That's nice for Chicago, and Austin, but what about LA, Houston, etc.?

I pay $75/month for 150Mbps via Comcast... and most days a speed test will say around half of that, and there's infrequent outages (averaging roughly one every month).

The only other service where I live is AT&T: 18Mbps for $50/month. And whatever you may think of Comcast, my experience with AT&T's service and customer service has been far, far worse.

This loss of competition hurts consumers

I pay $63.25 for a 2M/256K rural WISP connection, and i'm in a county with 500,000 people. In fact, i'm only 4 miles south of Madison, WI city limits.. I live in a neighborhood of 100 homes. I would kill for a 10M connection, and more than 2M up..

Should add, ATT has said on their website for the last 9 years that DSL is available at my house.. I sign up once a year, to have a guy 2 days later say its a mistake, and neighborhood is too far from the CO. I have been told 4 times to get a petition around the neighborhood, but of course, the people at the call center can't tell me what to do with that petition, or where to send it, etc. so its just to get me off the phone.

So fed up, and needing to start working from home soon, that I'm moving in a few months..

I wonder if you can get regulators involved here. I know internet is still relatively lightly regulated compared to the phone network, but AT&T has been willingly refusing to do new non-Uverse DSL installs the past couple years.

If you can document that DSL was once available at your house or that your neighbors still have it, you might be able to get somewhere.

Oh I'm not saying it is good for users, only that it isn't entirely bad for Google. I want them to succeed and crush Comcast / AT&T. As a consumer of internet service, who doesn't want that? Those companies are terrible.

That being said, the other wildcard (that another user did mention) is whenever SpaceX gets all of the spectrum / permits for their internet microsat constellation, it will happen. That will most likely be a few years out at best, but when it happens, no doubt it will be a good option (LEO Sats have a lot better ping times than existing Satellite based internets).

Edited to mention that it is SpaceX working on a Satellite internet constellation not Tesla (thanks: nickjarboe for the cluebat).

I believe it's SpaceX not Tesla that is investigating an internet microsat constellation, but if the Tesla/Solar City merger goes through, you could be right in the long term.

Sorry you're entirely right. Let me rephrase to say:

Musk Industries's satellite internet constellation. Original post updated with credit to you.

:)

Just to be clear, Google Fiber in Austin is more marketing than reality. A small area of town has it--most do not. And while the other players have now introduced fiber, their coverage is also limited to select neighborhoods.

So, I don't agree that it's nice for Austin. This removes the incentive for the other providers to continue expanding coverage, and the core of the city will likely be stuck on the old cable lines for much, much longer.

Really I'm mostly bitter because right now I'm paying $57/mo for 12 Mbps U-Verse in Mountain View. I could pay $70/mo to switch to either 50 Mbps Sonic (currently considering) or 100 Mbps Xfinity (really don't want to deal with Comcast customer service). Aside from Sonic, these all come with a data cap.

I was really looking forward to giving Google $70/mo for 1 Gbps or whatever they were offering, and not having a data cap. It's not that I expect to hit the cap, but the fact that I don't want to think about it.

I'm in Mountain View too. I agree it's pretty frustrating that this is supposedly the tech center of the universe, and our home internet is lousy. Five minutes from Google HQ and no Google Fiber for the forseeable future now.

FWIW, I recently switched from Sonic to Comcast and I'm relatively happy now. But that had something to do with Sonic being unable to provide a good connection in my old apartment building.

Switch to Sonic. They are amazing.

I have had Comcast for 7 years, dealt with their customer service <5 times.

Their customer service has been appalling every time I've dealt with them.

I moved recently and was forced to sign up with them as the only competitor option was 7mbps. After provisioning my service online successfully, I received a call from them stating that I would not be able to receive the the service I had requested at the price they quoted. I could either cut the speed in half, or increase my bill by $70/month. I was furious, since there is absolutely no reason the website should have given me incorrect information...I put in my service address, after all. I refused to drop my speed or pay more. There was a brief pause, then they told me this was fine and activated my service. I provided my own modem, and am still charged the monthly modem rental fee despite attempting to notify them several times.

Worst fucking company I have ever dealt with. I would happily pay more money to anybody else just to take business away from them.

I wonder how much this stems from improper mapping systems. They are always changing and potentially the price quoted was due to an incorrect map position given?

This is a big reason why I don't trust quotes until I get some sort of confirmed pricing from the seller.

Shouldn't have to, of course, but we kind of demand instant gratification and I feel this has led to poor service in many.

I've often thought well Century Link handles cost predicting well but maybe that is more due to the quality of the service and the fact they are over-charging for a lower quality service so it's easier to guarantee those prices. That doesn't reflect in the price comparison but it does show when you have the service and your comparing to your neighbor whom has the other.

I must be alone in that I've never had a bad customer service experience with Comcast. They've always been able to resolve problems, and service outages in my area are extremely rare. My only beef is with the price I'm paying (around $130 for 50MBps + basic TV), but their Internet service so far has been stellar. They were also one of the first major US ISPs to take IPV6 seriously and roll out native support.

That is the point of why I said a while back, that Google should have purchased TWC. Instant large mostly profitable business with existing customers in a large number of markets.

Then they could have invested another 1-2B (given how little it has cost TWC to roll out faster speeds in cities that google came into) to spit some nodes and install faster backends links. That would have provided 1GB speeds to a much larger swath of people than they are managing to do with their fiber rollout. Then in a few years when they decide they don't want to be in the infrastructure business they could sell it to someone else. But, in the process they would have proven to everyone that the existing cable/telephone monopolies are doing a huge disservice to their customers and the country.

Chicago is 1% of the country.

I live in the Bay Area (Berkeley). My only choice above 20mbits is Comcast. AT&T's lines near me are old, I can get a max of 18mbits with them; Sonic says I can get about 12. I own my own home, so I can't get Webpass. LMI and the other local ISPs offer things like 3mbps for $90.

I have literally zero reasonable choice other than Comcast.

I'd happily pay double what Google charges for Fiber for a quarter of the speed they offer. I just want off Comcast. Google shuttering Fiber is the last hope I have. I don't think I'll have any other choice for at least a decade.

Lmi and Paxio started a 1G fiber rollout but it only covers a few streets in West Berkeley.

It took 5 weeks to get Comcast wired at my house in Berkeley. Terrifying that the next best options available to me were Unwired 10Mbps (burst & shared) wireless for $90/month or 1.5Mbps DSL (gah).

Even with 1Gbps from other providers, I'd still prefer Google. I think they're far less likely to do scummy things like impose bandwidth caps.

Will they pick up the phone for a personal subscriber, though?

But will AT&T's 1GB throughput run into an artificial data cap? The faster the connection, the easier it is for the customer to overshoot any given data limit and get charged overage fees.

I've been trying to get Time Warner Cable for 7 years now. The fiber runs on my street, but they refuse to connect my house and won't give a real reason why. Living in the middle of San Antonio, TX, I rely on tethering and the hope that T-Mobile doesn't terminate my line for going 20 times over the 10 GB limit. While the Fiber influence is nice, it's not doing a vast amount for last mile access.

Have you checked the metro collusion agreement? Here in Austin we have TWC (now spectrum) and Grande. There are places where grande and TWC are literally right across the street, next door, etc and you can't get service from one of them because the other has the franchise agreement.

package Google

class Internet implement Musk.Tesla.Model {}