KCRag Forum

heatherkay wrote:Holy cow! Every time I think I've got a bearing on how foolish the KS Leg is, I am surprised again

http://consumerist.com/2014/01/30/kansa ... gle-fiber/

It's a bad, corporatist bill, but much like the dust up over creation myth teaching and sex uneducation, its not really a foolish KS thing. Wonderful, perfect, not scared of the future or filled with spooky rednecks Washington already has this law on the books.

flyingember wrote:they're not blocking google fiber. this poster on reddit makes a good case for why not

http://www.reddit.com/r/kansascity/comm ... as/cf2w48s

i guess technically it doesn't block google fiber, but as a practical matter, the city can't condemn any land for an easement to lay fiber, which effectively blocks it. the city also couldn't allow use of its own poles (plant or equipment) for new fiber. stupidly, while the bill allows the city to have a network for its own fiber between government buildings, the bill doesn't even let the city condemn land for its own fiber use.

i would really care about this, but overland park already screwed itself out of google fiber--thank you op city counsel.

smh wrote:Also, do note that in Sec. 6 it appears the State is waiving sovereign immunity and subjecting itself to anti-trust suits. Perhaps that's what the real aim is here if indeed AT&T is behind this bill?

Sec. 6. When a municipality is offering or providing a video,
telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers, the
immunity from antitrust liability afforded to political subdivisions of the
state under K.S.A. 12-205, and amendments thereto, shall not apply to the
municipality with respect to the offering or provision of those services.

Granted I am not a lawyer but generally a government entity has immunity with regards to government services, even utility-like services, when it comes to antitrust matters. KCMO provides water service. If a company desires to compete with the city and provide water as an alternative to the city and the city denies the competing service it cannot be sued with regards to antitrust. It would appear that this law provides competition with regards to those services listed. Much like cable TV of old, a community could only have one provider. If another competitor wanted to also provide service that community could hide behind its exclusive agreement with the first provider and not worry about antitrust issues.

.

http://m.bizjournals.com/kansascity/new ... e-ban.html

Biz journal and Star are reporting on this as well. Hopefully there will be enough of a groundswell to stop it. Committee head in charge can be reached at julia@senatorjulialynn.com if any of you Kansans would care to contact her.

As someone posted in one of the articles... we live in a world where bills can be written by lobbyists.

earthling wrote:As someone posted in one of the articles... we live in a world where bills can be written by lobbyists.

yep, which has been the case since 1787. it's one of the prices to pay to have a republic

Shawnee infrastructure buildout in progress...
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/google ... medium=rss

"In May 2013, Shawnee became one of the first cities outside of Kansas to sign a franchise agreement with Google. "

I thought it seemed awfully quiet over there, when did they move?

My reply from the head of the commerce committee is below. Sounds like they have at least paused the bill and are considering changes. Really need to keep up the pressure on them to get it scuttled, however:



"Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding Senate Bill 304, a bill enacting the municipal communications network and private telecommunications investments safeguard act. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I understand there are concerns regarding the impact of SB 304, if passed, on cities and counties trying to bring high-speed Internet access to their communities. I am communicating with representatives on each side and it’s clear we need to gather more information. This is a long and deliberative process and I expect to see changes as we move forward. I believe that all groups and individuals should continue to present facts on issues as it move through the legislative process. I have not taken a position on the bill and will not do so until I’m satisfied we have had the opportunity to hear all of the facts. I have cancelled the hearing for SB 304 in the Senate Commerce Committee scheduled for February 4.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Julia Lynn
Kansas Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Kansas Senate Commerce Committee Chair
District 9"

Finally, I have an appointment for Feb. 18th for Google Fiber installation. Even after that I think I have to wait until the entire condo is finished before they turn it on. Hopefully that was some bad info. They are 11 months behind from when they first thought they would get the place wired. The biggest hangup was the contract between our management company, Curry, and Google. That was close to 5 months. Then when they started installing the feeds to each unit, I guess they didn't realize they had to drill though 8 inches of concrete for each floor. Plus being able to access each unit was sometimes a pain. No everyone here is excited as I am about getting Google.

