with it. we have the same principle of the creepi

  • Surely "From the department of making shit up"? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke ( 850482 ) on Friday February 12, 2010 @07:58AM (#31111756)

    In case anyone doesn't realise, there's going to be an general election in a couple of months or so. The current extremely unpopular party is likely to be replaced by another slightly less unpopular one with broadly similar policies, the main difference being that instead of being fronted by a dour Scotsman they have a posh ex-PR bloke with a nice smile. At this time politicians on all sides are more likely than ever to say stuff and not mean it.

    What the Tories actually said was this:
    http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/01/Conservatives_to_deliver_nationwide_superfast_broadband_by_2017.aspx [conservatives.com]

    The key weasel words there are "up to 100mbps" and "the majority of homes". Roughly 50% of UK homes have cable available now, and Virgin Media are already offering headline speeds up to half that. 100Mbps by 2017 is hardly flying car territory.

    They were actually responding to a Labour suggestion of universal (i.e. 100% not 50%) of UK homes getting 2Mb coverage by 2012:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7858498.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    The Labour plan sounds less exciting but would actually be much harder to achieve (not that they'll have to - they're unlikely to get reelected and have been careful to say it only in an "interim report").

    As to what orifice the PCPro writer pulled Google out of, your guess is as good as mine.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jabjoe ( 1042100 )
      I hate "up to" claims. Advertizing standards should ban "up to" claims. You should only be able advertise on minimum and average. That means the competition becomes about the real quality of service, not just what is just possible if the moon is in the right direction and no one else is using the service!

    • Is that the British term for "incumbents?"
      ];)

    • Out of curiosity, does Britain currently have a fiber network similar to FIOS here in the US? (Not fiber-to-large-apartment-complexes, but fiber-to-individual-homes.)

      Verizon in the US is currently installing one, and a lot of areas have coverage, but ... well they're not even remotely close to 50% yet. I feel like I've been waiting for FIOS for a very, very long time-- I'm about to give up and just go to Comcast over the DSL I have now, but man the thought of giving Comcast any money rubs me the wrong way.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke ( 850482 )

        Not as far as I know. Virgin Media own pretty much all the cable infrastructure (and according to Wikipedia) are basically fibre to the cabinet. As NTL it spent a lot of time trying to drag together the various merged cable companies, suffered from a terrible reputation for customer service and was struggling to turn a profit. Investment in e.g. FTTP was a lower priority. As Virgin Media (NTL effectively reversed into Virgin Mobile to become Virgin Media) they've turned a lot of this around - but no FTT

        • BT do have a fibre plan for about 40% of UK households over the next couple of years. It's mostly FTTC, but they said they'd use FTTP for about a quarter of the deployment [btplc.com].

          One of the reasons it's taken so long was that it's harder to make a profit if you have to share your infrastructure. Nevertheless, I'm glad they do have to - I'd rather fibre turn up more slowly than have BT Retail as the only ISP.

  • The search giant yesterday announced plans to build a gigabit fibre broadband network in the US. The test network will see Google deliver fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections to up to half a million US homes.

    ...all outside of flyover country as usual. By the time it reaches flyover country, the provider ends up acting like Comcast on you.

  • We will control the pipes, but we will not inspect your data packets.

    Well, maybe we will, but only for advertisement purposes.

    Yeah right.

  • I can get FTTP if I want to, but why should I when I can get a 20/2 megabit ADSL for half the price.

    Ok, I can see the geeky coolness in having a 50/50 or even 100/100 megabit internet connection. But it the real world I have no use for it. In reality I did almost fine on a 4 megabit, it was a little on the slow side for HD streaming, but the few hours between work and sleep I hardly had time to notice.

    (the fact that the fiber was coming to my town was the reason the phone company a micro DSLAM in my neighbo

  • Verbing wierds the langauge.

  • would make a lot of stuff easier.
    For example, you would not have to use Gmail, Google Voice or Chrome anymore in order to get an optimzed web experience.
    They will happily evaluate whatever other service you use, thus improving your life by not being evil.

  • Their government loves to spy on the people, Google will be their new mistress.

  • Can't get too much fibre.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close