How can this not come down to money? Google will have to invest a lot of money into building up the infrastructure, this is a long term investment for Google. I'd be shocked if they went somewhere that didn't give them big tax breaks.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love an alternative to Comcast! I just don't think that filling out that page will have any affect on what Google decides.
I don't understand. I know of no less than 8 ISP's in the area that can provide Gigabit fiber to Portland. There's no way Google can do it significantly cheaper than these 8 established ISP's to Portland unless they hire slave labor to lay the fiber. NO WAY. You can't get around the last mile issue.
People should be asking for 802.11n/Metropolitan Wan access spots instead. That is far more realistic way to give high speed access.
I guess a more responsible retort would be "name one of the 8 ISPs who would do this" cause clearly there are people out there who would gladly purchase this service. There is no one out there who can provide it today, because the infrastructure isn't built. If someone built it, there are definitely many ISPs who could provide service (assuming an open infrastructure) on it.
As for 802.11n, it's really not a good technology for a large scale outdoor network. It's designed to work in indoor environments, where there are walls and stuff and the signal gets bounced around. Outdoors, you are better off with 802.11b or g, but that's not going to provide speeds anywhere near fiber.
Not sure if this constitutes proof, but a little research should backup my statements. I've spent the better part of a decade working with this stuff and researching these applications. Usually I seek to educate, but sometimes I prefer to be a dick, especially when dealing with anonymous trolls who really want to assert [insert crazy naysaying idea here].
There is no "deal" for Google. It's not a money thing. It's a community fiber thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love an alternative to Comcast! I just don't think that filling out that page will have any affect on what Google decides.
People should be asking for 802.11n/Metropolitan Wan access spots instead. That is far more realistic way to give high speed access.
I guess a more responsible retort would be "name one of the 8 ISPs who would do this" cause clearly there are people out there who would gladly purchase this service. There is no one out there who can provide it today, because the infrastructure isn't built. If someone built it, there are definitely many ISPs who could provide service (assuming an open infrastructure) on it.
As for 802.11n, it's really not a good technology for a large scale outdoor network. It's designed to work in indoor environments, where there are walls and stuff and the signal gets bounced around. Outdoors, you are better off with 802.11b or g, but that's not going to provide speeds anywhere near fiber.
Not sure if this constitutes proof, but a little research should backup my statements. I've spent the better part of a decade working with this stuff and researching these applications. Usually I seek to educate, but sometimes I prefer to be a dick, especially when dealing with anonymous trolls who really want to assert [insert crazy naysaying idea here].