People forget Google is a tech company. Google effectively forced their partners (ISP's) to upgrade their infrastructure for them. Since slow internet speeds was hurting google's brand.
@@nasis18 I would assume that is because we implemented that very early on, and later implementers had access to better tech? And replacing slow but working infrastructure is something that the US might be choosing not to do?
Considering how big America is, the fiber rollout for each state/major population took priority first before going for smaller areas. They offered better speeds and allowed monopolies over internet to be bypassed because google had been increasing their search for suitable places to connect.
This was actually a very smart move.... I couldn't imagine being stuck to 50-60Mbps even in today's state of the internet. Recently my ISP (Spectrum) Bumped my speeds up to 350Mbps from 200 free of charge. I have been seeing quite the uplift even here, in the middle of nowhere. But sadly, no fiber exists here
Well, I'm in Los Angeles, like a mile from Universal Studios... still no fiber on my area either. My speed has also increased with Spectrum as well (yay!) but maybe the ISPs need another kick in the pants to keep installing fiber.
Be glad you don't live in Germany. I live in a very rural area, we literally cannot get more then 100mbps. I have 60mbps and have to pay like 50€ per month. Internet is just awful here.
Eh, 350Mbps is more than most households need. However, the benefit of fiber is you generally get a matching upload to go with your download. I have Cox fiber and get 250/250 and it is pretty awesome.
Man I wish. By the time next year rolls around, charter will be charging me $75 for a fraction of that (300 Down/10 up) I experienced my first bump in price a few months ago to $65 from $50…… T-T
@Alucard oh my goodness. I had spectrum before and it was the same thing with price hikes and a harassment level of advertisements through the mail, phone calls, and texts. I think I even paid more for the pleasure than I currently do. Then when I tried to discontinue my service they ask why, I told them, and they said that was the industry standard. I was pissed. Never looked back.
I also feel like you left a really crucial detail, in that one of the other reasons why Google Fiber became a thing (even knowing that they won't be economically successful) is due to the whole net-neutrality scandals. The ISP's started targeting video streaming services such as Netflix & Hulu, and even RUclips ended up getting caught under the crossfire of having to pay the ISP's massive amounts of "fees" for how much 'demand' they were placing on the ISPs. Google being the only tech company that had the power to create their own ISP to make a statement unlike the other companies who essentially never owned their own infrastructure and were all hosted on AWS, decided to do just that: Tell the ISPs that if they don't change their practices on how they treat the streaming services, Google will create their own ISP infrastructure and take out the middle man. Their success with Google Fiber, showed the ISP's that this wasn't just Google talking the talking, but that they could actually deliver on their threats.
Glad to see some explanation that makes sense to me, because the ones in the video didn't seem great. Am I the only one? maybe I'm slow lol. They didn't attempt stadia until several years after fiber was rolled out, but at the time I don't think they care about gamer ping or fast Steam downloads. Hangouts is a social media platform, do they really need 4K for that? Classroom doesn't seem intended to make money, though I can see how it might use a lot of bandwidth. I guess I'd like to know some specific stuff that uses bandwidth that's so high that it requires fiber, cuz it doesn't seem like the average home consumer needs it, and I'm not sure what Google planned on offering that definitely needed all these competitor-built fiber connections.
What's funny is ISP stagnation was only a thing on the consumer side. However, on the datacenter side, speeds are going up and up and costs are dropping by roughly 20% year-on-year since bandwidth and internet speeds are a big cost center for businesses they are constantly trying to optimize and there are many players competing for their business. Consumer ISPs were just able to get away with shitty service because of a lack of competition.
It’s not because of lack of competition, it’s because all involved parties have decided to screw the consumer unanimously…. This has been a growing problem in many industries. The constant hatred and distain towards the “entitled consumer” is getting worse and worse. Same thing is happening in the work place too. Higher ups hate the employees below them and all… It’s terrible
There's monopoly in the "Tier 1 ISP" market too, BUT, yes, at the end, the Business having transit has very good cost. The negotiation that happens between providers too exist here, and they slash prices by a huge %age too if you find something similar from a different provider, and economies of scale applies here too so if your transit requirements are like many Tbit from many provider, you pay really cheap per Mbit. and not to mention, those big players have more direct ways of reaching their destination with stuff like "Peering, IXP", etc. They anyways try to avoid Transit as much as they can, but it's not purely possible.
The cost to an ISP for providing business internet is lower because the businesses provide the internal infrastucture to their users. Also one customer with one bill for a contract is easier than 100 customers with month to month service who create the same amount of network traffic.
Well, it's also at least in part because there are 10,000 customer wires to be run for every business wire to be run. If I want to connect two data centers, I can pay to have a bundle of fibers run between them for way less than a separate fiber for every house. That's exactly why phone lines and cable tv lines were the primary means of delivering internet. That last little bit from the corner of the block to each house on the block is (or was) very expensive.
Google fiber is seriously the best thing to happen to my internet. I purposely moved to an area with it because I was sick of Xfinity, century link, etc. They are actually expanding quite rapidly in my area. Constantly seeing neighborhoods having them come through and install the infrastructure. If you have them as an option, DO IT.
I had dial-up way back in 94. Had a whopping 14 kbps. It would take several hours just to connect. Kids these days will never know what actual slow internet is.
I remember when Google Fiber was first out, I was struggling with 2 MBps, which was the best they offered. I desperately wished for google fiber in my area and I hated how slow internet was across America, especially compared to other countries. Nowadays, I am routinely offered Gigabit, and even though they're still wiley with the "up to", I can typically rely on at least 40MBps, which is amazing compared to a decade ago. So if this really was intentional, I thank Google for managing to improve the broken ISPs
@@heloxiii8894 definitions of measurements don't change. The length of a meter hasn't changed in 20 years. Neither has the size of a bit, a byte a megabit or a megabyte.
Part of the problem was government failure across several administrations. The government didn't want to build a fiber infrastructure. Instead, they allowed the telecoms companies to charge their customers to fund this rollout. Surprise: they didn't. The companies were caught pocketing the money. They then were allowed to charge customers yet again to fund the rollout. And guess what? Again they just pocketed the money. And as you correctly point out, Google understood the negative impact this would have on their business growth serving web based services.
why would the government build a fiber infrastructure for big corporation? I say that is not a failure, they just know they shouldn't. if they do, shame on them for doing it instead of spending the money for other important things, and if they don't? shame on them coz the corporation is now charging it to the people? . . . typical grumblers.
@@ChibiKeruchan Private corporations didn't build the nation's highways: the government funded that. You gonna complain about that too and ask why the government bothered to do it? Do you enjoy getting it up the ass by corporations? Do they pay you for that or do you just let them do it for free?
@@ChibiKeruchan the government set aside billions for fiber and gave it companies. That money just somehow disappeared no one has answers, I would do some research onto it if you have the time. Also the govt. is what made electrification across the country possible. Without govt. support that would not have happened. Govt. has subsidized what it deems necessary equipment in the past and it should also do so for the internet for rural America.
I have it and LOVE IT 🤣 $70 1gig up/down. Was down once in 2 years....some kids messed with the main box down the road. It was fixed within 4 hours 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
I remember when they switched to fiber in my area. We went from 25mbps speeds to 200mbps for the same price. I used to wait entire days to download games that now take a few hours
Perfect strategy when you think about it the higher speeds people have the more internet they will use and in turn, a lot of google services will be used more.
Google are actually pretty smart. They threatened the traditional ISPs forcing them to upgrade their stuff so they wouldnt become irrelevant. End result is now much faster internet is in many more homes. Which Google now benefits greatly from increased access to their services and of course the ability to show many more ads. All at what im sure is actually pretty minimal cost to Google
Google Fiber has been in Irvine CA for years, but AFAIK it's only available in certain large apartment and condo complexes. I guess it wasn't cost-effective for Google to run fiber to individual homes (or even to the curb).
This doesn't make sense to me as a cell site technician. We use a lot of fiber optics because it is A LOT cheaper than copper on runs over a few dozen feet. The expensive bits are the SFPs on either end of the fiber to connect to the switches and routers. I could see only running fiber to the road and copper to houses. Despite the cable being more expensive, terminating fiber is labor expensive and you don't want it where the customer could mess it up.
This has to do with how it came to Irvine. The Irvine Company made a deal with Google directly(2016) to bring Google Fiber to its properties, and not a deal with the City. I don't know if there is an exclusivity deal, but I imagine there is. Most of Irvine was built/upgraded with underground conduit making it a lot easier to deploy fiber if they want to. SCE is actually using the conduit to give business' 100gig fiber lines.
