Is there any evidence to go along with any of this dude's claims? He makes three points:
Point 1 isn't about Google fiber.
Point 2 has been self-evident since the day the product was announced.
Point 3 is incorrect. Google's promise on wiring public libraries and schools has never changed.
Crap article. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, not on Fiber).
Can someone explain why Fibre isn't being released in Silicon Valley first, where they would almost certainly find buyers? If its a case of scaling it up, they could release it community by community, couldn't they?
A bunch of Bay Area cities applied, judging from this map
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/next-steps-for-our-ex... but maybe releasing it in Bay Area first would provide a distorted impression that everybody is bananas about fiber access and willing to pay through the roof to get it.
California also has a notoriously difficult regulatory climate. It might be easier to start the process somewhere else, where permitting and other requirements are favorable.
For one, it'd be much more expensive in the massive sprawl of San Jose and all but impossible to deploy in San Francisco or Palo Alto.
For two, there's this big question of how the cable and telecom companies are going to oppose this. Part of this fiber rollout is sort of an elaborate demonstration to the big cable and DSL providers in which Google says, "You are aware we can cheerfully destroy your market if you don't improve and play ball with us."
If the KC deployment goes well, Comcast and friends will have to start thinking very long and hard about how they are going to keep Google out of their slice of the market, because given the current climate in politics they probably aren't going to be able to make an anti-trust argument stick.
> Yes, the digital divide that people thought was out there really exists: People in low-income neighborhoods in Kansas City and Kansas City, Kan., aren’t signing up for faster Internet service. And that’s despite aggressive publicity and the fact Google is offering a pretty low-cost version of its service to people.
It's disturbing to hear this, but not surprising. People in low-income areas tend to be less educated, right? If that's the case, then it stands to reason that you are going to have to educate them on the benefits. I don't think "omg this is superfast!" is the kind of education we need here. If I'm a lower income guy with a family and I get a flyer about "Google Fiber", I might think:
- I pay $19.99/mo for DSL/cable. Seems fast enough to me, why go through all this hassle?
- I don't see a lot of sports mentioned. I'm not switching to something without ESPN and lots of football on the weekends! (I'm not being mean here. This is in fact THE reason I haven't "cut the cord" and gone streaming only.)
- That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have?
- Is there going to be a credit check? (this is a big reason the "poor" might like to keep what they already have. Getting signed up for services of any kind when you have bad or non-existent credit is an exercise in frustration, humiliation, and "security deposits". Once you finally get the damned cable hooked up, why would you want to go through that again?)
The arguments you are providing seems plausible but I don't see how you can connect them to the need to educate your clients (which are less educated). It's more about Google providing better information, wether clients are educated or not, right ?
Yes, but my point (which was admittedly a little oblique) was that Google should ensure that their information is properly targeted. I don't think a promotion and information campaign in an affluent neighborhood would work as well in a low-income neighborhood. But then, I'm not a marketer.
My perspective comes just as someone who has circles of friends in a bunch of different income/social levels and I'm trying to imagine what they would say upon given a flyer or sales presentation that might make me salivate.
On the other hand wether they are educated or not, litterate or not, wether we think they understand the message or not... It might just be that the product or the idea is rejected on its own features.
It's a common trait among journalists and politicians to think that if the uneducated/poor rejects the message it's "just" because it wasn't "well formated" or "understood".
> - That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have?
If you are getting the free tier you can pay the one time fee in monthly installments of $25. One thing to consider about low income neighborhoods is not that people have $19.99/mo DSL/Cable and are happy with it, but that they may have NO internet connection at all because $20/mo is food money. My wife teaches in a low income neighborhood with a very high rate of homelessness and most of her students have no computer and those that do typically don't have internet access.
And yet they probably have power and running water. I can foresee a day when internet access (of some speed) is seen as a basic utility and society would no more tolerate entire neighborhoods of homes without internet access than we would an entire neighborhood of homes without electricity.
If Google are smart but evil they'll discriminate a lot, then force the government to sweeten the deal (which isn't crazy, given it's arguably the government's responsibility to provide infrastructure to the poor).
Discriminate? They are giving people the opportunity to sign up for their service, and bringing connectivity to those that want it.
I don't see why Google should be forced to support users that don't want to pay for their service, unless it was part of their original deal with Kansas City (which I expect it wasn't).
Discriminate doesn't mean being bad. People get confused with English having several definitions of discriminate some being bad socially (like discriminating against people because of their ethnicity). If Google choses to discriminate based on neighborhood interest that is a sound economic decision.
