Google is an ISP now.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Google Fiber launches in Kansas City, promises 1000 Mbps up and down | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3187990/google-fiber-kansas-city)

The Google monster spreads it's influence wider and to my knowledge in a new area. They are offering......1000mbps up and down, though only within Kansas it would seem.

My question to the experts. Apart from 'closed' systems, such as the trading networks used in the financial world where microseconds count, it is my understanding that contention issues aside, the user's speed will only be as quick as the speed of the websites/games/service that is connected, or am I erring ?


SHJ

[Milo Minderbinder]

yes, you are correct - you cannot download anything quicker than the hosting server can provide, but you are missing the point.
Googles foray is not about providing ISP services, but more about providing hosted content itself.
There are two markets its interested in:
a) hosted social media content on the lines of Facebook, iTunes, Picassa, Maps, Google Places, Youtube. He who provides the datalink controls the delivery of the content: and control of that content is where the future money is to be made
b) software (and associated data) as a service. Google is hell-bent on switching business from using Microsofts Office to using its hosted "cloud" services such as Google Docs. It wants people to use its online software-as-a-service hosted software for which it can levy a recurring service rental charge, and also to use its storage servers for holding data (both home and business)
We are moving away from the period in which people - and companies held data locally, on individual PCs and servers, using application software running locally. The trend now is to hosted applications and hosted data, using remote "cloud" servers (I hate that term). And key to that hosting is rapid data access. Regard this announcement as a technology trial. If Google get it working, you can look forward to them licensing the technology to others in an attempt to increase the speed of the world's data networks. Without that speed, their vision of a world with a unified data network in which your information is held on their servers and is instantly accessible by any device, whether it be PC, Mac, tablet, smart phone or something else, simply can't work to the level they intend
Its telling that the new version of MS Office announced last week, is essentially a local front end for a cloud based system: everything hooks into Office365 - which is the M$ software as a service competitor to Google Docs

And let me just clarify why they are all going down this route
1) M$ makes more money out of its business sales of Office than it does Windows! (And Google know this)
2) M$ have a problem in that companies don't automatically buy the latest version of Office - often they will hang on for years without upgrading. That hits Microsofts revenue stream

So, what do you do? Con the customers into believing in hosted services as the way forward. That way you can charge a recurring fee for the use of the software, AND charge a hefty sum for the storage of the data.
And at the same time M$ or Google get access to all that data, which they can search and index and pick up all kinds of interesting data....

[mixture]

it is my understanding that contention issues aside, the user's speed will only be as quick as the speed of the websites/games/service that is connected, or am I erring ?

No, you are not erring.

(1) Selling a headline 1g per subscriber, you can be assured of much contention, packet shaping and rate limiting .... as even an entity the size of Google won't be guaranteeing 1:1 1g per subscriber.

(2) Yes, you are limited by the speed (real or policy enforced) of the destination.

(3) Google like most others will no doubt be using a hot-potato routing policy, "guaranteeing" 1g on their network .... but getting it off their network as soon as technically feasible and thereby washing their hands of any speed "guarantees".

You have to remember that Google are an content and content-distribution network ... from day one, their network has been designed around that. Going from that to an eyeball network is a bit of a challenge to say the least, hence you'll probably find pilot projects like this sprouting up here and there.... but you're doubtless looking at a good while before a global rollout (both due to Google's network and the local in-county restrictions etc. on operating ISPs and delivering final mile solutions)..... if it ever happens.

As for the "Why" ... Milo's got that one, they want to monetize and gain access to more data to build their products. The ISP bit will be to enable them to provide customers with assured levels of access (QoS in tech terms) to Google hosted content....they probably care sod-all about other content on the internet !

[Milo Minderbinder]

thi high speed servicve is not going to be particularly cheap at the moment either - see this from today's Register
Google taking orders for Kansas City gigabit fiber network ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/27/google_kansas_fiber_prereg/)

" Once they're wired up, subscribers will pay $70 per month for gigabit internet access, or $120 per month for internet access plus digital TV over the same line.
As part of the package, Google will throw in a network adapter that provides 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi at speeds of up to 360Mbps and includes a built-in stateful firewall that works with IPv4 and IPv6.
Customers who order the TV package get an additional "TV Box" that acts as a tuner and DVR, plus a Nexus 7 tablet to use as a remote control. Subscribers to either package can also pick up a Chromebook for $299 with their order, if they want.
Google is also offering a free – or nearly free – internet access package under the same program. Customers who agree to pay a one-time $300 construction fee are guaranteed at least seven years of free internet access, albeit at the heavily throttled rates of 5Mbps download and 1Mbps upload. Customers can pay the fee either all at once or spread over 12 months."

[seacue]

$70 per month seems low for 1 Gb/s service here in the USA.

The Comcast rate for 5 or 7 Mb/s down service where I live is almost $50 per month if you already have their minimal cable TV service ($23). On top of that most people have to rent a data modem at $7 per month. HD TV with more channels can greatly increase that price. The Comcast 105 Mb/s data service is $200 per month.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Am I right in thinking the Comcast service is satellite-based?

I guess the problem in the USA is the sheer distances involved compared with e.g. the UK. You've so many backwoods villages and hamlets that the phone infrastructure must be really stretched in terms of physical distance.

[rgbrock1]

No, Comcast is not satellite based. All copper, fiber and coax.

[peterh337]

the user's speed will only be as quick as the speed of the websites/games/service that is connected

Of course, which is when we went from an old 512kbit/sec ADSL to 8mbit/sec ADSL here, very little difference was seen in general usage, for most sites, many of which have latencies of seconds or even (especially with some online banking sites) tens of seconds.

The place you see a difference, potentially, is on straight file downloads from a very fast server. A friend is on 80mbits/sec (Brighton) and he is actually getting that, on file downloads.

[helping1388]

thanks all for your valuable information:D

[Mike-Bracknell]

One other piece of information: A few years ago I quoted for gigabit broadband and phone into a large central-London-based housing sprawl (2500 flats). I could do the service for a headline £5/month/user but that required 100% takeup and given the relative lack of gigabit routers it was going to be 3gb/s total divided by 2500 users.

Granted they'd have had an excellent service, given that it would have been gigabit symmetrical at wirespeed, but their routers wouldn't have handled more than 100mbit/s via the interface and circa 50mbit/s throughput through the firewall.

Router connectivity has moved on to gigabit interfaces, but the processing power required for line-speed gigabit hasn't made it's way into the routers yet and you're lucky if you'll find something that'll process packets at over 80mbit/s in something the wife will allow in the house.