Something similar occurred in Nashville. Google Fiber basically only exists in a few highrises downtown. Comcast and AT&T blocked them from being able to access their phone poles to run fiber to other parts of the city. Which would have been more cost effective than digging and burying a bunch of fiber. So the rollout didn't get very far. But when AT&T Fiber rolled out they matched Google's price of $70 a month for two years and then extended that another year or two before raising the price. By that time Comcast started rolling out their gig speed offering. Hat tip to Google for finally spurring fiber expansion in this area. I enjoyed FIOS in Philly but was forced back into the slow lane when we moved back to TN 10 years ago. We were the first house in our neighborhood to have fiber run to it.
If that's the case then I'm surprised that they don't offer FTTC (Fibre-To-The-Cabinet) which is offered in the UK by Openreach whereby fibre-optic cables only run to a cabinet on the street with datastreams converted over to a pre-existing copper cable but I suppose Google doesn't already have that infrastructure in place and making deals with the likes of AT&T likely wouldn't help them...
In India, I started my internet journey in Cyber Cafes having Dial-Up connections. Later DSL based broadband was introduced in early 2000s with speeds over 256 Kbps and upto 2 Mbps. Later on in mid 2010s DSL was getting speeds around 40 Mbps. In past 5 years Fiber internet has spread like anything with speeds upto 1 Gbps in less than $50.
It's funny how the US is sooo behind Europe when it comes to the internet. 500MB, 700MB and 1GB are very common now. Here In Romania, where I live now, the minimum is 500MB with some exceptions of only 100MB in case of an outdated infrastructure that is getting updated. I'm paying 7 USD per month and just got updated for free from 300 to 500MB with an upload of 250. My provider does not offer the slower 300 anymore. And there is no data limit. I did download sometimes up to 2TB a month next to my streaming and that's totally okay. And we didn't need a Google to come and disrupt the market.
Att just upped their offering of max 1 Gbps to 5Gbps just because a start up fiber provider in central Florida sent mail out to a bunch of people saying they'd offer 10Gbps. So att had it in them the whole time but never cared to offer.
True, even in Austin they're offering 10gbps residential fiber, but AT&T has data caps while Google Fiber is truly unlimited Edit: they don't have data caps for fiber plans. Might try them lol
This video didn't mention the elephant in the room. That governments blocked the roll out of Google fiber as they were favoring the established companies. It's so tough to go thru the city, state, etc regulations and authorities and the bureaucracies just to establish home internet. Plus some apartments are not allowing Google to install fiber as they have exclusivity contracts with the established companies.
If I remember correctly some of this was common carrier issues and threats of charging tech companies for traffic on networks. Google Netflix and others were battling a the telcos even though most of the backbones were paid for by tax payers. They were calling telcos bluff
well, it gets quite pricey on the bandwindths going on between likes of google and ISPs :) where fridge size equipment is only one of the connections in between and serves only that connection
The city I lived in paid for all houses to have it, been enjoying it for a few years now. I pay for 100mbps but they mistakenly left 1 port at 1000, I hooked that one to my computer, not complaining......
I’ve gotten so many google fiber ads recently. Not only just on RUclips and the internet but through mail and even door to door sails people. It’s great that you covered this because I never did any real digging, but was curious. Great vid!
Its going to be intresting in my Area. Google Fiber has the Green light to come here and they are promising 10 gig speeds in my market. So it will be interesting to see what Cox communications will try to pull to compete with the speeds.
I had google fiber for a while. It was very inconvenient. It was only available where local municipalities had a fiber network set up (mine did then the city canceled the project). You were locked into multi year contracts. If you needed help you were put on a month long wait list. It was about $100 a month for just internet, no phone or cable tv. The internet speed was fast tho, my ping in CSGO was 5ms.
Love your videos but just a suggestion, when showing screenshots articles, the date is not visible for long or sometimes at all. I know the title is key point but the date would also give a good indication of how relavant the data is and persons can better source the article used.
I remember when Google Fiber was first announced. My immediate thought was "Finally, someone is pushing crappy ISPs to upgrade their services." Glad to see my hopes panned out!
Just got Google Fiber at my house a few months ago. Whole neighborhood switched to Google Fiber with exceptions of a few old people that need cable subscriptions
There’s a similar situation happening on the small island where I live, the dominant phone company ISP just offered DSL with maximum 25mbps and would have probably left it like that but a local startup was using multi-point uplink mesh wireless technology up near the tops of trees to provide competitive service (with MUCH higher upstream) without all the initial costs of prewiring for everyone. The telco ISP now offers 50mbps + unlimited which they did not before, and now the local ISP got a grant to do a fiber rollout and suddenly the phone company is promising fiber soon too... but in this case the big phone co will likely be leasing bandwidth from the small ISP’s physical optical uplink connection to the mainland they got the grant for since they cannot get the same kind of subsidy to run their own optical cable... which is not actually good for the redundancy factor, but at least there will be faster wired service. The limiting factor of rolling out the wireless network turned out to be having enough qualified tree climbing installation technicians to satisfy the demand - fiber rollouts are slightly more demanding as far as tech skills and crew numbers needed for baseline infrastructure but also more manageable since it’s standardized and fairly predictable.
Google Fiber bought Webpass in 2015 (I think). I wish they would have went full in with Webpass technology once the ISP's and local municipalities got in their way in particular states/cities
COVID and all the shift to WFH ironically showed that there is plenty of capacity to handle all that traffic that was no longer internal to the office, meaning ISPs really were holding back and seeking rent off of retail customers.
It's funny how former Soviet countries have better internet than Germany today, because there was no existing infrastructure for the ISPs to piggyback on, so they pretty much had to build out _something_ if they wanted any customers at all, and if they build infrastructure, then hey, it might as well be fiber
Idk from what I can tell, anyone who has accessibility to Google Fiber prefers it over any other ISP. You pay $70 every month, that's it, no hidden fees or payment increases. Can't say the same for other ISPs. I love my google fiber (gigabit up and down).
sadly, ISPs seem to mostly be investing in new construction. there's still a massive amount of already existing homes and businesses that are still stuck with 100 mbps or less DSL
I still hope that the fiber revolution will still grow. and maybe Google fiber can still become a greater success? I want to see the whole internet reinforced to be stronger for all. More highways and such.
I have a question: to what degree of a threat would ISPs deem it if their customers became their own gatekeeper to the internet, still reliant upon ISPs for long-haul transit of data but each customer was their own network operator, effectively decoupling the service area from the ISP and having it managed by the users. PS: users would contract out operations of everything to third parties to manage it for them, the users have the ability to replace the contractors at-will. PPS: if users made this thing a cloud as well, they could even have "free" internet service as their network could pay for itself --within reason. PPPS: users could even attempt to make a reasonable expectation of privacy situation if done correctly & with enough distrust of others baked into every fiber of the network's operations.
my dad runs a small business internet company and spectrum and the like are such predatory companies, my dad has been able to thrive because so much of ohio has yet to put ground cables down in rural areas, so theyre able to give internet to those areas the big businesses basically ignore. It's insane the hoops the put in place though, I had hoped america was supposed to support competition not big businesses being bullies
Where I live, the only 2 options are Comcast, and att. Att only has 50mbps dsl so Comcast is the only good option. T-Mobile 5G home internet recently became available so maybe Comcast can face some competition now.
I'm in the same situation in my town. I tried T-Mobile's 5g thing and it was terribly slow. I tried in 2021 and most recently in late 2022. It seems worse the 2nd time. I can't get more than 35 Mbps no matter where I place the gateway in my house. Most of the time, its slower than 10 Mbps. I'm going to be cancelling it soon.
Google Fiber came to Louisville and I was thinking of moving to where it was available. Then their lines popped out of where they were “buried” in the street by the tar. So they cancelled the whole thing here…..
I may have the option of a gigabit cable internet package through Spectrum (Charter) but that is NOT equivalent to fiber gigabit internet. What is TRULY game changing about a real-deal symmetric fiber internet connection is having access to gigabit upload speeds. Being able to download AND upload at such speeds from home is what is truly groundbreaking. The ability to communicate with other machines/services over the internet as if they were connected to your home LAN enables practices that were previously unthinkable. However, for most of us, that ability still remains an unattainable dream that will likely go unfulfilled for a very long time to come.
Didn’t Amazon have an even bigger incentive for a faster network speeds, considering AWS and Alexa? Also crediting google with the ISP monopolies increasing their speeds thinking google is a threat, I would imagine these billion dollar companies can run through more in depth analysis to realize the same thing you did but in real time.