The tricky political issue (in this particular instance) is if there is a correlation between the neighborhoods choosing to participate and ethnicity and Google ends up running fiber to a bunch of white neighborhoods and not to a bunch of African American neighborhoods.
If the rich white neighborhoods all decided it wasn't worth it no one would care if Google didn't run fiber to them. Most social scientists would say the issue of poor not having access is a concern that society should care about. But if there isn't an ethnicity component I doubt it has any political "heat."
If I was Google and the poor neighborhoods were too underrepresented I would likely create a some system to make it easier for at least some lower income areas to get fiber. This is all a bigger game plan for Google - not really an attempt to get rich off KC. I, and I believe Google, thinks fiber to everyone is good. It might be Google can't afford to do that given the real economic conditions. Even in that case hook some up, provided data for the government to decide if it is a social need worth funding (if it doesn't end up working without government help).
Google wants to find a solution that shows what they did in KC can be done across the country. If it is just for the rich 15% that doesn't help Google much. They want to find a solution that works to get fiber, at reasonable prices, with net neutrality to a huge portions of the USA (certainly above 70%).
If they need to tweak their starting plan I am pretty sure they will do so. They are pretty smart most of the time though, they do behave idiotically at times. Like how horrible their help systems are still (they can't organize even just the information they create to help people use software they write even today).
Why nobody is mentioning free internet service (for households not public buildings)? You pay $25/month for 12 months (or $300 one time fee) and then it's free. Wouldn't it make sense for low-income family?
It would. And my guess is they will sign up. But it might be that they are less likely to sign up early compared to all the software developers reading Hacker News.
I would bet once people see their friends getting a good deal they will sign up. So for people that haven't been watching this fiber initiative for a year (or more), it may take awhile before they jump onboard.
I mentioned in another comment if I were Google, I would pick at least some poor neighborhoods to build out (even if they didn't met the original targets. I believe those will spur others to join. Target where you can get a bunch of schools, libraries included in the build out... Google's goal with this is really much bigger than being profitable as fast as possible in KC. More fiber nationwide (with reasonable rates and net neutrality) as quickly as possible is what they want.
If they have to put up a bit more cash up front than they hoped they would be wise to do so. I think they know this and will. They also want the finances to work out (even more to build the case for this being feasible than for their finances - in my opinion). So they don't want to run tons of fiber that doesn't provide a decent return. But I think they would be really stupid to not run any to poor areas (even if no poorer areas make the desired cut-offs).
IF the family had $300 in disposable income to spend then yes, but if you are living paycheck to paycheck and have little to no savings that $300 is a lot of food for the family or is going to keep the lights on for a few more months. Many are probably aware that it is a good deal in the long term but if that investment makes you late on the rent or gets the power shut off then it isn't worth it.
Why would a low income household want to pay $120 a month for Google Fibre when they might be getting by on $20 for a cable connection?
Yes you get more bang for you buck but what possible applications of high speed internet could justify $100 more a month?
In my opinion Google Fiber is being marketed to the common people prematurely. There is no clear justification for it yet unless I'm missing something?!
I agree with the author that people in low income areas do not care about high speed internet access. In my experiences developing healthcare software for people living in South African townships, people in these areas get along just fine with feature-phones. Feature-phones are easy to use. They allow people to check Facebook, email, and chat. This covers 99% of their needs so they have little motivation to purchase a computer, figure out how to use it, and then pay the money (which they do not have) for monthly internet.
There is hope however. People here love smartphones only they cannot afford them. If Google wants to provide internet and computer access to people in low-income areas, then I suggest they create an Android phone that costs less than $50 and can be used on a pre-paid voice and data plan. After this I suggest they create an affordable tablet.
Also, it is surprising how few people have the technical capacity to understand the amazing ness of Google Fiber. When it was released I shared it with my friend who studies medicine at Yale. My friend did not even understand or care about the difference between a 1Gb/s internet connection and a 1Mb/s. He thought the internet was fast enough as it is.
28 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 59.0 ms ] threadPoint 1 isn't about Google fiber. Point 2 has been self-evident since the day the product was announced. Point 3 is incorrect. Google's promise on wiring public libraries and schools has never changed.
Crap article. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, not on Fiber).
For two, there's this big question of how the cable and telecom companies are going to oppose this. Part of this fiber rollout is sort of an elaborate demonstration to the big cable and DSL providers in which Google says, "You are aware we can cheerfully destroy your market if you don't improve and play ball with us."
If the KC deployment goes well, Comcast and friends will have to start thinking very long and hard about how they are going to keep Google out of their slice of the market, because given the current climate in politics they probably aren't going to be able to make an anti-trust argument stick.
