Discussion:
San Jose may get Google Fiber
(too old to reply)
Roy
2014-02-19 22:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-google-fiber-idUSBREA1I1ZT20140219

or

http://tinyurl.com/qaza7en
Thad Floryan
2014-02-20 01:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-google-fiber-idUSBREA1I1ZT20140219
Hmmm, that article didn't mention San Jose nor did it provide the
list (or a URL to it) of the 34 potential cities.

Simply Googling "list of potential google fiber cities" finds that info.

For example:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/19/google-fiber-new-cities/5610707/

which links to:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/exploring-new-cities-for-google-fiber.html

And here https://fiber.google.com/newcities/ one can click the "Full List" and see
the full list which indicates "San Jose" really means Santa Clara, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto.

I'm not sure I'd want Google stealing my info at the same speeds the NSA uses
from the Internet backbones.

:-)

Thad
Roy
2014-02-20 06:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Roy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-google-fiber-idUSBREA1I1ZT20140219
Hmmm, that article didn't mention San Jose nor did it provide the
list (or a URL to it) of the 34 potential cities.
San Jose is in the second paragraph

"Google executives told reporters on Wednesday the search company has
reached out in recent weeks to cities from nine metropolitan areas
around the country, including San Jose, Atlanta and Nashville, to
discuss the feasibility of building out Fiber, which Google says
delivers the Internet at speeds up to 100 times faster than average
networks."
Post by Thad Floryan
Simply Googling "list of potential google fiber cities" finds that info.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/19/google-fiber-new-cities/5610707/
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/exploring-new-cities-for-google-fiber.html
And here https://fiber.google.com/newcities/ one can click the "Full List" and see
the full list which indicates "San Jose" really means Santa Clara, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto.
I'm not sure I'd want Google stealing my info at the same speeds the NSA uses
from the Internet backbones.
:-)
Thad
Thad Floryan
2014-02-20 07:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Roy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-google-fiber-idUSBREA1I1ZT20140219
Hmmm, that article didn't mention San Jose nor did it provide the
list (or a URL to it) of the 34 potential cities.
San Jose is in the second paragraph
"Google executives told reporters on Wednesday the search company has
reached out in recent weeks to cities from nine metropolitan areas
around the country, including San Jose, Atlanta and Nashville, to
discuss the feasibility of building out Fiber, which Google says
delivers the Internet at speeds up to 100 times faster than average
networks."
[...]
Hi Roy,

Thank you. Somehow I missed seeing that earlier. A Firefox "Find"
for "jose" found it just now, too. :-)

I'm still amused by this article:

https://fiber.google.com/newcities/

which, when 'Show full list of cities' (beneath bottom right of the
map) is clicked, defines 'San Jose' as including Santa Clara, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. And where's Cupertino, Campbell,
Milpitas, Fremont, etc. which are all part of 'Silicon Valley' by most
definitions.

Thad
Glenn Geller
2014-02-20 13:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Santa Clara, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto
These cities might not be sufficiently tech-savvy to embrace
Google Fiber.
Marcus Allen
2014-02-20 16:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn Geller
Santa Clara, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto
These cities might not be sufficiently tech-savvy to embrace
Google Fiber.
And yet, they selected Kansas City. KC, Missouri is somewhat understandable,
but KC, Kansas? That's not an area that's known for being tech savvy.
David Kaye
2014-02-20 18:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marcus Allen
And yet, they selected Kansas City. KC, Missouri is somewhat
understandable,
but KC, Kansas? That's not an area that's known for being tech savvy.
In ye olden days, AT&T's inward WATS services came from there, and they also
had a large contingent of phone operators there, too. That's KCKS, not
KCMO.
Marcus Allen
2014-02-21 03:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Marcus Allen
And yet, they selected Kansas City. KC, Missouri is somewhat
understandable,
but KC, Kansas? That's not an area that's known for being tech savvy.
In ye olden days, AT&T's inward WATS services came from there, and they also
had a large contingent of phone operators there, too. That's KCKS, not
KCMO.
These days, KCK is better known as the poor part of town, with everything
that goes with that.
David Kaye
2014-02-21 04:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marcus Allen
These days, KCK is better known as the poor part of town, with everything
that goes with that.
But even in those days it was on the wrong side of the tracks.
Thad Floryan
2014-02-20 21:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Glenn Geller
Santa Clara, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto
These cities might not be sufficiently tech-savvy to embrace
Google Fiber.
True. Palo Alto has had a dark ring of fiber for, what, 10+
years now because no one in Palo Alto city government has a
clue.