I just got NEW Google Fiber in San Antonio. They are expanding - laid the optics about 4 months ago, got it connected last week. It is $20 cheaper than Spectrum cable Internet (also gigabit, but not synchronous and 20 to 30 times the latency) and so I switched. I’m going to be on a few vacations soon and still need my home infrastructure switched to 2.5GbE but eventually, I’ll have 2Gbit/s from Google for $100/month.
I would say that ISPs are stagnating again... DSL in my area tops out at 18mbps down / 5mbps up, and while there have been some speed increases to Cable (it tops out at 1.2Gbps in a few neighborhoods), the local cable company has not expanded the areas that it services and also has a data cap before charging their customers extra, despite there being no reason for it from a technical level. Data is not a resource like water or natural gas, and it doesn't take extra resources to generate more like electricity. All that is needed is to keep the data "pipes" wide enough to let everything through. There is still a significant number of households in the local region that can't get any Internet besides dial-up, overpriced cellular, or satellite to this day.
thank you Google! you never brought your own fiber to my area, but you scared other ISPs and now I have 2Gbps fiber for $100 per month from a small regional ISP.
If Google came to the UK and spent $140 billion building fibre broadband for all rural areas, they'd have a huge market. I know some UK companies already primarily or only focus on rural areas as people either pay £30 for 50mbps or £30-£50 for 350/500/1000 mbps.
Since we we finaly got basic Google Fiber; we are enjoying over 200 Mps up and download speeds, with few hick-ups abd connected devices! The installation was was fast, smooth, really professional and painless! !(:THANKS GOOGLE;)!
I live in the middle of nowhere somewhere in california. No cable internet provider in my place, I have 2 rely on satalite internet and it is terrible. $150 a month for 75 mb upload and 3 mb download with a latency over 700. And its throttled at random times of the day, mainly in the afternoon. I have seen it go down 2 3 kilobytes a sec.
I’m getting 42 Mbps on a test I just did right now. My plan for Spectrum says *up to* 500 mbps but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it go past 50. I’m more sick of their bs technicians coming to my house to do the same basic steps that basically amount to turning it off and on again. All I can do is put up with
I’m skeptical of the claim that Google fiber was the catalyst behind the speed upgrades by Att and comcast etc. in most of the US there is no choice of internet provider. Only in a few select areas you can have a choice of one cable company or one single fiber optic company, not multiples. In many municipalities it is not allowed to have more than one of each. It’s basically protected monopolies. The biggest pressure on cable companies to upgrade speeds was the threat of high speed internet over wireless hotspots with LTE access nationwide and the advent of people cutting cable tv. Verizon even ditched their fiber optic business ( now called Frontier ) and invested all their money on buying the frequency spectrum for their 5g networks. That’s where the smart money is.
I agree. Verizon brought fiber to my house in 2009 before Google fiber existed. DSL was already way slower than cable. The copper networks were antiquated and it was time to upgrade them.
The rollout of fiber has stagnated here over the last years, since Google doesn't pose a threat anymore. AT&T fiber just serves some gated communities around here, cares less about the rest of the city. They probably only serve these gated communities in order to beat a local broadband provider, which is specialized in offering fiber only to privately owned communities. Our cable provider, who serves the rest of the city, has increased the download speed to an acceptable level, but the upload speed is still not comparable with fiber Prices are high and the customer treatment is very bad, also. The root of the problem is that the cable providers just sliced-up the map and serve different areas. So, they can practically do whatever they want. 5G home internet seems to be available in some parts of the city, but there are probably major speed and reliability issues, when the festival is in town. As far as I know, 5G home customers have to yield for the carriers mobile customers. It's a big mess, which can only be solved with real competition or government involvement. There is no Google kicking the ISPs butts around here.
Fiber Rollout in my area (Northern Indiana) is massively kicking up. From less then 10% coverage to 85% of the county covered by fiber, from 100Mb to 2Gig with 5gig coming next summer. With three different providers AT&T, a local telecom company, and the local REMC, with Rumors of more competition in the coming year. Covid drove the need home and the Local telecoms here at least are working hard to meet the demand before someone else undercuts them and steals the customer.
They're expanding here in Austin, I'm curious if they're reinvigorated to expand again. I had Fiber at my old place and I really enjoyed it... affordable and so fast. They've been sending mailers for 2 and 5 gig service to my friend at work
The story is different here in Canada. Here the major telecom and cable companies were funded through government initiatives both provincial and federal to deploy fiber in their core networks and the cellular services needed the fiber speeds. We didn't have a disrupter like google fibre here. It was more of a public private partnership. The major cable company in Ontario has a program called Connected for Success that provides 25Mb/s for just $11 a month. I believe it is subsidized through government assistance and it is also tied with a Cable TV offering that is optionally available to that TV/IP becomes reality and the existing coaxial cable plant can be replaced with fiber throughout their network and eventually to the home. This biggest issue is high income places like condo buildings, very high income neighbourhoods, and luxury apartment buildings get the fiber to the residence and the social housing is left with the coaxial cable and poor service with frequent outages and long repair times. There was a federal program that extends this model to other providers as well. if VR takes off it will follow this same deployment leaving a significant portion of the population left behind and without the ability to participate in the benefits of VR for half a century or more.
"This biggest issue is high income places like condo buildings, very high income neighbourhoods, and luxury apartment buildings get the fiber to the residence and the social housing is left with the coaxial cable and poor service with frequent outages and long repair times." Where. Every new construction since 2013 has fibre to the home. Every coax building and address that doesn't get fibre right away is getting 1.2ghz nodes and segmented. 1.2 ghz nodes can run a traditional return path with a 42mhz wide return with more efficient modulation, or an 85mhz return with the same. The same units will do 208mhz return which is almost 5 X the current bandwidth and then layer on the more efficient carriers. Currently a coaxial 1.2ghz node can run up to 10gigabit in the downstream and around 500mbit in the upstream still running both old and new modulation techniques. A 1.2ghz node at full bore in full duplex runs 10gigabit symmetrical. Social housing is usually high density and little buildings have as many as four 1.2ghz nodes with 15 units per segment, which is nothing for a customer load. The wiring is as old as the late 1970s. There would be no reason to have "more frequent outages" either. Either a cable is cut or it isn't. Either a fibre is cut or it isn't. Repair times are even longer on fibre systems that are fully buried and permanently spliced because there are no test points available and no place to take a temporary connection from. You need much more expensive equipment and skill to troubleshoot and repair a fibre system. Techs are terrified of them.
@@Todd.T I am in a social housing unit in the East end of Toronto. It was built in 1974. It has a copper RG-6. We have 4 - 6 outages per month totaling an hour or more from the cable company. This include both TV and internet. Bell Canada will not run fiber to the building. I know I have tried to get it. The best speed we can get is 25Mbés meanwhile the new condominium across the street has a sixteen fibre pullover to serve sixty-four units. It is less than one hundred meters away. I know someone who lives in that building and he has had no outages since he moved in two years ago. He also has Gigabit fiber in his condominium. There are twenty-seven social housing buildings totaling over 1500 in a 4 square kilometer area walking distance to my building and they all have similar limitations and service levels. The service at our building was so bad they had to re-cable half of the building to get minimum service levels. Most of the cable that was there before the re-cable was from the early 1980's. We also have a huge issue with cable theft. People just climb across the balconies and remove the copper cable and then sell it for scrap. One person died a few years ago when he missed the grab in swinging between balconies using the dividing partition. It gave way and a couple of bolts sheared and he fell nine stories with a fatal result. If they installed fiber the theft also would not occur since the thieves would quickly learn they don't get paid for fiber cable.
@@PWingert1966 All of the optical nodes and amps from 2004 and up support gigabit speeds. I am using an RG6 drop from 1999 on a coax network from the late 70s and it’s all been updated merely by changing the node and the connection points and the amps. Everybody’s still using decades old RG6 drops at 1.2ghz and there are people with 1850/170 packages throughout. There are also 300 people on a single leg because it wasn’t redesigned, just updated with new amps, and connection points. Outages are not caused because you have copper wiring. Your limitation you say you have is not limited by copper wiring either otherwise I would have outages.We’ve had one outage because when the work was done someone left a weather sealed port open on the network and water got in it and caused a short.
@@Todd.T Regardless of the technical cause our building is getting substandard service and part of the cause is that it is not viewed as a priority due to it being a low-income building. we have over 400 apartments in the building but less then half use the cable company or the telecom company. So they are not making a lot of income fro the building either.
