[gruseom]

That number seems low enough that they should do it for the good will it would generate and as part of their "do whatever spreads the web" strategy.

[cheald]

$11B annually is a "low" number? That's an utterly incredible amount of money.

Google doesn't have to bring fiber to everyone; they just have to exert enough pressure on the incumbents to get them to step up their game out of fear that Google might move into <market> next and knock them off their pedestal. Google isn't doing this for good will - they're doing it to advance the state of broadband in the US.

[kristofferR]

It has been corrected to be $11B over a five year period, not annually as it was originally stated.

Considering that Google almost hit $11B in profit in 2012 alone, spending $11B over 5 years on a revolutionary infrastructure project that might even start making a direct profit directly from the monthly fees after a while for itself, but most importantly could totally revolutionize what type of services and experiences Google could deliver to ~15% of American households - doesn't seem like such a bad investment after all.

[wmf]

AFAIK, when Google (or any other FTTH provider) comes into a city the incumbent ISPs improve service/lower prices only in that city. I don't know how to scare them into lowering prices without actually competing.

[cheald]

I suspect part of that may be due to lower market penetration. At some point, the FTTH market will reach a point of critical mass where it has to be competed with nationally, not just regionally.

That said, the cost estimates are just infrastructure expenditure to reach 20 million homes. If 1/3rd of those subscribed to Fiber @ $70/mo, 1/3rd at $120/mo, and 1/3rd did not subscribe, or subscribed at $0/mo, that's $15.2 billion in revenue annually, ignoring the $300/install offset from $0/mo customers. Those are totally BS, made-up numbers with wild assumptions, but it's a huge market and there's a lot of money to be made in it.