Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday May 09 2014, @07:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the Telecom-Laxative dept.

Marguerite Reardon writes at Cnet that within a week of Google's declaration last spring that it planned to build a fiber network in the city of Austin, AT&T announced its own Austin fiber network and in less than a year's time, AT&T and local cable operator Grande Communications have beaten Google to market with their own ultra-high speed services using newly built fiber networks. AT&T maintains it has been planning this fiber upgrade for a long time, and that Google's announcement didn't affect the timing of its network but Rondella Hawkins, the telecommunications and regulatory affairs officer for the city of Austin, said she had never heard about AT&T's plans before Google's news came out. Hawkins was part of the original committee that put together Austin's application to become the first Google Fiber city. "Our application for Google would have been a good tip-off to the incumbents that we were eager as a community to get fiber built," says Hawkins. "But we never heard from them. Until Google announced that it was going to deploy a fiber network in Austin, I was unaware of AT&T's plans to roll out gigabit fiber to the home." Grande Communications' CEO Matt Murphy admits that without Google in the market, his company wouldn't have moved so aggressively on offering gigabit speeds. It also wouldn't be offering its service at the modest price of $65 a month, considering that the average broadband download speed sold in the US is between 20Mbps and 25Mbps for about $45 to $50 a month.

It's not surprising, then, that in every city in AT&T's 22-state footprint where Google is considering deploying fiber, AT&T also plans to bring GigaPower. That's a total of 14 markets, including Austin, the Triangle region of North Carolina, and Atlanta, home to AT&T's mobility division. While AT&T refuses to acknowledge that its gigabit fiber plans are answering the competitive challenge posed by Google Fiber, others say that Kansas City may have been a wake-up call. "I think all the providers have learned some valuable lessons from Google's Kansas City deployment," says Julie Huls, president and CEO of the Austin Technology Council. "What Google did instead was say, 'We're going to build you a Lamborghini, but price it at the same price as a Camry,'" says Blair Levin. "And that's what's so disruptive about it."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2014, @11:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2014, @11:44AM (#41207)

    After some period of time, this will stop working. See "the boy who cried wolf" for why.

    Google needs to actually build out just enough of their announced citys to keep "the boy who cried wolf" effect at bay.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Wootery on Friday May 09 2014, @04:51PM

    by Wootery (2341) on Friday May 09 2014, @04:51PM (#41313)

    Which is why I suggested small developments in lots of cities. I suspect this might work better than selecting one city at a time and investing hugely in the lucky winner.

    It would be enough to show

    1. That it can be done
    2. That it really is better than what the oligopolists are pushing (all that 'no-one wants a faster connection anyway' bullshit)

    i.e. investing heavily in getting good fiber coverage in one city at a time won't 'enlighten' as many as investing in getting minimal coverage in many cities.