Also Curry Management Group has been purchased by First Service, a Canadian Company. Curry real estate is still the same, just sold off the multi-family managemant part of the business.

Google prepping 10Gbit just because they can?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014 ... s/5421709/

Sounds unnecessary on surface as 1Gbit can't even be easily fully tapped but maybe this would open the door to allowing running a home business on the connection, especially biz class web servers etc, which currently isn't allowed.

Anyway, would be great for KC to get the attention of this even if not practical for most to have. Though maybe they don't upgrade KC and only use it for future rollouts.

Upgrading KC, once all the fiber is laid, will be trivial by comparison. The fiber they're running all over down can handle far greater than gigabit speeds. A couple devices to swap out, and people would need to get a new device in their homes.

Well it would still be every component connected to fiber on each end replaced. Probably not a small deal. I could see them upgrading the neighborhood GPON nodes to bump overall capacity as needed even for those with Gbit, but maybe not the home unless with an install fee.

Everything costs something, but the great majority of the work is not in the switch sites or in people's homes. The hard part is/was the cost of laying cable across the entire city. Google's choice to spend some money on upgrading their switches(if that's even necessary) can be rolled out simply, easily, and quickly. For the user end upgrades, it's up to end users, as to whether or not they wish to spend the money to upgrade their own equipment.

But I would guess that the network already supports much greater speeds than what is currently being sold. The biggest hurdle is the fact that desktop equipment that supports 10G speed is rare and expensive. It's not a matter of KC not being ready for it. It's a matter of the industry not really being there yet.

bahua wrote:But I would guess that the network already supports much greater speeds than what is currently being sold. The biggest hurdle is the fact that desktop equipment that supports 10G speed is rare and expensive. It's not a matter of KC not being ready for it. It's a matter of the industry not really being there yet.

For clarity, thats 10 gigabits/sec.

And it's needed when you look at ip 4k television. 4k video on concurrent devices and background DVR will eat into 1gigabit very quickly. Then add high bandwidth internet on the same connection. 802.11ac can get close to 1gigabit per device in some simpler configurations and way above that in more complex ones

The cable companies will hit this barrier way quicker than fiber will with the shared infrastructure being the limiting point more than the actual coax at this point.

The tech is here today, it just won't be full 10gig per PC in the home.

Google considering up to 9 other markets to rollout...



http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/ ... fiber.html

Google Fiber says it might expand from Kansas City to nine new markets

In a post to its blog mid-day Wednesday, Google Fiber said it would ask 34 cities in nine metropolitan areas to fill out a checklist of items “to explore what it would take” to string a fiber optic network in those communities.

KCMax wrote:Google Fiber says it might expand from Kansas City to nine new markets

In a post to its blog mid-day Wednesday, Google Fiber said it would ask 34 cities in nine metropolitan areas to fill out a checklist of items “to explore what it would take” to string a fiber optic network in those communities.

sounds to me like it's a nice way of saying "what are you willing to do to make it happen?"

They're doubtless laying the groundwork in cities that puts pressure on the way business is done so that other new entities can come in and more easily lay FTTH networks themselves in more places than Google can possibly ever serve. While Netflix is in the news on having telco issues I'm sure Google has the same problems. Google doubtless wants real competition so that "we have limited bandwidth" becomes a business liability and not an argument for traffic shaping and charging companies to send data.

I bet the cost of laying this fiber is nothing compared to bandwidth charges nationwide for a huge Internet company like Google

Just got an email from our HOA management company stating that Google Fiber reps were going to be present at our March HOA board meeting to answer questions about the service. Not sure I'll be going to that board meeting since they will probably only be answering questions about the cost and service tiers. I doubt they'll give any rollout date information.

Some of my neighbors that had utilities marked in the last month have reported active digging/routing of fiber, so with this March meeting I'm guessing we're a sure bet for having active service by year's end.

We've yet to have any utilities marked on my particular street, nor any of the streets within a couple blocks of our house.