5
Google to offer fast Internet broadband
Pedestrians walk by a sign outside of the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Google CEO Eric Schmidt had an op-ed in the Washington Post today. He says we're not innovating enough in this country. Of course, his company's innovations, or what Google's been able to do with other people's innovations, have put it right at the center of almost every part of our Internet experience. From the videos we watch to the e-mails we send and, obviously, to the search engine we use to look stuff up.
So maybe it was just a matter of time before Google got into the ISP business. That is, Internet Service Provider. Marketplace's Amy Scott reports.
AMY SCOTT: In a blog post on its Web site, Google sketched out its plan to deliver Internet access to as many as half-a-million homes.
Google says it would be 100 times faster than what most people have today. Fast enough to download a full-length, high-definition movie in less than five minutes.
Doug Williams is an analyst with Forrester Research.
DOUG WILLIAMS: It will allow those things that are kind of painful to do today, it'll make that experience much more palatable.
And maybe more competitive. Google says it will allow other service providers to use its network. But maybe not out of the goodness of its heart.
BEN SCOTT: Google makes more money when more people are on the Internet using Google products.
Ben Scott is policy director for Free Press, a non-profit public interest group.
SCOTT: I think what they're trying to do is demonstrate that there's a marketplace for these applications that use superfast networks, because they want to sell stuff in that market.
But other analysts question whether there is enough of a market for super speedy Internet service.
Analyst Mike Paxton with In-Stat says only a small percentage of people use the bandwidth they have now.
MIKE PAXTON: So you're talking about 100 times faster. You're gonna have to say, well, do we even need that much?
Others raise concerns about Google owning too many links in the Internet chain, including how it's delivered. They say it could restrict competition and raise privacy issues. But so far it's just an experiment on a small scale.
Right now the Federal Communications Commission is developing a National Broadband Plan. Free Press's Ben Scott says Google could help set the bar for the kind of speed and openness regulators should be aiming for.
In New York, I'm Amy Scott for Marketplace.
The broadband story inspired me to comment.
I have lived in the country for over a decade and there is NO choice. Wild Blue (AT&T) maximum package is barely faster than dial up, cost a bundle and if you listen to a couple of podcasts or view Youtube you're screwed. You are informed you've exceeded the fair use satellite access limit and they shut you down to a crawl. You can't even look at your home page. This was $80/month. I got snookered by Verizon to buy a plan for a MIFI with "unlimited" access. This turned out to be like Wild Blue - 5 GB a month. Again this is eaten up in a couple of weeks of use, but when you exceed this limit they let you hang yourself and keep the data coming. Last month I paid $762!!!!!!! When will this low priced, unlimited miracle occur? It can't happen fast enough for me.
There are some uses that legitimately need this kind of bandwidth, but this looks like the dial-up to high-speed transition all over again. The trouble is, data tends to expand to more than fill available bandwidth (an implication of Parkinson's Law), while something on the order of ninety percent of that data is worthless (Sturgeon's Law). So, while improving the maximum speed available is probably a good thing, it is not an unmitigated good.
Of course we don't NEED 1Gbps fiber to the home. It's a first world problem. But, should we ever have it, the dynamic of the world changes. It's naive not to see the difference the speed bump broadband made over dialup: whether you use "all" your bandwidth or not, the capacity affects your life. It's just as naive not to believe that a 100-fold pickup over broadband would have just as revolutionary an effect.
I second Google’s proposal. Hold Comcast’s and AT&T’s feet to the fire. David Evans (below) notes correctly that the current crop of providers delivers slow speeds and high prices. In fact, AT&T repeatedly sends promotions for DSL at prices similar to what I now pay for dial-up. Each time I try to take them up on their offer I find that high-speed lines “are not available in (my) areaâ€. The installer/repairman who works my area told me that I could get a T1, if I were made of money. It is interesting that a few years ago AT&T promised Michigan’s legislature that, in exchange for repealing Michigan’s local cable franchise law, AT&T would wire the state’s unserved areas for high-speed internet. (They made other promises that also weren’t kept.)
As for Mike Paxton’s questioning whether “we need†higher speed -- “baloneyâ€. If I don’t use all the bandwidth I’m paying for on dial-up, it’s because I can’t stand to wait for the bits to dribble in. As a result, I do most of my internetting at the local libraries where reasonably high-speed connections are available. This is especially true from sites that have very complex pages or interactive pages that re-paint frequently. I have also used the Internet via cable modem (Comcast), which was pretty good. The most delightful experience, however, occurred when I was a “guest†at the University of Michigan Hospital about a year-and-a-half ago. The computers in the lounges were old, probably donated. But the connection was FAST, FAST, FAST. You haven’t used the Internet until you’ve surfed ot those speeds. Click and the new page loads before you can move your mouse.
Hmmm. US is about 20th for broadband access. I'm in the north end of Silicon Valley and I'm paying for 1.5Mb link but only get half that on a good day. This is on DSL, not cable (I'm more than an mile for the local AT&T hub).
My sister back in Australia pays the same as we do and are about 3 miles from the hub but get great speeds.
Would we use the extra bandwidth? You bet. We don't do streaming video because of the poor bandwidth.
Will bigger bandwidth spur innovation? I doubt it. But why should the US have such high priced and slow connections? Can we say oligarchy, as in telecommunication oligarchy. They don't upgrade the infrastructure because there is no commercial competition to force it and no laws to enforce minimum service. I would love to pay for what I use and cut my bill in half!