Thad
Roy
2014-02-20 15:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
...
https://fiber.google.com/newcities/
which, when 'Show full list of cities' (beneath bottom right of the
map) is clicked, defines 'San Jose' as including Santa Clara, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. And where's Cupertino, Campbell,
Milpitas, Fremont, etc. which are all part of 'Silicon Valley' by most
definitions.
Thad
They say "34 cities in 9 metro areas" so the reality is just adding nine.

I suspect the omissions are due to considerations like cost, consumer
profiles and DSL/cable penetration.

You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
David Kaye
2014-02-20 18:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Our 4-person household was on Comcast's standard broadband with a 20-25 Mbps
throughput. When Comcast raised its bundle prices I decided to save money
and went for their cheaper non-advertised broadband service, saving about
$25 a month. Its throughput is about 5 Mbps. I didn't tell my housemates.
Nobody has complained.

I'm not going to be standing in line for Gbps service.
sms
2014-02-21 01:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by Roy
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Our 4-person household was on Comcast's standard broadband with a 20-25 Mbps
throughput. When Comcast raised its bundle prices I decided to save money
and went for their cheaper non-advertised broadband service, saving about
$25 a month. Its throughput is about 5 Mbps. I didn't tell my housemates.
Nobody has complained.
I'm not going to be standing in line for Gbps service.
Google offers 5Mb/s for a one-time $300 fee. I'm presently paying about
$50 for Sonic Fusion at less than 2Mb/s. In six months I'd break even.

In my area, Comcast Performance Internet (25Mb/s is $40 (after the first
six months at $30) if through a dealer, $45 if direct from Comcast.
6Mb/s is $50 per month. When I inquired as to why the 25Mb/s costs $10
less per month than the 6Mb/s they had no explanation. Those prices do
not include modem rental, so I'd buy a DOCSIS modem. They charge $40 for
installation since I don't have a cable hook-up now.

They don't offer 5Mb/s in my area, but I can't imagine it being $25 less
than $40 or $45 per month.
sms
2014-02-21 01:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Post by David Kaye
Post by Roy
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Our 4-person household was on Comcast's standard broadband with a 20-25 Mbps
throughput. When Comcast raised its bundle prices I decided to save money
and went for their cheaper non-advertised broadband service, saving about
$25 a month. Its throughput is about 5 Mbps. I didn't tell my housemates.
Nobody has complained.
I'm not going to be standing in line for Gbps service.
Google offers 5Mb/s for a one-time $300 fee. I'm presently paying about
$50 for Sonic Fusion at less than 2Mb/s. In six months I'd break even.
In my area, Comcast Performance Internet (25Mb/s is $40 (after the first
six months at $30) if through a dealer, $45 if direct from Comcast.
6Mb/s is $50 per month. When I inquired as to why the 25Mb/s costs $10
less per month than the 6Mb/s they had no explanation. Those prices do
not include modem rental, so I'd buy a DOCSIS modem. They charge $40 for
installation since I don't have a cable hook-up now.
They don't offer 5Mb/s in my area, but I can't imagine it being $25 less
than $40 or $45 per month.
Also, the Performance Internet includes access to Comcast hotspots, the
more expensive, slower, 6Mb/s service, doesn't include access to hotspots.
Bhairitu
2014-02-21 19:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Post by David Kaye
Post by Roy
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Our 4-person household was on Comcast's standard broadband with a 20-25 Mbps
throughput. When Comcast raised its bundle prices I decided to save money
and went for their cheaper non-advertised broadband service, saving about
$25 a month. Its throughput is about 5 Mbps. I didn't tell my housemates.
Nobody has complained.
I'm not going to be standing in line for Gbps service.
Google offers 5Mb/s for a one-time $300 fee. I'm presently paying about
$50 for Sonic Fusion at less than 2Mb/s. In six months I'd break even.
In my area, Comcast Performance Internet (25Mb/s is $40 (after the first
six months at $30) if through a dealer, $45 if direct from Comcast.
6Mb/s is $50 per month. When I inquired as to why the 25Mb/s costs $10
less per month than the 6Mb/s they had no explanation. Those prices do
not include modem rental, so I'd buy a DOCSIS modem. They charge $40 for
installation since I don't have a cable hook-up now.
They don't offer 5Mb/s in my area, but I can't imagine it being $25 less
than $40 or $45 per month.
The latest mail flier from Astound is offering 110 mbps. Their intro
offer is $35 a month for 12 months of 55 mbps down and 5 mbps up. But I
don't think they've laid lines south of Hwy 4 yet. And I don't know
anyone north of 4 who have switched to them. They have no contracts but
do have nickel-and-dime equipment rental fees as well as a 300 GB per
month data cap.
Thad Floryan
2014-02-20 21:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
[...]
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Hi Roy,

A lot depends on what one is doing on the Internet.