@@PWingert1966 Fibre isn’t just about selling faster services, it’s about operating costs too. If big blue comes into the building, the government forces them to let third party companies access the network. Once you factor in how many people you will get as a competitor in the building, the ROI on the build doesn’t look good so they don’t want to come. Vandalism is vandalism and you can’t blame a network outage on that. The police should handle that. In Scarborough they started putting police stations in the building and security cameras with 24hr monitoring. People don’t touch anything anymore. The slowest single channel modem using 2004 tech will still run 38mbs. I bought one and used it for years.
I think the current challenge is servers throttling throughput. So you have a fiber connection at home but you download a 100gb game and don’t even get a speed that is 10% of what your connection is capable of. Yes, there are some very good reasons for this. Servers have a lot if data to get out to an insane number of clients. But there literally is no need for home connections to get any faster at this point until there is a breakthrough on the server end. Not only with raw transfer speeds but latency as well.
Google Fiber didn’t light a fire under the ISP’s, there have been plenty of other independent fiber providers. Additionally Verizon moved into the CLEC space to compete with other RBOCs on their own turf with 5G wireless home internet. Then along came Starlink. Broadband is more competitive than ever and Google doesn’t have the legacy CBA’s to make it stick around. Of course they’re done.
I used to work in the residential ISP world. A BIG holdback to speed increases was due to govt regulations. Analog TV and cable cards ate up a HUGE chunk of the available spectrum on coax. Now those mandates are gone and we're seeing the speed increases. I recently saw a video (antenna guy maybe) saying Spectrum is about to roll out a big upgrade in upload speeds due to no longer being mandated to support cable cards.
"They were putting legacy players to shame..." 🤣🤣🤣 Yes, they totally were. I lived in Provo, UT when it came, and I absolutely loved Google Fiber internet. Internet was consistently fast. I only wish I could have been apart of their team.
Maybe they’d have had better luck if they launched their services in places where more than cows and college kids lived? They’re headquartered in the tech capital of the world and didn’t even offer service in that area.
I had cable through spectrum before moving to 1GB fiber with ATT and then to 1GB fiber with Google. The purpose of Google Fiber is not only to disrupt the industry but also to have access to the home user's browsing information. I recall that my 1GB ATT cost me $80 because of a $10 discount to disclose my browsing data to third parties. Once Google Fiber made it to my neighborhood, I ditched ATT and got the 1GB plan for $56. I believe that Google will continue investing in fiber only if it can harvest user data and use it to generate income.
Google fiber seemed to move slow into cities that weren't connected. More in a city here and there in different states. Was that their plan? To have other cable companies move fast so that they could benefit faster and cheaper? I wouldn't doubt it. I haven't heard about Google fiber since they started years ago in Kansas. I have Comcast and they have no fiber optic. I miss ATT. Better customer service, too. Comcast isn't that bad, if I get someone who speaks and understands English really well.
I'm getting an average of 720mbs/down 700mbs/up at $70 with Google Fiber. Can't really complain. This is however on a high capacity ethernet connection.
Ah Louisville, a city which I grew up near, and which was ground zero for the beginning of the end to google fiber. I was excited about Google Fiber when it was first announced to be coming here and disappointed when they left without much of a foothold and with a ton of damage left behind
I guess this is why google provides inferior routers vs the competition. The Google modems are pretty good. But the Wi-Fi needs a lot of work. Wish they would start decommissioning the Google Wi-Fi points and switch to the nest pro. Would make my job a lot easier
@@LilacMonarch terrible idea. That cause’s double nat or your relying on the Google’s router to properly use bridge mode. I work as an install technician installing their service. My gripe about these routers they use ac1200 for their 1gig plan.You have to Att(fiber), spectrum, etc at least starts you off with the Wi-Fi 6 router.
Not necessarily. It depends on how it's used in the time it takes for the miles of button pushers to know how to see this set of floating little screens.
I remember being so excited about Google Fiber. I even petitioned my local government to look into bringing them into my city. Then AT&T dropped their Fiber cables all over the city and they became the biggest players until Spectrum finally started adding 1G. Now it's all about where you live in the city and who you owe currently. Spectrum is currently pushing AT&T out
I'd double check those speeds. Remember that with the internet there are two different speeds : The download and the upload. Charter manages to get faster download by using both channels for the download and leaving around a megabit for download. Charter doesn't advertise this fact, but upload speeds are needed for uploading videos, high quality conference calling, running game servers, hosting multilayer matches on video game consoles, etc. In my city Charter is the only option and while I can get an "up to" 1 gigabit download bandwidth (which is really closer to half that) the upload bandwidth is low. Meanwhile a friend just a short drive away has AT&T in his area and he gets a gigabit on the download and the upload. But because Charter has the monopoly here I don't get any of that.
Plus charter or spectrum they charge low first and them jump prices super high I have now QuantumFiber at my house for 65$ for live that includes taxes 1Gb up and down
@@itluis2009 AT&T is the same way and their price per tier is higher than google fiber, GF is $55 a month for 500MB which is no longer offered but existing customers get to keep it, 1 gig is $70, 2 gig is $100 and 5 gig is $125, that's including taxes and fees, ATT is $55 for 300, 65 for 500, 80 for 1gig, 110 for 2gig and 180 for 5 gig, but that's before taxes and fees, which push those prices to 80, 120, 140, 210, then couple the inconsistency of their services which is what I hear most about when installing service to customers that were switching form ATT
@@almostJDM All these companies are inherently evil. That's why competition is important and why it's a problem that any one company is permitted exclusive access to the publicly owned telephone pole system. Here's how it should work : Every company that wants to use the telephone pole system must be allowed access, but must also pay a proportional share of maintenance costs. If that was the system in place both every company would offer services everywhere. And not just the big ones either. There would be actual locally owned competition. That would keep speeds high and prices low. Instead we have a system where a single company owns your block like they are a wild animal that successfully peed on your house and somehow that gives them the right to a monopoly over your house. It's a sickening system that requires new competitors try digging trenches or using radiowaves to compete, and 5G hasn't lived up to the hype enough to replace even cable let alone be a replacement for fiber.
People forget Google is a tech company. Google effectively forced their partners (ISP's) to upgrade their infrastructure for them. Since slow internet speeds was hurting google's brand.
Yep exactly
Makes sense. The USA has some of the slowest broadband speeds in the world.
Literally every person in the world forgets Google's a tech company, damn so true.
@@nasis18 I would assume that is because we implemented that very early on, and later implementers had access to better tech? And replacing slow but working infrastructure is something that the US might be choosing not to do?
Considering how big America is, the fiber rollout for each state/major population took priority first before going for smaller areas. They offered better speeds and allowed monopolies over internet to be bypassed because google had been increasing their search for suitable places to connect.
This was actually a very smart move.... I couldn't imagine being stuck to 50-60Mbps even in today's state of the internet. Recently my ISP (Spectrum) Bumped my speeds up to 350Mbps from 200 free of charge. I have been seeing quite the uplift even here, in the middle of nowhere. But sadly, no fiber exists here
I get fucking 35…. lol
i get 3 mbps lol
Well, I'm in Los Angeles, like a mile from Universal Studios... still no fiber on my area either. My speed has also increased with Spectrum as well (yay!) but maybe the ISPs need another kick in the pants to keep installing fiber.
Be glad you don't live in Germany. I live in a very rural area, we literally cannot get more then 100mbps. I have 60mbps and have to pay like 50€ per month.
Internet is just awful here.
Eh, 350Mbps is more than most households need. However, the benefit of fiber is you generally get a matching upload to go with your download. I have Cox fiber and get 250/250 and it is pretty awesome.
I love my Google fiber. I pay $70 a month and the price hasn't budged in the few years I've had it. No games like the other providers.
Man I wish. By the time next year rolls around, charter will be charging me $75 for a fraction of that (300 Down/10 up) I experienced my first bump in price a few months ago to $65 from $50…… T-T
What speeds are you getting for $70 a month?
@@lorddoma6637 gigabit
@@gent2205 wow that's good I'm paying $25 with Verizon but only getting 300 mbps.
@Alucard oh my goodness. I had spectrum before and it was the same thing with price hikes and a harassment level of advertisements through the mail, phone calls, and texts. I think I even paid more for the pleasure than I currently do. Then when I tried to discontinue my service they ask why, I told them, and they said that was the industry standard. I was pissed. Never looked back.
I also feel like you left a really crucial detail, in that one of the other reasons why Google Fiber became a thing (even knowing that they won't be economically successful) is due to the whole net-neutrality scandals. The ISP's started targeting video streaming services such as Netflix & Hulu, and even RUclips ended up getting caught under the crossfire of having to pay the ISP's massive amounts of "fees" for how much 'demand' they were placing on the ISPs. Google being the only tech company that had the power to create their own ISP to make a statement unlike the other companies who essentially never owned their own infrastructure and were all hosted on AWS, decided to do just that: Tell the ISPs that if they don't change their practices on how they treat the streaming services, Google will create their own ISP infrastructure and take out the middle man. Their success with Google Fiber, showed the ISP's that this wasn't just Google talking the talking, but that they could actually deliver on their threats.
