Google Fiber in Kansas City is live - and fast!

The world’s been talking about Google Fiber, the service that promises customers gigabit Ethernet, for quite a while. It was originally announced in March of 2011 but was delayed in January of 2012. Google announced some new hardware for the service this past July, and Hanover Heights was picked as the first location the service would be offered in.

The future is now: this past Tuesday, Google officially rolled out service to Kansas City, Kansas, and the results are spectacular. Although sites like Speedtest.net can’t actually keep up, when using Google’s own speed page, results are through the roof. In a video posted by Google Fiber beta user Johnathan Duran, you can see download speeds of over 300Mbps through the new service. He said that it took roughly 15 minutes to upload the 46 minute, 1.7GB file to YouTube.

In addition to blazingly fast Internet access, Google TV is also available to residents of Kansas City, including a DVR and a Nexus 7 remote control. If you want to drool with envy, we recommend watching the entire video.

While we wanted to post about this on the release date, the article didn’t finish uploading until today. We obviously need to move our headquarters to Kansas City, Kansas.

Source: Google, Johnathan Duran's YouTube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

RIM beginning Blackberry 10 production in December

Next Story

Windows Phone 7.8 has reportedly hit RTM status

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You people do realize that it may be 1gb fiber connection, but that doesn't mean you are going to always get that speed, right? I think a lot of you think that for some magical reason these type of things are exact. Its possible to obtain those speeds in theory, but all of the conditions have to be perfect.

I am Reid said,
You people do realize that it may be 1gb fiber connection, but that doesn't mean you are going to always get that speed, right? I think a lot of you think that for some magical reason these type of things are exact. Its possible to obtain those speeds in theory, but all of the conditions have to be perfect.

The speed they advertise is just the capable speed of the links limit, it is impossible to reach those speeds even if you hooked straight into the ground and directer communicated with your neighbor.

I am Reid said,
You people do realize that it may be 1gb fiber connection, but that doesn't mean you are going to always get that speed, right? I think a lot of you think that for some magical reason these type of things are exact. Its possible to obtain those speeds in theory, but all of the conditions have to be perfect.

Yes,

1000 Mbps = 125 MB/s.
http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc...egabits&notation=legacy

Copy a 4 GB file between two physical garden variety hard drives and you'll be lucky to get that. I peak out at around 100 MB/s, and then eventually dip to around 60-70 MB/s before it's halfway done copying.

belto said,
google has a few kinks to work out.

if that's the case, it wasn't ready for launch, and should have been held back til it was ready, with no "kinks"

dvb2000 said,

if that's the case, it wasn't ready for launch, and should have been held back til it was ready, with no "kinks"

there is no products with no kinks. everything improves over time.

Well I have a 120m/bit connection here in the UK and I find that is plenty fast enough for the internet in it's current form.

I wouldn't expect the initial speeds to be that telling.

Let them get it online and tweak it for a month or so. Speeds will most likely increase within a reasonable amount of time as the infrastructure has any kinks worked out.

His speeds are fine just sounds like youtube is downloading slow from him. Ive seen their speedtest on other forums and its usually 700/700Mbps

Well the video was lagging for me on 720p... Really brings things into perspective

[Edit] Also those aren't gigabit speeds. Here in London you can get 100Mb pretty much everywhere. And those speed tests weren't that much faster...

Edited by drazgoosh, Nov 17 2012, 8:17pm :

drazgoosh said,
[Edit] Also those aren't gigabit speeds. Here in London you can get 100Mb pretty much everywhere. And those speed tests weren't that much faster...

Pretty much everywhere is a huge exaggeration, maybe in very central London.

Minimoose said,

Pretty much everywhere is a huge exaggeration, maybe in very central London.

I'm 35 miles outside London and have 120mbit, and I get all of it too.

FloatingFatMan said,

I'm 35 miles outside London and have 120mbit, and I get all of it too.

i live about 250 miles outside of London and i have 120mbit

Minimoose said,

Pretty much everywhere is a huge exaggeration, maybe in very central London.

I'd beg to differ. Have been with Virgin for the past few years, they're promised speeds live up to that promise. With 10Mb I was getting between 8.5-11 all the time. Now with 20Mb I'm getting 18-22.

Why is the internet speed showing only that much? It's supposed to be 1Gbps.

Here in Minneapolis there is a small company which has laid out fiber to the home for a very small region with 1Gbps for $100/month. I saw a speedtest one user posted online and they were able to pull 885Mbps from it.

mrp04 said,
Why is the internet speed showing only that much? It's supposed to be 1Gbps.

My guess is that the Google speedtest site was the limiting factor, especially since upload speeds were over 500Mbps until they crashed.

2 things come to mind when watching this...

1. 300mbits is not 1000mbits. 1.7 GB file at 1000mbit should take less then 15 seconds to upload, not 15 minutes!

2. When and where are they deploying to other states/cities

NerdyTech said,
2 things come to mind when watching this...