As I wrote before, a luxury, once sampled, becomes a necessity. I would
NEVER go back to dialup, DSL or WiFi under any circumstances after having
had experienced 3.5MB/S downloads. I presently cannot afford gigabit WAN
service from Comcast but $70/month Google fiber pricing is affordable and
just a wee bit more than I'm presently paying Comcast for Internet service.

I download scores of PDFs daily, perhaps 20 ISOs monthly, perform 100s of
searches daily, visit about 100 web sites daily, and I upload a lot of my
daily created PDFs and other material to private areas on my website -- I
need speed and I'm getting it at a grudgingly affordable (to me) price from
Comcast.

Thad
Roy
2014-02-20 22:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Thad Floryan
Post by Roy
[...]
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
Hi Roy,
A lot depends on what one is doing on the Internet.
As I wrote before, a luxury, once sampled, becomes a necessity. I would
NEVER go back to dialup, DSL or WiFi under any circumstances after having
had experienced 3.5MB/S downloads. I presently cannot afford gigabit WAN
service from Comcast but $70/month Google fiber pricing is affordable and
just a wee bit more than I'm presently paying Comcast for Internet service.
I download scores of PDFs daily, perhaps 20 ISOs monthly, perform 100s of
searches daily, visit about 100 web sites daily, and I upload a lot of my
daily created PDFs and other material to private areas on my website -- I
need speed and I'm getting it at a grudgingly affordable (to me) price from
Comcast.
Thad
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.

Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
Marcus Allen
2014-02-21 04:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Marcus Allen
2014-02-21 04:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
sms
2014-02-21 17:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.

Similarly, I had no problem purchasing an unsubsidized Android phone in
order to have $12/month cellular service (though I may grudgingly go to
the $30/month plan soon). Our total monthly outlay for four Android
smart phones is now $69 ($12+$12+$15+$30).
Bhairitu
2014-02-21 19:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Too bad they don't make that 6 mbps instead of 5 which would be
sufficient for most HD streaming. I watched 1080p HDX videos on VUDU
when I had only 6 mbps AT&T DSL.
Otto Pylot
2014-02-22 17:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Post by sms
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Too bad they don't make that 6 mbps instead of 5 which would be
sufficient for most HD streaming. I watched 1080p HDX videos on VUDU
when I had only 6 mbps AT&T DSL.
Don't know what I'd do with a 1Gbps line. We're perfectly happy with an
18Mbps Sonic Fusion line that we only pay $50 per month for (including
taxes and our old AT&T landline).
--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before. Please respond to: ***@invalid.net
replacing invalid with sonic.
Kevin McMurtrie
2014-02-23 07:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Otto Pylot
Post by Bhairitu
Post by sms
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Too bad they don't make that 6 mbps instead of 5 which would be
sufficient for most HD streaming. I watched 1080p HDX videos on VUDU
when I had only 6 mbps AT&T DSL.
Don't know what I'd do with a 1Gbps line. We're perfectly happy with an
18Mbps Sonic Fusion line that we only pay $50 per month for (including
taxes and our old AT&T landline).
There's a lot of stuff that you should be able to do on the internet,
but can't because ISPs will not allow it or can not support it. The
limitations have existed for so long that people have forgotten what's
missing.

You should be able to:
- Host your own web site
- Host your own e-mail
- Share files with friends using a simple URL and login
- Access files on your home network from anywhere in the world
- Video conference without stuttering or dropouts
- Host your own social data
- Perform two-way offsite backups with friends or family