I think other streaming platforms should thank Google for it lol.
Glad to see some explanation that makes sense to me, because the ones in the video didn't seem great. Am I the only one? maybe I'm slow lol. They didn't attempt stadia until several years after fiber was rolled out, but at the time I don't think they care about gamer ping or fast Steam downloads. Hangouts is a social media platform, do they really need 4K for that? Classroom doesn't seem intended to make money, though I can see how it might use a lot of bandwidth. I guess I'd like to know some specific stuff that uses bandwidth that's so high that it requires fiber, cuz it doesn't seem like the average home consumer needs it, and I'm not sure what Google planned on offering that definitely needed all these competitor-built fiber connections.
What's funny is ISP stagnation was only a thing on the consumer side. However, on the datacenter side, speeds are going up and up and costs are dropping by roughly 20% year-on-year since bandwidth and internet speeds are a big cost center for businesses they are constantly trying to optimize and there are many players competing for their business. Consumer ISPs were just able to get away with shitty service because of a lack of competition.
It’s not because of lack of competition, it’s because all involved parties have decided to screw the consumer unanimously…. This has been a growing problem in many industries. The constant hatred and distain towards the “entitled consumer” is getting worse and worse. Same thing is happening in the work place too. Higher ups hate the employees below them and all… It’s terrible
There's monopoly in the "Tier 1 ISP" market too, BUT, yes, at the end, the Business having transit has very good cost. The negotiation that happens between providers too exist here, and they slash prices by a huge %age too if you find something similar from a different provider, and economies of scale applies here too so if your transit requirements are like many Tbit from many provider, you pay really cheap per Mbit. and not to mention, those big players have more direct ways of reaching their destination with stuff like "Peering, IXP", etc. They anyways try to avoid Transit as much as they can, but it's not purely possible.
The cost to an ISP for providing business internet is lower because the businesses provide the internal infrastucture to their users. Also one customer with one bill for a contract is easier than 100 customers with month to month service who create the same amount of network traffic.
The problem intel has
Well, it's also at least in part because there are 10,000 customer wires to be run for every business wire to be run. If I want to connect two data centers, I can pay to have a bundle of fibers run between them for way less than a separate fiber for every house. That's exactly why phone lines and cable tv lines were the primary means of delivering internet. That last little bit from the corner of the block to each house on the block is (or was) very expensive.
Google fiber is seriously the best thing to happen to my internet. I purposely moved to an area with it because I was sick of Xfinity, century link, etc. They are actually expanding quite rapidly in my area. Constantly seeing neighborhoods having them come through and install the infrastructure. If you have them as an option, DO IT.
CenturyLink are thieves.
Only 2% of public has the option.
I had dial-up way back in 94. Had a whopping 14 kbps. It would take several hours just to connect. Kids these days will never know what actual slow internet is.
😂
Would take 1 week for you to watch this video
And you had to walk in snow, uphill both ways, to get to and from your internet terminal! :)
@@jmtradbr No joke, it probably would have.
@@jmtradbr more than that, unless it was at 144 kbps
I remember when Google Fiber was first out, I was struggling with 2 MBps, which was the best they offered. I desperately wished for google fiber in my area and I hated how slow internet was across America, especially compared to other countries. Nowadays, I am routinely offered Gigabit, and even though they're still wiley with the "up to", I can typically rely on at least 40MBps, which is amazing compared to a decade ago. So if this really was intentional, I thank Google for managing to improve the broken ISPs
But Comcast is still being a piece of shit
40mps ? Lol ADSL was about 10 times slower but it was 20 years ago.
@@heloxiii8894 40 "MBps" son not Mbps
@@tikz.-3738 yeah maybe so, i was very young 20 years ago, i know I didn't understand the difference then
@@heloxiii8894 definitions of measurements don't change. The length of a meter hasn't changed in 20 years. Neither has the size of a bit, a byte a megabit or a megabyte.
Part of the problem was government failure across several administrations. The government didn't want to build a fiber infrastructure. Instead, they allowed the telecoms companies to charge their customers to fund this rollout. Surprise: they didn't. The companies were caught pocketing the money. They then were allowed to charge customers yet again to fund the rollout. And guess what? Again they just pocketed the money.
And as you correctly point out, Google understood the negative impact this would have on their business growth serving web based services.
why would the government build a fiber infrastructure for big corporation? I say that is not a failure, they just know they shouldn't.
if they do, shame on them for doing it instead of spending the money for other important things, and if they don't? shame on them coz the corporation is now charging it to the people? . . . typical grumblers.
@@ChibiKeruchan Private corporations didn't build the nation's highways: the government funded that. You gonna complain about that too and ask why the government bothered to do it? Do you enjoy getting it up the ass by corporations? Do they pay you for that or do you just let them do it for free?
@@ChibiKeruchan There are many state own services in Europe. Shocking to an American, I know.
@@ChibiKeruchan the government set aside billions for fiber and gave it companies. That money just somehow disappeared no one has answers, I would do some research onto it if you have the time. Also the govt. is what made electrification across the country possible. Without govt. support that would not have happened. Govt. has subsidized what it deems necessary equipment in the past and it should also do so for the internet for rural America.
Yea I don’t get how you are paid billions and just lose it, like no accountability whatsoever
I have it and LOVE IT 🤣 $70 1gig up/down. Was down once in 2 years....some kids messed with the main box down the road. It was fixed within 4 hours 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
I have gigabit though AT&T and it’s only $55
@@ross4 if u wanna flex the price gigabit where i live is like 10$ a month here
@@ross4 Sure, but is the service as good as with Google Fiber? Don't think so...
@@deus_ex_machina_ Maybe. What do you mean? What ways if Google service better I am curious.
@@Bixmy That’s how much it should cost. Google and all the telecom companies are price gouging in the US.
I remember when they switched to fiber in my area. We went from 25mbps speeds to 200mbps for the same price. I used to wait entire days to download games that now take a few hours
Perfect strategy when you think about it the higher speeds people have the more internet they will use and in turn, a lot of google services will be used more.
Google are actually pretty smart. They threatened the traditional ISPs forcing them to upgrade their stuff so they wouldnt become irrelevant. End result is now much faster internet is in many more homes. Which Google now benefits greatly from increased access to their services and of course the ability to show many more ads. All at what im sure is actually pretty minimal cost to Google
Google Fiber has been in Irvine CA for years, but AFAIK it's only available in certain large apartment and condo complexes. I guess it wasn't cost-effective for Google to run fiber to individual homes (or even to the curb).
Yeah makes sense
This doesn't make sense to me as a cell site technician. We use a lot of fiber optics because it is A LOT cheaper than copper on runs over a few dozen feet. The expensive bits are the SFPs on either end of the fiber to connect to the switches and routers.
I could see only running fiber to the road and copper to houses. Despite the cable being more expensive, terminating fiber is labor expensive and you don't want it where the customer could mess it up.
This has to do with how it came to Irvine. The Irvine Company made a deal with Google directly(2016) to bring Google Fiber to its properties, and not a deal with the City. I don't know if there is an exclusivity deal, but I imagine there is. Most of Irvine was built/upgraded with underground conduit making it a lot easier to deploy fiber if they want to. SCE is actually using the conduit to give business' 100gig fiber lines.
Something similar occurred in Nashville. Google Fiber basically only exists in a few highrises downtown. Comcast and AT&T blocked them from being able to access their phone poles to run fiber to other parts of the city. Which would have been more cost effective than digging and burying a bunch of fiber. So the rollout didn't get very far. But when AT&T Fiber rolled out they matched Google's price of $70 a month for two years and then extended that another year or two before raising the price. By that time Comcast started rolling out their gig speed offering. Hat tip to Google for finally spurring fiber expansion in this area. I enjoyed FIOS in Philly but was forced back into the slow lane when we moved back to TN 10 years ago. We were the first house in our neighborhood to have fiber run to it.
If that's the case then I'm surprised that they don't offer FTTC (Fibre-To-The-Cabinet) which is offered in the UK by Openreach whereby fibre-optic cables only run to a cabinet on the street with datastreams converted over to a pre-existing copper cable but I suppose Google doesn't already have that infrastructure in place and making deals with the likes of AT&T likely wouldn't help them...