It's disturbing to hear this, but not surprising. People in low-income areas tend to be less educated, right? If that's the case, then it stands to reason that you are going to have to educate them on the benefits. I don't think "omg this is superfast!" is the kind of education we need here. If I'm a lower income guy with a family and I get a flyer about "Google Fiber", I might think:
- I pay $19.99/mo for DSL/cable. Seems fast enough to me, why go through all this hassle?
- I don't see a lot of sports mentioned. I'm not switching to something without ESPN and lots of football on the weekends! (I'm not being mean here. This is in fact THE reason I haven't "cut the cord" and gone streaming only.)
- That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have?
- Is there going to be a credit check? (this is a big reason the "poor" might like to keep what they already have. Getting signed up for services of any kind when you have bad or non-existent credit is an exercise in frustration, humiliation, and "security deposits". Once you finally get the damned cable hooked up, why would you want to go through that again?)
My perspective comes just as someone who has circles of friends in a bunch of different income/social levels and I'm trying to imagine what they would say upon given a flyer or sales presentation that might make me salivate.
It's a common trait among journalists and politicians to think that if the uneducated/poor rejects the message it's "just" because it wasn't "well formated" or "understood".
If you are getting the free tier you can pay the one time fee in monthly installments of $25. One thing to consider about low income neighborhoods is not that people have $19.99/mo DSL/Cable and are happy with it, but that they may have NO internet connection at all because $20/mo is food money. My wife teaches in a low income neighborhood with a very high rate of homelessness and most of her students have no computer and those that do typically don't have internet access.
That will be a good day.
I don't see why Google should be forced to support users that don't want to pay for their service, unless it was part of their original deal with Kansas City (which I expect it wasn't).
The tricky political issue (in this particular instance) is if there is a correlation between the neighborhoods choosing to participate and ethnicity and Google ends up running fiber to a bunch of white neighborhoods and not to a bunch of African American neighborhoods.
If the rich white neighborhoods all decided it wasn't worth it no one would care if Google didn't run fiber to them. Most social scientists would say the issue of poor not having access is a concern that society should care about. But if there isn't an ethnicity component I doubt it has any political "heat."
If I was Google and the poor neighborhoods were too underrepresented I would likely create a some system to make it easier for at least some lower income areas to get fiber. This is all a bigger game plan for Google - not really an attempt to get rich off KC. I, and I believe Google, thinks fiber to everyone is good. It might be Google can't afford to do that given the real economic conditions. Even in that case hook some up, provided data for the government to decide if it is a social need worth funding (if it doesn't end up working without government help).
Google wants to find a solution that shows what they did in KC can be done across the country. If it is just for the rich 15% that doesn't help Google much. They want to find a solution that works to get fiber, at reasonable prices, with net neutrality to a huge portions of the USA (certainly above 70%).
If they need to tweak their starting plan I am pretty sure they will do so. They are pretty smart most of the time though, they do behave idiotically at times. Like how horrible their help systems are still (they can't organize even just the information they create to help people use software they write even today).
I would bet once people see their friends getting a good deal they will sign up. So for people that haven't been watching this fiber initiative for a year (or more), it may take awhile before they jump onboard.
I mentioned in another comment if I were Google, I would pick at least some poor neighborhoods to build out (even if they didn't met the original targets. I believe those will spur others to join. Target where you can get a bunch of schools, libraries included in the build out... Google's goal with this is really much bigger than being profitable as fast as possible in KC. More fiber nationwide (with reasonable rates and net neutrality) as quickly as possible is what they want.
If they have to put up a bit more cash up front than they hoped they would be wise to do so. I think they know this and will. They also want the finances to work out (even more to build the case for this being feasible than for their finances - in my opinion). So they don't want to run tons of fiber that doesn't provide a decent return. But I think they would be really stupid to not run any to poor areas (even if no poorer areas make the desired cut-offs).
Yes you get more bang for you buck but what possible applications of high speed internet could justify $100 more a month?
In my opinion Google Fiber is being marketed to the common people prematurely. There is no clear justification for it yet unless I'm missing something?!
There is hope however. People here love smartphones only they cannot afford them. If Google wants to provide internet and computer access to people in low-income areas, then I suggest they create an Android phone that costs less than $50 and can be used on a pre-paid voice and data plan. After this I suggest they create an affordable tablet.
Also, it is surprising how few people have the technical capacity to understand the amazing ness of Google Fiber. When it was released I shared it with my friend who studies medicine at Yale. My friend did not even understand or care about the difference between a 1Gb/s internet connection and a 1Mb/s. He thought the internet was fast enough as it is.