These can all be trivial to set up for basic functionality. The problem
is that most ISPs block these services, provide insufficient
performance, or have an undersized pool of IPv4 addresses. Trying to
work around that is what makes them complicated. This is why there are
so many "cloud" services - giving people an expensive and cumbersome way
to avoid the limitations imposed by their ISP. Imagine all Facebook,
Box.com, iCloud, GMail, Yahoo Mail, etc. being replaced with a $0.99 app
that you run on an old WiFi tablet computer or mini desktop sitting in
your house.
Otto Pylot
2014-02-23 18:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Kevin McMurtrie
Post by Otto Pylot
Post by Bhairitu
Post by sms
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:02:44 -0600, Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in
the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Too bad they don't make that 6 mbps instead of 5 which would be
sufficient for most HD streaming. I watched 1080p HDX videos on VUDU
when I had only 6 mbps AT&T DSL.
Don't know what I'd do with a 1Gbps line. We're perfectly happy with an
18Mbps Sonic Fusion line that we only pay $50 per month for (including
taxes and our old AT&T landline).
There's a lot of stuff that you should be able to do on the internet,
but can't because ISPs will not allow it or can not support it. The
limitations have existed for so long that people have forgotten what's
missing.
- Host your own web site
- Host your own e-mail
- Share files with friends using a simple URL and login
- Access files on your home network from anywhere in the world
- Video conference without stuttering or dropouts
- Host your own social data
- Perform two-way offsite backups with friends or family
These can all be trivial to set up for basic functionality. The problem
is that most ISPs block these services, provide insufficient
performance, or have an undersized pool of IPv4 addresses. Trying to
work around that is what makes them complicated. This is why there are
so many "cloud" services - giving people an expensive and cumbersome way
to avoid the limitations imposed by their ISP. Imagine all Facebook,
Box.com, iCloud, GMail, Yahoo Mail, etc. being replaced with a $0.99 app
that you run on an old WiFi tablet computer or mini desktop sitting in
your house.
I think out of all of those suggestion, running my own personal
(private) cloud would be what I'd want to do immediately. I've resisted
the cloud so far because I just don't want my stuff to be controlled
(protected from failure) by anyone else but me. Paranoid I'm sure but
that's just me. Right now personal data, pictures, etc are stored on
old, small, external HD's (from old laptops) that are kept in a safe.
Not very practical if I want to or need to retrieve some data but......
--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before. Please respond to: ***@invalid.net
replacing invalid with sonic.
poldy
2014-02-22 18:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Similarly, I had no problem purchasing an unsubsidized Android phone in
order to have $12/month cellular service (though I may grudgingly go to
the $30/month plan soon). Our total monthly outlay for four Android
smart phones is now $69 ($12+$12+$15+$30).
Not much mobile data?
sms
2014-02-23 17:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by poldy
Post by sms
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Marcus Allen
Post by Roy
If you are Google then you are looking at potential subscribers when
determining where to deploy.
Example: If you have someone that is on a 2Mbps DSL when 10 Mbps is
available then they are probably not a potential customer. They either
don't want faster service or they can't afford it.
I don't know if it was just a Kansas City thing, but if you were in the area
served by the Google rollout and you couldn't afford the $70/month Gigabit
plan, you could just take the $0.00 5Mbps plan and call it a day.
Crap, I just the post by sms regarding the $300 one time fee. That makes it
more than $0.00 for the 'free' service.
I would happily pay $300 to end a $50/month expense. 5Mb/s would be
sufficient for our usage at home.
Similarly, I had no problem purchasing an unsubsidized Android phone in
order to have $12/month cellular service (though I may grudgingly go to
the $30/month plan soon). Our total monthly outlay for four Android
smart phones is now $69 ($12+$12+$15+$30).
Not much mobile data?
Very little. Wi-Fi is widespread that I don't use much mobile data. Even
when I was on the $30 plan with 500MB I rarely used it up (especially
with the use of DroidWall which prevents data leakage).
Steve Pope
2014-02-23 18:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Very little. Wi-Fi is widespread that I don't use much mobile data. Even
when I was on the $30 plan with 500MB I rarely used it up (especially
with the use of DroidWall which prevents data leakage).
Which carrier or reseller was that plan from?

I notice that T-Mobile no longer has the $30 plan with mobile
data they were offering around a year ago, but many users are
legacied into it.

Steve
sms
2014-02-23 20:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Pope
Post by sms
Very little. Wi-Fi is widespread that I don't use much mobile data. Even
when I was on the $30 plan with 500MB I rarely used it up (especially
with the use of DroidWall which prevents data leakage).
Which carrier or reseller was that plan from?
I notice that T-Mobile no longer has the $30 plan with mobile
data they were offering around a year ago, but many users are
legacied into it.
I use Pageplus, a Verizon MVNO (unfortunately recently purchased by
Carlos Slim who also owns Tracfone).

The big downside of Pageplus is not that they offer only 3G data, but
that it's a real pain in the butt to use a 4G Android device on them,
requiring sending the device off to disable 4G LTE. Less of a problem
with iPhones since you can use a pre LTE iPhone or you can buy an iPhone
5 from Walmart's StraightTalk service which already has LTE disabled.

