The company plans on offering the service to a small group of customers in select areas as part of an early access program.
I would be more impressed if Google went back to the idea of adding more towns for fiber.
They’ve been trying, but the existing ISPs have ironclad contracts with most cities they operate in, making it very hard for anybody else to bring competition to those markets.
Our rollout was severely impacted by political interests, but the Australian government tackled this at a national level with building a National Broadband Wholesale network for all the ISP retailers to resell.
It was a lot easier however given how underfunded our existing monopoly telco left the old network.
Unfortunately Rupert Murdoch stated in New York to shareholders that the network would undercut their Australian business, they then used their 67% newspaper market share to back the opposing party and have them downgrade the rollout of the network from fibre to copper.
Now half the country can’t get a full 100mbps and the upload isn’t synchronous for 99% of households.
Does Google internet mean they track even more of you than through Chrome?
When your alternatives are AT&T or Spectrum aka Time Warner Cable, what are you to do? I’ve interacted with Google Fiber customer service maybe once since we got it 6ish years ago…prior to that, I’d be on the phone with Time Warner at one point and then AT&T once per month, because the service would break and we’d need a tech to come fix a connection, or more often they’d Jack up the price with no notice and would only decrease it if you called to complain or threaten to disconnect. Fiber has been the exact same price for 6 years and they prorate a discount if your service happens to go down, which has been rare and brief
Using the Mozilla VPN on Google Internet is the ultimate power move.
If Google is the ISP, what’s stopping them from blocking that?
Nothing is stopping any ISP from blocking any service. This is why net neutrality is important.
Probably but you can use a different dns provider. If you are really concerned, a vpn is the best answer to make sure they don’t get any of your information. The problem is that there aren’t very many VPNs that can do anything close to 10Gbs.
then the VPN provider knows.
If they actually don’t keep logs they’d only know at that exact moment. And never again lol
yeah but there is no way to verify that they don’t. It’s all just trust/belief based.
Every single isp will use data from their dns servers.
Google surely has the best privacy policy of any ISP, assuming they use the public one: https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy
As someone with symmetrical 1gig and a home server…. Wtf do you do w 20gig?
Also, aren’t you going to need a rack of equipment to even use it?
.
That’s clearly an exaggeration, but 1gig equipment is often actively cooled bc it takes non negligible amounts of compute to route that many packets. I imagine 20gig router is like a small PC
The cost of the equipment is insane too. It was way too much to upgrade my switch to 2.5 Gbps for local transfers, nevermind any faster speeds.
I know many, many businesses that don’t have 20 or 10 or even 1gig bidirectional internet. This is marketing fluff/flex as they know that even if they offer it to 100% of users. Only a very select few will consume it
Only a very select few will consume it.
Challenge Accepted.
What kind of non-business user can even use this. Even if we assume all of octomom’s kids have 3 uncompressed 4k bluray streams running each at once - that’s 2.5Gbps max. And no streaming service even offers uncompressed video.
Seriously - what is the point of >1Gbps for normal use? Games? They can be preloaded days in advance nowadays. Even without preloading - it really doesn’t take long to download on a gig connection.
You can get used enterprise stuff relatively inexpensive. By relatively, I mean that it is out of most home user budget and expertise, but within the realm of what someone who would want multi-gig could get.
In the datacenter, we stopped using 10G in 2017, and we are working our way up to 200G for servers. Virtual Machine hosts can use all of this bandwidth.
What this means is that you are going to see more 10/25/40G stuff in the used markets. A quick check of eBay and there’s stuff in the $300-$500 range.
In a home situation where you only have a couple of transceivers and single default routing to your ISP, the switch is barely going past idle. Transceivers and doing stuff full table BGP routing is what makes the switch eat power. In home use, I would expect to see under 100W.
Same. And they send me an email every few weeks to see if I’ll upgrade to 2gig. I pretty damn happy with just the 1gig. I can’t imagine what I’d do with 20gig.
I mean… I’m thinking…
Would that be useful for hosting a variety of distributed services? Nah, bc the whole point is horizontal scaling. And 20gig is definitely vertical scaling, but then again, por qué no los dos?
The metaverse (lowercase m) is expected to have lots of need for extremely fast and low latency networking. Even if it’s just short bursts here or there, in a live interactive situation, you definitely want geometries and textures downloading and rendering as fast as you can possibly get them.
So maybe they’re just prepping for that, and trying to get whales to subsidize it all.
Not Dallas though. We’re owned by AT&T and Spectrum. I hate our Internet.
Isn’t corporate owned infrastructure grand!?
In my Austin neighborhood, AT&T ran the fiber, and then Google was the ISP that showed up on it. It made me wonder if fiber follows the same ILEC/CLEC relationship that copper did.
It been a little over a year and I’m still in awe of going from about 30mb to 1gig. I can’t even imagine 20gig.
deleted by creator
The problem is I still would hate comcast more than I hate google
Here’s where I’d grow my fucks about purchasing this if it were available in my area. See that it is barren.
How about instead of working towards giving people stupid speeds that no one’s wifi router is capable of dealing with anyway, you work on improving thr network enough to get rid of everyone’s bandwidth caps and/or making existing services cheaper?
crickets
That’s what I thought.
Because all they’re doing to support 20Gbit is swapping some SFP+ or switches, and a new drop down menu in the CMS.
Actually hanging or trenching fiber is an entirely different ballpark of beaurocracy.
Not to be that guy, but is there really anything outside of online gaming and specialist use cases that you’d need WiFi faster then 70 Mbps for. Maybe I’m still happy with mine because I grew up on a connection that ran between 0.2 to 4.0 Mbps.
But I honesty feel like stuff like this is silly when there are people who struggle to get 10Mbps and companies are announcing 20Gbps speeds. Like why don’t we focus on getting more people to the very comfortable speed of 70Mbps before we give those that already have a good connection a better one.
why don’t we focus on getting more people to the very comfortable speed of 70Mbps before we give those that already have a good connection a better one.
Those things are not mutually exclusive and generally not even the same effort
But that’s my point. Why not put all your effort into getting everyone on comfortable broadband before you focus on getting people who already have fast broadband faster broadband.
Maybe I just don’t understand the USA fiber market as I live in the UK, and if your phone carriers are anything to go off it’s probably a mess.
Because here in the UK a company might own the lines, but you can be with whatever provider you want(you will just have to pay a line rental to the owning company), and the government has had a lot of efforts to get the whole UK on a decent connection. But that’s just my thoughts.
Because one thing is a technical barrier, the other is a political barrier.
You can and should improve your technology as your political employees work on deployment to new markets.
They’re entirely different staff.