In India, I started my internet journey in Cyber Cafes having Dial-Up connections. Later DSL based broadband was introduced in early 2000s with speeds over 256 Kbps and upto 2 Mbps. Later on in mid 2010s DSL was getting speeds around 40 Mbps. In past 5 years Fiber internet has spread like anything with speeds upto 1 Gbps in less than $50.
It's funny how the US is sooo behind Europe when it comes to the internet. 500MB, 700MB and 1GB are very common now. Here In Romania, where I live now, the minimum is 500MB with some exceptions of only 100MB in case of an outdated infrastructure that is getting updated. I'm paying 7 USD per month and just got updated for free from 300 to 500MB with an upload of 250. My provider does not offer the slower 300 anymore. And there is no data limit. I did download sometimes up to 2TB a month next to my streaming and that's totally okay. And we didn't need a Google to come and disrupt the market.
Att just upped their offering of max 1 Gbps to 5Gbps just because a start up fiber provider in central Florida sent mail out to a bunch of people saying they'd offer 10Gbps. So att had it in them the whole time but never cared to offer.
True, even in Austin they're offering 10gbps residential fiber, but AT&T has data caps while Google Fiber is truly unlimited
Edit: they don't have data caps for fiber plans. Might try them lol
@@kazoo-out-the-wazoo data caps on 10g link? thats new :D
@@B4rr4cudk4 I just checked, for fiber plans they don't have data caps, my bad
This video didn't mention the elephant in the room. That governments blocked the roll out of Google fiber as they were favoring the established companies. It's so tough to go thru the city, state, etc regulations and authorities and the bureaucracies just to establish home internet. Plus some apartments are not allowing Google to install fiber as they have exclusivity contracts with the established companies.
If I remember correctly some of this was common carrier issues and threats of charging tech companies for traffic on networks. Google Netflix and others were battling a the telcos even though most of the backbones were paid for by tax payers. They were calling telcos bluff
well, it gets quite pricey on the bandwindths going on between likes of google and ISPs :) where fridge size equipment is only one of the connections in between and serves only that connection
The city I lived in paid for all houses to have it, been enjoying it for a few years now. I pay for 100mbps but they mistakenly left 1 port at 1000, I hooked that one to my computer, not complaining......
Hahaha nice
LOOOL
I’ve gotten so many google fiber ads recently. Not only just on RUclips and the internet but through mail and even door to door sails people.
It’s great that you covered this because I never did any real digging, but was curious. Great vid!
Its going to be intresting in my Area. Google Fiber has the Green light to come here and they are promising 10 gig speeds in my market. So it will be interesting to see what Cox communications will try to pull to compete with the speeds.
Those ISPs that sued to keep Google out are lucky that Google didn't keep their phones off their networks or charge them way more for the phones lol
I had google fiber for a while. It was very inconvenient.
It was only available where local municipalities had a fiber network set up (mine did then the city canceled the project).
You were locked into multi year contracts.
If you needed help you were put on a month long wait list.
It was about $100 a month for just internet, no phone or cable tv.
The internet speed was fast tho, my ping in CSGO was 5ms.
I had Google fiber in Kansas City myself and I was not impressed, it was constantly dropping and I never seemed to get more than 300mbps.
Love your videos but just a suggestion, when showing screenshots articles, the date is not visible for long or sometimes at all. I know the title is key point but the date would also give a good indication of how relavant the data is and persons can better source the article used.
I appreciate feedback Raahul
I have google fiber. Its amazing. In 2 years that i had it, i had 2 drops. No need to reset router.
US fiber is way too expensive. We have 1GB for $15 and 10 GB for $25 here in Spain.
1GB of data for $15 is a terrible deal, not something you should brag about.
I remember when Google Fiber was first announced. My immediate thought was "Finally, someone is pushing crappy ISPs to upgrade their services." Glad to see my hopes panned out!
Just got Google Fiber at my house a few months ago.
Whole neighborhood switched to Google Fiber with exceptions of a few old people that need cable subscriptions
Nicely packaged video
Thanks man!
Sure
True... He makes simple & well detailed v
There’s a similar situation happening on the small island where I live, the dominant phone company ISP just offered DSL with maximum 25mbps and would have probably left it like that but a local startup was using multi-point uplink mesh wireless technology up near the tops of trees to provide competitive service (with MUCH higher upstream) without all the initial costs of prewiring for everyone. The telco ISP now offers 50mbps + unlimited which they did not before, and now the local ISP got a grant to do a fiber rollout and suddenly the phone company is promising fiber soon too... but in this case the big phone co will likely be leasing bandwidth from the small ISP’s physical optical uplink connection to the mainland they got the grant for since they cannot get the same kind of subsidy to run their own optical cable... which is not actually good for the redundancy factor, but at least there will be faster wired service. The limiting factor of rolling out the wireless network turned out to be having enough qualified tree climbing installation technicians to satisfy the demand - fiber rollouts are slightly more demanding as far as tech skills and crew numbers needed for baseline infrastructure but also more manageable since it’s standardized and fairly predictable.
Google Fiber bought Webpass in 2015 (I think). I wish they would have went full in with Webpass technology once the ISP's and local municipalities got in their way in particular states/cities
COVID and all the shift to WFH ironically showed that there is plenty of capacity to handle all that traffic that was no longer internal to the office, meaning ISPs really were holding back and seeking rent off of retail customers.
It's funny how former Soviet countries have better internet than Germany today, because there was no existing infrastructure for the ISPs to piggyback on, so they pretty much had to build out _something_ if they wanted any customers at all, and if they build infrastructure, then hey, it might as well be fiber
This video needs to be updated.. Gfiber is thriving and opening in multiple new markets now a days
Those faster speeds are hard to find once out of larger cities. Fastest available where I live is 100 mbps and it costs over $150.
Idk from what I can tell, anyone who has accessibility to Google Fiber prefers it over any other ISP. You pay $70 every month, that's it, no hidden fees or payment increases. Can't say the same for other ISPs. I love my google fiber (gigabit up and down).
sadly, ISPs seem to mostly be investing in new construction. there's still a massive amount of already existing homes and businesses that are still stuck with 100 mbps or less DSL
I still hope that the fiber revolution will still grow. and maybe Google fiber can still become a greater success? I want to see the whole internet reinforced to be stronger for all. More highways and such.
They had the cables in the ground right by my house in 2019, but it never was active around my city!
I have a question: to what degree of a threat would ISPs deem it if their customers became their own gatekeeper to the internet, still reliant upon ISPs for long-haul transit of data but each customer was their own network operator, effectively decoupling the service area from the ISP and having it managed by the users.
PS: users would contract out operations of everything to third parties to manage it for them, the users have the ability to replace the contractors at-will.
PPS: if users made this thing a cloud as well, they could even have "free" internet service as their network could pay for itself --within reason.
PPPS: users could even attempt to make a reasonable expectation of privacy situation if done correctly & with enough distrust of others baked into every fiber of the network's operations.
my dad runs a small business internet company and spectrum and the like are such predatory companies, my dad has been able to thrive because so much of ohio has yet to put ground cables down in rural areas, so theyre able to give internet to those areas the big businesses basically ignore. It's insane the hoops the put in place though, I had hoped america was supposed to support competition not big businesses being bullies
Where I live, the only 2 options are Comcast, and att. Att only has 50mbps dsl so Comcast is the only good option. T-Mobile 5G home internet recently became available so maybe Comcast can face some competition now.
I'm in the same situation in my town. I tried T-Mobile's 5g thing and it was terribly slow. I tried in 2021 and most recently in late 2022. It seems worse the 2nd time. I can't get more than 35 Mbps no matter where I place the gateway in my house. Most of the time, its slower than 10 Mbps. I'm going to be cancelling it soon.
Google attempting to not shutdown division challenge
*impossible*
Sandy Utah is currently installing Google Fiber. Mine has been running for 6 months.
I still remember when pre-download GTAV on DSL for whole week 😂
The pain hahaha
Google Fiber came to Louisville and I was thinking of moving to where it was available.
Then their lines popped out of where they were “buried” in the street by the tar.
So they cancelled the whole thing here…..
Does any one remember when a speed of 512 kbps was considered lightning fast, lol. Good time. Good old times.
I may have the option of a gigabit cable internet package through Spectrum (Charter) but that is NOT equivalent to fiber gigabit internet. What is TRULY game changing about a real-deal symmetric fiber internet connection is having access to gigabit upload speeds. Being able to download AND upload at such speeds from home is what is truly groundbreaking. The ability to communicate with other machines/services over the internet as if they were connected to your home LAN enables practices that were previously unthinkable. However, for most of us, that ability still remains an unattainable dream that will likely go unfulfilled for a very long time to come.
Didn’t Amazon have an even bigger incentive for a faster network speeds, considering AWS and Alexa?