I'm presently using an HTC Droid Incredible 2. I like this model because
it also takes GSM SIM cards for use outside the U.S. (or inside the U.S.
for that matter).
Bhairitu
2014-02-23 22:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Pope
Post by sms
Very little. Wi-Fi is widespread that I don't use much mobile data. Even
when I was on the $30 plan with 500MB I rarely used it up (especially
with the use of DroidWall which prevents data leakage).
Which carrier or reseller was that plan from?
I notice that T-Mobile no longer has the $30 plan with mobile
data they were offering around a year ago, but many users are
legacied into it.
Steve
Still available at Walmart and probably direct from T-Mobile. I got
mine direct from T-Mobile though it was hard to find on the site.
Steve Pope
2014-02-24 01:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bhairitu
Post by Steve Pope
I notice that T-Mobile no longer has the $30 plan with mobile
data they were offering around a year ago, but many users are
legacied into it.
Still available at Walmart and probably direct from T-Mobile. I got
mine direct from T-Mobile though it was hard to find on the site.
Thanks.

When I renew my monthly ($50) plan it does not list the $30 mobile
data plan as a possible option.

But recent data in the T-mobile customer service discussion area
seems to say that an existing customer can buy a $10 "activation kit"
(from either T-mobile or Walmart) and then contact T-mobile to
change ot the $30/month service.

I have no idea if this works.

Steve
Bhairitu
2014-02-25 19:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Pope
Post by Bhairitu
Post by Steve Pope
I notice that T-Mobile no longer has the $30 plan with mobile
data they were offering around a year ago, but many users are
legacied into it.
Still available at Walmart and probably direct from T-Mobile. I got
mine direct from T-Mobile though it was hard to find on the site.
Thanks.
When I renew my monthly ($50) plan it does not list the $30 mobile
data plan as a possible option.
But recent data in the T-mobile customer service discussion area
seems to say that an existing customer can buy a $10 "activation kit"
(from either T-mobile or Walmart) and then contact T-mobile to
change ot the $30/month service.
I have no idea if this works.
Steve
I went to the local T-Mobile store and they just gave me a SIM card.
Probably was they didn't give me an activation code. So I emailed
T-Mobile and they told me I needed to order the SIM card online but I
think the charge was only 99 cents. It also took about a week for my
existing number to transfer to T-Mobile (and I did complain to their
support).

It would be nice if the proposed T-Mobile tower would have gone in on
this block but the neighbors fought it though I think the city was ready
to approve. But then the AT&T merger proposal came along taking the
tower off the table.

The phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus) I bought from Google Play at $50 more
than the Samsung 2 Galaxy deal that Walmart had (though the managers
didn't know about it).

Also on the prepays I had to yell at T-Mobile when I changed the credit
card for autopay and they failed to renew even though I did everything
right to update the payment method.

The $30 deal makes sense for those of us who don't use talk a lot and as
I saw it if for some reason I went over 100 minutes the additional
charges would brake the bank. And then if it became a regular thing I
could just upgrade the plan. None of this "locked in" crap you get when
you buy a phone "on contract."

sms
2014-02-21 17:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
Post by Thad Floryan
...
https://fiber.google.com/newcities/
which, when 'Show full list of cities' (beneath bottom right of the
map) is clicked, defines 'San Jose' as including Santa Clara, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. And where's Cupertino, Campbell,
Milpitas, Fremont, etc. which are all part of 'Silicon Valley' by most
definitions.
Thad
They say "34 cities in 9 metro areas" so the reality is just adding nine.
I suspect the omissions are due to considerations like cost, consumer
profiles and DSL/cable penetration.
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
One reason to move to the $70 month service would be that by doing so
they could drop both DSL and their cable or satellite television
provider. DSL is often too slow to stream HD video.
poldy
2014-02-22 18:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
Post by Roy
Post by Thad Floryan
...
https://fiber.google.com/newcities/
which, when 'Show full list of cities' (beneath bottom right of the
map) is clicked, defines 'San Jose' as including Santa Clara, Mountain
View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. And where's Cupertino, Campbell,
Milpitas, Fremont, etc. which are all part of 'Silicon Valley' by most
definitions.
Thad
They say "34 cities in 9 metro areas" so the reality is just adding nine.
I suspect the omissions are due to considerations like cost, consumer
profiles and DSL/cable penetration.
You may think $70 for 200 Mbps is a good deal but a lot of people are on
DSL for $15 and happy. Why should they upgrade? A friend just switched
from DSL to a Verizon wireless hotspot to save money.
One reason to move to the $70 month service would be that by doing so
they could drop both DSL and their cable or satellite television
provider. DSL is often too slow to stream HD video.
GF also offers an additional TV package.

I would be interested in what they offered if they came to Cupertino.

Maybe support for CableCard, so you can use Tivo or something nice?
Loading...