[justaman]

I still think Google is at risk of forming a monopoly and are at risk of becoming Bell 2.0. Unfortunately due to the lack of quality ISP's, the first to offer residential fiber to the perimeter will rapidly absorb the market.

[magicalist]

> Unfortunately due to the lack of quality ISP's, the first to offer residential fiber to the perimeter will rapidly absorb the market.

Is there a historical precedent that suggests that this will happen?

The major telcos continue to grow their profits year over year while decreasing their capital spending. I think the much more likely response to any success on google's part will be

- cities growing impatient for their turn and building their own networks (well underway[1])

- more and more attempts by existing ISPs at regulatory blocking of competition (well underway[2])

- finally, ISPs actually increase spending to match speeds (still in the lip service stage[3])

ISPs like their market strangleholds. They aren't going to just roll over. Meanwhile building infrastructure is fundamentally a lot of work, so no "Bell 2.0" is going to be born overnight if they're trying to actually build out a physical network (major ISPs merging[4] as a road to Ma Bell is a different story, though).

[1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/11/fed-up-with-slow-and...

[2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/how-big-telecom-s...

[3] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/att-copies-google-na...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast-Time_Warner_Cable_merge...

[wmf]

This is a good point. AT&T's response to Google Fiber in Austin actually rolled out long before Google Fiber itself.

[bretthoerner]

Maybe in some areas. Here in Austin AT&T, Time Warner and the local ISP Grande are all now offering cheap plans from 300Mbps to full gigabit because Google is coming to town and they need to compete. I pay something around $50 for 300Mbps (no cap) from Time Warner and it works great.

[eob]

Wow. Just as another data point to show how monopolies stifle progress, in Cambridge MA I pay $50/mo for 6Mmbps. Comcast is the only Internet company available.

[knodi123]

yep, that's been my experience too. google fiber forced the entrenched providers to become competitive. now, they have become competitive, and I have no clear motivation to switch to google fiber.

I may still switch, but I'm about a half mile away from the "sign up now" zones.

[djloche]

This is exactly what Google needs - in order for their vision of the future to happen people need to have far better connections on average than they do now. When Google Fiber enters a market, everyone wins - even if you don't switch to Google as your ISP.

[jusben1369]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is as big a threat to the incumbents as a Nexus phone is to Samsung. Go look at the cities where Google is threatening to launch. Pretty soon the other players start touting fibre coming soon. Happened here in Raleigh/Durham. Google wants faster/better X and enters the market to scare crappy incumbents to up their game.

[lostcolony]

It really seems like Google is more breaking up the existing monopoly. By wanting more people online, viewing more ads, to fund their main revenue source, they're willing to cut connection costs down to the minimum, forcing the existing monopoly/duopoly in many places to also cut down their prices and improve service.

In short, come to Atlanta, Google; I'm sick to death of paying $75 a month for a 300 gig cap.

[reportingsjr]

If they invent and implement as many things as Bell I'm almost ok with that.

For what it is worth I have seen the effect of google fiber locally (Cincinnati) even though Google has no plans of expanding to here any time soon. Cincinnati Bell recently unveiled a 1Gbps residential plan for $70/mo. This was a response to the city council approaching Google to see what they would need to do to bring fiber here.

[chimeracoder]

> If they invent and implement as many things as Bell I'm almost ok with that.

Maybe, but I wouldn't compare Google with Bell Labs directly.

Remember that the only reason we had access to so much of what Bell Labs invented (e.g. Unix) is due to a 1958 antitrust lawsuit which resulted in AT&T being prohibited from profiting off of the computer business entirely[0]. As a result, Bell Labs had to license all technologies (except for telephone-related services) freely.

It wasn't until 1984 when AT&T sold off Bell Labs - almost three decades later. If AT&T had been allowed to profit off of Bell Labs, we might remember Bell Labs's legacy very differently.

If Google were subject to an analogous requirement that would be one thing, but absent that legal restriction, the two situations are very different.

[0] http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html

[reportingsjr]

You are very correct. It is still a valuable thing to have a research company where researchers and designers do not have to worry nearly as much about money.

AT&T/Bell Labs was a government regulated monopoly so it is definitely a different situation. AT&T watched very closely what they profited off of and made sure it stayed within the realm of telecommunications for fear of antitrust lawsuits.

Regardless even if no one else can access it for the first decade or two many innovations would still make their way out into other places.

[avalaunch]

It's only 70/month for the first year and then 80/month after that. Also, they only have 20% coverage of the city so for most of us we're still stuck with the usual slow speeds. And finally their customer service is just as bad (maybe even worse, if that's possible) than Time Warner. I wish they hadn't offered gigabit speeds as I fear that'll slow the arrival of Google fiber which would be so much nicer.

[Veratyr]

In case the 'fiber to the perimeter' came from the 'FTTP' acronym, the 'P' usually represents 'premises': https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define:FTTP

Just so you know!