Also crediting google with the ISP monopolies increasing their speeds thinking google is a threat, I would imagine these billion dollar companies can run through more in depth analysis to realize the same thing you did but in real time.
In every area Google Fiber announced they would launch, existing cable ISPs suddenly increased speeds.
I just got NEW Google Fiber in San Antonio. They are expanding - laid the optics about 4 months ago, got it connected last week. It is $20 cheaper than Spectrum cable Internet (also gigabit, but not synchronous and 20 to 30 times the latency) and so I switched.
I’m going to be on a few vacations soon and still need my home infrastructure switched to 2.5GbE but eventually, I’ll have 2Gbit/s from Google for $100/month.
I live in Chicago not on the outskirts but in the actual city of Chicago in my entire neighborhood does not have access to fiber at all.
I would say that ISPs are stagnating again... DSL in my area tops out at 18mbps down / 5mbps up, and while there have been some speed increases to Cable (it tops out at 1.2Gbps in a few neighborhoods), the local cable company has not expanded the areas that it services and also has a data cap before charging their customers extra, despite there being no reason for it from a technical level. Data is not a resource like water or natural gas, and it doesn't take extra resources to generate more like electricity. All that is needed is to keep the data "pipes" wide enough to let everything through. There is still a significant number of households in the local region that can't get any Internet besides dial-up, overpriced cellular, or satellite to this day.
thank you Google! you never brought your own fiber to my area, but you scared other ISPs and now I have 2Gbps fiber for $100 per month from a small regional ISP.
If Google came to the UK and spent $140 billion building fibre broadband for all rural areas, they'd have a huge market.
I know some UK companies already primarily or only focus on rural areas as people either pay £30 for 50mbps or £30-£50 for 350/500/1000 mbps.
AT&t was probably already sitting on the faster speed tech. The USA has the slowest high speed internet. Google just pushed AT&t to use theirs
Yet still there's so many neighborhoods in the cities that do not have any fiber available.
I heard Google Fiber will soon offer 5GB and 8GB service soon. And their pricing is usually lower than the others.
Since we we finaly got basic Google Fiber;
we are enjoying over 200 Mps up and download speeds, with few hick-ups abd connected devices!
The installation was was fast, smooth, really professional and painless!
!(:THANKS GOOGLE;)!
I live in the middle of nowhere somewhere in california. No cable internet provider in my place, I have 2 rely on satalite internet and it is terrible. $150 a month for 75 mb upload and 3 mb download with a latency over 700. And its throttled at random times of the day, mainly in the afternoon. I have seen it go down 2 3 kilobytes a sec.
i wish this still existed, i only have max of 3.1 megabytes a sec and a minimum of .5
I’m getting 42 Mbps on a test I just did right now. My plan for Spectrum says *up to* 500 mbps but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it go past 50. I’m more sick of their bs technicians coming to my house to do the same basic steps that basically amount to turning it off and on again. All I can do is put up with
maybe one day Google will become a non-profit when it expands to Mars
Hahaha
4k in 2012 was monstrously expensive
You got to be kidding me saying 4k was dirt cheap back in 2010-11-12
So, to summarize the entire video: task failed successfully...
right!
Google to ISP: “Checkmate” 😏
Google fiber is in my area and expanding. It's good. I expect this video to age poorly.
same
commenting to show that I love this guys content, sorry if this is a rather generic comment, I just wanted to say my approval of this
I really appreciate your support man!
Rumor is that Google planned to sell their fiber network to an established ISP.
Ah really? That would be crazy
They should sell it to Verizon, they would then have a presence nationwide.
It is 2023 in Brussels, and still no fibre no sight of it
Verzion started their fiber service in 2005
Google should launch fibre in Australia and compete hard against NBN
I’m skeptical of the claim that Google fiber was the catalyst behind the speed upgrades by Att and comcast etc. in most of the US there is no choice of internet provider. Only in a few select areas you can have a choice of one cable company or one single fiber optic company, not multiples. In many municipalities it is not allowed to have more than one of each. It’s basically protected monopolies. The biggest pressure on cable companies to upgrade speeds was the threat of high speed internet over wireless hotspots with LTE access nationwide and the advent of people cutting cable tv. Verizon even ditched their fiber optic business ( now called Frontier ) and invested all their money on buying the frequency spectrum for their 5g networks. That’s where the smart money is.
I agree. Verizon brought fiber to my house in 2009 before Google fiber existed. DSL was already way slower than cable. The copper networks were antiquated and it was time to upgrade them.
The rollout of fiber has stagnated here over the last years, since Google doesn't pose a threat anymore. AT&T fiber just serves some gated communities around here, cares less about the rest of the city. They probably only serve these gated communities in order to beat a local broadband provider, which is specialized in offering fiber only to privately owned communities. Our cable provider, who serves the rest of the city, has increased the download speed to an acceptable level, but the upload speed is still not comparable with fiber Prices are high and the customer treatment is very bad, also. The root of the problem is that the cable providers just sliced-up the map and serve different areas. So, they can practically do whatever they want. 5G home internet seems to be available in some parts of the city, but there are probably major speed and reliability issues, when the festival is in town. As far as I know, 5G home customers have to yield for the carriers mobile customers. It's a big mess, which can only be solved with real competition or government involvement. There is no Google kicking the ISPs butts around here.
Fiber Rollout in my area (Northern Indiana) is massively kicking up. From less then 10% coverage to 85% of the county covered by fiber, from 100Mb to 2Gig with 5gig coming next summer. With three different providers AT&T, a local telecom company, and the local REMC, with Rumors of more competition in the coming year. Covid drove the need home and the Local telecoms here at least are working hard to meet the demand before someone else undercuts them and steals the customer.
They're expanding here in Austin, I'm curious if they're reinvigorated to expand again. I had Fiber at my old place and I really enjoyed it... affordable and so fast. They've been sending mailers for 2 and 5 gig service to my friend at work
The story is different here in Canada. Here the major telecom and cable companies were funded through government initiatives both provincial and federal to deploy fiber in their core networks and the cellular services needed the fiber speeds. We didn't have a disrupter like google fibre here. It was more of a public private partnership. The major cable company in Ontario has a program called Connected for Success that provides 25Mb/s for just $11 a month. I believe it is subsidized through government assistance and it is also tied with a Cable TV offering that is optionally available to that TV/IP becomes reality and the existing coaxial cable plant can be replaced with fiber throughout their network and eventually to the home. This biggest issue is high income places like condo buildings, very high income neighbourhoods, and luxury apartment buildings get the fiber to the residence and the social housing is left with the coaxial cable and poor service with frequent outages and long repair times. There was a federal program that extends this model to other providers as well. if VR takes off it will follow this same deployment leaving a significant portion of the population left behind and without the ability to participate in the benefits of VR for half a century or more.
"This biggest issue is high income places like condo buildings, very high income neighbourhoods, and luxury apartment buildings get the fiber to the residence and the social housing is left with the coaxial cable and poor service with frequent outages and long repair times."
Where. Every new construction since 2013 has fibre to the home. Every coax building and address that doesn't get fibre right away is getting 1.2ghz nodes and segmented. 1.2 ghz nodes can run a traditional return path with a 42mhz wide return with more efficient modulation, or an 85mhz return with the same. The same units will do 208mhz return which is almost 5 X the current bandwidth and then layer on the more efficient carriers.
Currently a coaxial 1.2ghz node can run up to 10gigabit in the downstream and around 500mbit in the upstream still running both old and new modulation techniques. A 1.2ghz node at full bore in full duplex runs 10gigabit symmetrical.
Social housing is usually high density and little buildings have as many as four 1.2ghz nodes with 15 units per segment, which is nothing for a customer load. The wiring is as old as the late 1970s. There would be no reason to have "more frequent outages" either. Either a cable is cut or it isn't. Either a fibre is cut or it isn't.
Repair times are even longer on fibre systems that are fully buried and permanently spliced because there are no test points available and no place to take a temporary connection from. You need much more expensive equipment and skill to troubleshoot and repair a fibre system. Techs are terrified of them.
