Austin has a huge incorporated area. Yes, there are some small towns at the edges (Round Rock, Pflugerville), but the city constantly grows and takes in new developments.

This "single entity" argument makes a lot of sense. But then shouldn't NYC be the next step after testing in smaller cities like KC and Austin?

Remember when FogCreek wasn't allowed to keep their generator going because they were not using union folks? Assume something similar for Google Fibre. The willing, streamlined governments will get it first. Cities like NYC usually want tons of concessions (It must be guaranteed in neighborhoods, not just rich ones! It must use union workers! You need to pay a telecom tax! Etc Etc).

There's no way NYC would agree to the kinds of concessions that Google wants: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/11/the-real-cost-of-goog...

You're assuming those are requirements. What's much more likely is that Google opened up the "bidding" between cities and said "whoever gives us the best deal goes first." Kansas gave them the best deal.

This is pretty much the status quo for major infrastructure projects. Look at what happens with new sports stadiums between New York and New Jersey -- they each bend over backwards to see who can provide the most subsidies.

Why do you think New York wouldn't be able to provide a competitive "bid" to be one of the next cities? I can see why they wouldn't want to provide e.g. free office space as a result of the difference in local real estate prices, but that doesn't mean they can't offer something else. Tax incentives are a popular staple for this sort of thing. And NYC has the huge advantage that Google can wire more customers for less money as a result of the high population density, which means New York wouldn't have to offer the most concessions in order to be the most attractive.

I was thinking specifically of waiving permit fees, outsourced inspections, and colocated staff with authority to make decisions on the spot. If at least the first two aren't requirements I'd be surprised.

Permit pile-on has killed quite a few nascent populist telecom infrastructure projects in recent memory. Commercial projects generally have enough revenue involved to be worth working around the issues.

Do you have any idea what construction work in NYC costs?

Is anyone here thinking any of their comments through past "X city would be great for fiber"?

In addition, large swaths of NYC already have Verizon FiOS, which isn't too bad by the standards of American ISPs. Even non-FiOS buildings (like the one I live in) have reasonable options; I get 50mb down and 5 mb up right now, in the East Village, for $50 a month from RCN cable.

By contrast, in Tucson (where I used to live), I got 12mb down and 1 or 2 mb up for about $70.

RCN's speeds aren't equivalent to Google Fiber, but they're not terrible either.

Most commercial buildings in NYC will have access to commercial-grade fiber connections as well. NYC is one of the best-connected cities in the world already. I doubt Austin is even close.

Just curious - how is wireless data for you in NYC? On my iPhone 4S (AT&T) Manhattan speeds are much, much slower than say Baltimore suburbs.

I have no idea—I have an iPhone, but I barely use its capabilities and would probably have a dumb phone if this one didn't come via my work.

Same. My LTE tests at 8mbps down in residential areas of Manhattan. In Texas I was regularly getting 28mbit down.

By "large swaths" do you mean "a few brand-new buildings"? Because that's the only place I've ever heard of Fios being available.