1. 300mbits is not 1000mbits. 1.7 GB file at 1000mbit should take less then 15 seconds to upload, not 15 minutes!


Indeed, I didn't think it was that fast. Many parts of Portugal have FTTH coverage and faster speeds.

Enron said,
That's a lot of bandwidth for Google to watch you with!

no..
that's a lot of bandwidth to watch porn with
you could be downloading "2 girls one cup" in extreme HD
while fornicating to a stream of "Gape Lovers 7" in high res. !!

we just need more drive space to hold all the smut

The world's been talking about Google Fiber, the service that promises customers gigabit Ethernet, for quite a while. It was originally announced in March of 2011 but was delayed in January of 2012. Google announced some new hardware for the service this past July, and Hanover Heights was picked as the first location the service would be offered in.

Why would the world be talking about it? Some countries in Asia and Europe have had gigabit ethernet for years now. But good job Google for doing something that other American ISPs are incapable of doing since they care more about profits than service.

Yes I know distance is an issue in America since it's so big but the other huge issue is in America we have cable monopolies. Get rid of that and you'd get better speeds, better service and better prices.

This. I was also asking myself, why would I, why should I be jealous. Let alone extremely jealous. This article is another perfect example of how americans are totally convinced they are the center of the universe.

Here I have 25Mbps for like 15 bucks (this is the 2nd slowest option). This is perfectly fine for me, but if I wanted to, I could have 120Mbps for like 27 bucks. So what. It's not sci-fi, it's here and now, and it's ass cheap. Even in central/eastern europe. Pretty much any european country beats the hell out of the oh-so-developed USA in terms of average bandwidth. And distance is a really weak excuse coz even the twice as big and (they think) so much underdeveloped Russia beats them.

I know now this sounds like a joke to you but just go to netindex.com and see it for yourselves coz I ain't gonna argue with anyone about facts.

So Google please stop pretending you are the saviors, or better yet, inventors of broadband. Especially coz this is merely a tech demo, it's not *that* hard to provide such speeds to a few orders of magnitude smaller consumer base. Big, crowded cities always have better speeds anyway, since you can serve a much bigger userbase with almost the same amount of equipment, but you simply can't boost it that much in the countryside coz that fiber would cost a little bit WAY TOO MUCH to install everywhere. But the countryside will count towards the overall average, you know... except if you won't go there, but then it's sorta like cheating.

What could I use 300Mbps for anyway, seriously. Even with my 25Mbps subscription I can download a HD movie in under 10 minutes, or if I use streaming, it's like instantaneous. Why would I need 10 times more, please tell me...

Edited by bviktor, Nov 18 2012, 12:08am :

bviktor said,
This. I was also asking myself, why would I, why should I be jealous. Let alone extremely jealous. This article is another perfect example of how americans are totally convinced they are the center of the universe.

Here I have 25Mbps for like 15 bucks (this is the 2nd slowest option). This is perfectly fine for me, but if I wanted to, I could have 120Mbps for like 27 bucks. So what. It's not sci-fi, it's here and now, and it's ass cheap. Even in central/eastern europe. Pretty much any european country beats the hell out of the oh-so-developed USA in terms of average bandwidth. And distance is a really weak excuse coz even the twice as big and (they think) so much underdeveloped Russia beats them.

I know now this sounds like a joke to you but just go to netindex.com and see it for yourselves coz I ain't gonna argue with anyone about facts.

So Google please stop pretending you are the saviors, or better yet, inventors of broadband. Especially coz this is merely a tech demo, it's not *that* hard to provide such speeds to a few orders of magnitude smaller consumer base. Big, crowded cities always have better speeds anyway, since you can serve a much bigger userbase with almost the same amount of equipment, but you simply can't boost it that much in the countryside coz that fiber would cost a little bit WAY TOO MUCH to install everywhere. But the countryside will count towards the overall average, you know... except if you won't go there, but then it's sorta like cheating.

What could I use 300Mbps for anyway, seriously. Even with my 25Mbps subscription I can download a HD movie in under 10 minutes, or if I use streaming, it's like instantaneous. Why would I need 10 times more, please tell me...

You obviously don't understand the point of Google's experiment in Kansas City. It's to find out what can happen and what people will do with this much bandwidth. Get off your high horse in assuming that it's Americans being ignorant. To the people in the mid west if the US, Google is indeed a savior from the inadequate penetration of internet broadband in America.

Xenosion said,

You obviously don't understand the point of Google's experiment in Kansas City. It's to find out what can happen and what people will do with this much bandwidth. Get off your high horse in assuming that it's Americans being ignorant. To the people in the mid west if the US, Google is indeed a savior from the inadequate penetration of internet broadband in America.

If Google want to know what people will do if they have 1Gb Internet access, Google should just do experiments in countries like South Korea and Japan where 1Gb services are available in many locations.

ranpha said,

If Google want to know what people will do if they have 1Gb Internet access, Google should just do experiments in countries like South Korea and Japan where 1Gb services are available in many locations.