@@Todd.T I am in a social housing unit in the East end of Toronto. It was built in 1974. It has a copper RG-6. We have 4 - 6 outages per month totaling an hour or more from the cable company. This include both TV and internet. Bell Canada will not run fiber to the building. I know I have tried to get it. The best speed we can get is 25Mbés meanwhile the new condominium across the street has a sixteen fibre pullover to serve sixty-four units. It is less than one hundred meters away. I know someone who lives in that building and he has had no outages since he moved in two years ago. He also has Gigabit fiber in his condominium. There are twenty-seven social housing buildings totaling over 1500 in a 4 square kilometer area walking distance to my building and they all have similar limitations and service levels. The service at our building was so bad they had to re-cable half of the building to get minimum service levels. Most of the cable that was there before the re-cable was from the early 1980's. We also have a huge issue with cable theft. People just climb across the balconies and remove the copper cable and then sell it for scrap. One person died a few years ago when he missed the grab in swinging between balconies using the dividing partition. It gave way and a couple of bolts sheared and he fell nine stories with a fatal result. If they installed fiber the theft also would not occur since the thieves would quickly learn they don't get paid for fiber cable.
@@PWingert1966 All of the optical nodes and amps from 2004 and up support gigabit speeds. I am using an RG6 drop from 1999 on a coax network from the late 70s and it’s all been updated merely by changing the node and the connection points and the amps. Everybody’s still using decades old RG6 drops at 1.2ghz and there are people with 1850/170 packages throughout. There are also 300 people on a single leg because it wasn’t redesigned, just updated with new amps, and connection points. Outages are not caused because you have copper wiring. Your limitation you say you have is not limited by copper wiring either otherwise I would have outages.We’ve had one outage because when the work was done someone left a weather sealed port open on the network and water got in it and caused a short.
@@Todd.T Regardless of the technical cause our building is getting substandard service and part of the cause is that it is not viewed as a priority due to it being a low-income building. we have over 400 apartments in the building but less then half use the cable company or the telecom company. So they are not making a lot of income fro the building either.
@@PWingert1966 Fibre isn’t just about selling faster services, it’s about operating costs too. If big blue comes into the building, the government forces them to let third party companies access the network. Once you factor in how many people you will get as a competitor in the building, the ROI on the build doesn’t look good so they don’t want to come. Vandalism is vandalism and you can’t blame a network outage on that. The police should handle that. In Scarborough they started putting police stations in the building and security cameras with 24hr monitoring. People don’t touch anything anymore. The slowest single channel modem using 2004 tech will still run 38mbs. I bought one and used it for years.
I think the current challenge is servers throttling throughput. So you have a fiber connection at home but you download a 100gb game and don’t even get a speed that is 10% of what your connection is capable of.
Yes, there are some very good reasons for this. Servers have a lot if data to get out to an insane number of clients. But there literally is no need for home connections to get any faster at this point until there is a breakthrough on the server end. Not only with raw transfer speeds but latency as well.
Google Fiber didn’t light a fire under the ISP’s, there have been plenty of other independent fiber providers. Additionally Verizon moved into the CLEC space to compete with other RBOCs on their own turf with 5G wireless home internet. Then along came Starlink. Broadband is more competitive than ever and Google doesn’t have the legacy CBA’s to make it stick around. Of course they’re done.
satellite Internet is absolutely ridiculous
I used to work in the residential ISP world. A BIG holdback to speed increases was due to govt regulations. Analog TV and cable cards ate up a HUGE chunk of the available spectrum on coax. Now those mandates are gone and we're seeing the speed increases. I recently saw a video (antenna guy maybe) saying Spectrum is about to roll out a big upgrade in upload speeds due to no longer being mandated to support cable cards.
Romania already had that speed at that time..
I remember wanting Google fibre so bad in 2011 I was stuck at 25 mbs for years until I moved out recently
"They were putting legacy players to shame..." 🤣🤣🤣 Yes, they totally were. I lived in Provo, UT when it came, and I absolutely loved Google Fiber internet. Internet was consistently fast.
I only wish I could have been apart of their team.
Maybe they’d have had better luck if they launched their services in places where more than cows and college kids lived? They’re headquartered in the tech capital of the world and didn’t even offer service in that area.
I had cable through spectrum before moving to 1GB fiber with ATT and then to 1GB fiber with Google. The purpose of Google Fiber is not only to disrupt the industry but also to have access to the home user's browsing information. I recall that my 1GB ATT cost me $80 because of a $10 discount to disclose my browsing data to third parties. Once Google Fiber made it to my neighborhood, I ditched ATT and got the 1GB plan for $56. I believe that Google will continue investing in fiber only if it can harvest user data and use it to generate income.
Sounds like Google haha
your ISP can not read your network communications when using https (which was also pushed, partly, by google)
@@fridyair They don't care about the specific data, they only need to know that there's someone in this area that likes this and that.
Google fiber seemed to move slow into cities that weren't connected. More in a city here and there in different states. Was that their plan? To have other cable companies move fast so that they could benefit faster and cheaper? I wouldn't doubt it. I haven't heard about Google fiber since they started years ago in Kansas.
I have Comcast and they have no fiber optic. I miss ATT. Better customer service, too. Comcast isn't that bad, if I get someone who speaks and understands English really well.
I'm getting an average of 720mbs/down 700mbs/up at $70 with Google Fiber. Can't really complain. This is however on a high capacity ethernet connection.
Recession ?? What recession? Does repeating it over and over again make it true despite the economic statistics?
Ah Louisville, a city which I grew up near, and which was ground zero for the beginning of the end to google fiber. I was excited about Google Fiber when it was first announced to be coming here and disappointed when they left without much of a foothold and with a ton of damage left behind
"If you're not familiar with dial-up" making me feel old.
I just read an ad saying Google fiber was coming to Chicago so they must still be expanding.
In Holland we have 1gb fiber For €25-30
Remarkable for this video to fail to make any mention of Verizon FIOS.
Google gigabit is cheaper than AT&T’s fiber in Kansas City, but AT&T’s fiber Wi-Fi connection is way better than the Wi-Fi on googles little pucks.
If it was so successful why did the CEO step down?
I guess this is why google provides inferior routers vs the competition. The Google modems are pretty good. But the Wi-Fi needs a lot of work. Wish they would start decommissioning the Google Wi-Fi points and switch to the nest pro. Would make my job a lot easier
You can just connect your own wifi access point to the google router and it works fine
@@LilacMonarch terrible idea. That cause’s double nat or your relying on the Google’s router to properly use bridge mode. I work as an install technician installing their service. My gripe about these routers they use ac1200 for their 1gig plan.You have to Att(fiber), spectrum, etc at least starts you off with the Wi-Fi 6 router.
It was never about the money for Google, it was about sending a message....
It was planned to get ISPs to upgrade their networks
Not necessarily. It depends on how it's used in the time it takes for the miles of button pushers to know how to see this set of floating little screens.
I remember being so excited about Google Fiber. I even petitioned my local government to look into bringing them into my city.
Then AT&T dropped their Fiber cables all over the city and they became the biggest players until Spectrum finally started adding 1G. Now it's all about where you live in the city and who you owe currently. Spectrum is currently pushing AT&T out
I'd double check those speeds. Remember that with the internet there are two different speeds : The download and the upload. Charter manages to get faster download by using both channels for the download and leaving around a megabit for download. Charter doesn't advertise this fact, but upload speeds are needed for uploading videos, high quality conference calling, running game servers, hosting multilayer matches on video game consoles, etc.
In my city Charter is the only option and while I can get an "up to" 1 gigabit download bandwidth (which is really closer to half that) the upload bandwidth is low.
Meanwhile a friend just a short drive away has AT&T in his area and he gets a gigabit on the download and the upload. But because Charter has the monopoly here I don't get any of that.
Plus charter or spectrum they charge low first and them jump prices super high
I have now QuantumFiber at my house for 65$ for live that includes taxes 1Gb up and down
@@itluis2009 AT&T is the same way and their price per tier is higher than google fiber, GF is $55 a month for 500MB which is no longer offered but existing customers get to keep it, 1 gig is $70, 2 gig is $100 and 5 gig is $125, that's including taxes and fees, ATT is $55 for 300, 65 for 500, 80 for 1gig, 110 for 2gig and 180 for 5 gig, but that's before taxes and fees, which push those prices to 80, 120, 140, 210, then couple the inconsistency of their services which is what I hear most about when installing service to customers that were switching form ATT
@@almostJDM All these companies are inherently evil. That's why competition is important and why it's a problem that any one company is permitted exclusive access to the publicly owned telephone pole system.
Here's how it should work : Every company that wants to use the telephone pole system must be allowed access, but must also pay a proportional share of maintenance costs.
If that was the system in place both every company would offer services everywhere. And not just the big ones either. There would be actual locally owned competition. That would keep speeds high and prices low.
Instead we have a system where a single company owns your block like they are a wild animal that successfully peed on your house and somehow that gives them the right to a monopoly over your house. It's a sickening system that requires new competitors try digging trenches or using radiowaves to compete, and 5G hasn't lived up to the hype enough to replace even cable let alone be a replacement for fiber.