For those of you who don't know, Google held a competition to determine whose city would get their fiber services. Kansas City won. If you have a problem with why Google did this you can take it up with them. However, I would bet that if you lived in Kansas City you'd be pretty happy about this.

-Razorfold said,
But good job Google for doing something that other American ISPs are incapable of doing since they care more about profits than service.

Unfortunately the "greed is good" philosophy has spread like a cancer. Many ISP's will not spend money on infrastructure until their bottom line gets hit by large numbers of customers leaving. Witness Optus in Australia (one of the worst offenders in UNDER provisioning their network) and more recently vodafone.

dvb2000 said,
Unfortunately the "greed is good" philosophy has spread like a cancer. Many ISP's will not spend money on infrastructure until their bottom line gets hit by large numbers of customers leaving. Witness Optus in Australia (one of the worst offenders in UNDER provisioning their network) and more recently vodafone.

It's worse than that. ISPs here are pretty much monopolies.

Where I live the only ISP is Comcast and I pay $180 a month for tv (no dvr or premium channels), 15mbps internet and phone and they don't even have free installation (it's $70). When I lived in Daytona Beach same problem, the only ISP there was Brighthouse.

bviktor said,
This. I was also asking myself, why would I, why should I be jealous. Let alone extremely jealous. This article is another perfect example of how americans are totally convinced they are the center of the universe.

Here I have 25Mbps for like 15 bucks (this is the 2nd slowest option). This is perfectly fine for me, but if I wanted to, I could have 120Mbps for like 27 bucks. So what. It's not sci-fi, it's here and now, and it's ass cheap. Even in central/eastern europe. Pretty much any european country beats the hell out of the oh-so-developed USA in terms of average bandwidth. And distance is a really weak excuse coz even the twice as big and (they think) so much underdeveloped Russia beats them.

I know now this sounds like a joke to you but just go to netindex.com and see it for yourselves coz I ain't gonna argue with anyone about facts.

So Google please stop pretending you are the saviors, or better yet, inventors of broadband. Especially coz this is merely a tech demo, it's not *that* hard to provide such speeds to a few orders of magnitude smaller consumer base. Big, crowded cities always have better speeds anyway, since you can serve a much bigger userbase with almost the same amount of equipment, but you simply can't boost it that much in the countryside coz that fiber would cost a little bit WAY TOO MUCH to install everywhere. But the countryside will count towards the overall average, you know... except if you won't go there, but then it's sorta like cheating.

What could I use 300Mbps for anyway, seriously. Even with my 25Mbps subscription I can download a HD movie in under 10 minutes, or if I use streaming, it's like instantaneous. Why would I need 10 times more, please tell me...

Although I do agree with the part about Google, I cannot agree with the comparisons to other countries. The United States is massive and not just that, it has people strewed all over it with significant populations in a lot of areas. Places like Russia have 99% of people with a computer living in Moscow, providing a faster connection to one city where the demand is there is a lot easier then running networking infrastructure across the entire country. Similar story here in Australia. We have a massive country with people strewn all over the place. With the government rolling out fiber to the edges of the country is costing an absolute fortune $50 billion AUD by the time its done. No ISP would ever consider completing such a massive project because people are still going to be putting money in their pocket whether their getting 6 Mb/s or 100 Mb/s. The bottom line is all that matters with these companies, either its state developed infrastructure or no infrastructure now. The ISPs will only start trying to be "different" if there is a massive demand for it and quite frankly having a 100Mb connection to your house is absolutely unnecessary. 12 Mb/s is easily enough for any normal user.

Last I heard Kansas had built a name for itself as being anti-science. Strange choice of where to situate it.

Tom said,
Last I heard Kansas had built a name for itself as being anti-science. Strange choice of where to situate it.

"We obviously need to move our headquarters to Kansas City, Kansas."

Kansas and Kansas City are not the same thing.

There are two parts, Kansas City, KS which has a pretty small population, and Kansas City, MO which is the main portion of what is commonly known as Kansas City (Royals, Chiefs, The Plaza, etc). The suburbs are pretty evenly spread between Kansas and Missouri to the south of the city.

The politics of rural Kansas and rural Missouri don't fly in Kansas City. It's not exactly liberal, but it's much, much more moderate than the countryside that surrounds it.

If you moved your headquarters to Kansas City you'd put it in Kansas City, Missouri, and you'd have Google Fiber there too. Sprint has it's headquarters in a Kansas suburb of KC, but the area isn't in a Google Fiber service area.

Tom said,
Last I heard Kansas had built a name for itself as being anti-science. Strange choice of where to situate it.

Kansas City proper is in Missouri but regardless, the area as a whole also has a reputation for being pro-business. I'm sure Google found a Government there that was cooperative and was a partner and was willing to work to get this done.

Here in California, it probably would have taken numerous tax payments, 2 years of permitting procedures, 2 years of environmental impact studies, then a bunch of lawsuits from various environmental and anti-development groups before the project could have gotten off the ground.