Google's new 2 Gig fiber Internet service costs $100 per month

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,526   +122
Staff member
Editor's take: On paper, the only thing lacking with Google Fiber is its limited availability. As of today, the service is offered in just 19 markets. While speed is always nice, we do wish the service was more widely available to additional customers, especially those in areas with only a single ISP option.

When Google deployed its first self-built, high-speed fiber network in mid-2012, it was among the fastest consumer connections available at 1 Gbps. Heck, the option for that kind of speed is still a dream for many in late 2020.

As fast as 1 Gbps is, it can always be faster. Like, twice as fast.

Google recently announced plans to start testing its 2 Gig service in the near future. For $100 per month, customers will get 2 gigabits on the download side and 1 gigabit on the upload side. The service also comes with a new Wi-Fi 6 router and mesh extender, which should be sufficient in blanketing your entire home with speedy Internet connectivity.

The new 2 Gig service will be available to residents in Huntsville and Nashville next month with a broader rollout in other Google Fiber cities later this fall. Interested parties can sign up for the Google Fiber Trusted Tester program to be among the first to take the new service for a spin.

Google said most of its 19 Google Fiber and Google Fiber Webpass cities will have access to 2 Gig by early 2021.

Image credit: zimmytws

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 7,396   +5,836
Nice ..... it's really a shame they didn't bother to expand the services, like to the outlaying area's around Nashville, many of which are 100,000+ communities that could easily support it.
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,624   +2,251
I don't know if I would even benefit from internet this fast. Streaming doesn't require fast internet, gaming is fine on slower connections, stability is what is required. Downloading games would surely be much faster but how many games do you download per day?
 

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
: D "just". Murrica!

I pay $10 for 1Gbps. After taxes. And the only reason I get this one is because there's no smaller package. I'm not even kidding.

Like Nobina said, it's literally impossible to utilize it. 250-500 Mbps would be plenty even for the biggest peaks of my usage.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,031   +2,563
: D "just". Murrica!

I pay $10 for 1Gbps. After taxes. And the only reason I get this one is because there's no smaller package. I'm not even kidding.

Like Nobina said, it's literally impossible to utilize it. 250-500 Mbps would be plenty even for the biggest peaks of my usage.
I'm going to assume that you live in Romania like me. 1gbps for less than 10$ is awesome :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium and bviktor

ColdSoup

Posts: 78   +165
: D "just". Murrica!

I pay $10 for 1Gbps. After taxes. And the only reason I get this one is because there's no smaller package. I'm not even kidding.

Like Nobina said, it's literally impossible to utilize it. 250-500 Mbps would be plenty even for the biggest peaks of my usage.
Don't kid yourself though, your data is the product or someone else is footing the bill for the actual costs.
 

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
Is this a straight up fee for connectivity deal, or is it like other Google products where the deal includes giving them all your personal information (which in this case, would be literally everything that goes through your internet connection that wasn't encrypted, including all "envelope" type metadata?)
 

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
Is this a straight up fee for connectivity deal, or is it like other Google products where the deal includes giving them all your personal information (which in this case, would be literally everything that goes through your internet connection that wasn't encrypted, including all "envelope" type metadata?)
Can you name one service whose traffic isn't encrypted?
 

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
Can you name one service whose traffic isn't encrypted?
For starters, the outer envelope source/target is at minimum not encryptable. DNS was rarely encrypted for anyone until relatively recently, and I believe still often not for many households. Not 100% sure but I believe the full URL path is often not encrypted for many users/situations. HTTP itself is not encrypted and if neither the site nor the browser auto-switches you, many people do not manually specify https (or even know the difference.) I do not know the inner workings of the video conference services but I do not necessarily assume their free tiers are fully encrypted. Looking at my windows 10 pc right now running an ordinary array of consumer software, I see lots of open connections from various little apps and services, and I bet not all of those are encrypted.
 

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
For starters, the outer envelope source/target is at minimum not encryptable. DNS was rarely encrypted for anyone until relatively recently, and I believe still often not for many households. Not 100% sure but I believe the full URL path is often not encrypted for many users/situations. HTTP itself is not encrypted and if neither the site nor the browser auto-switches you, many people do not manually specify https (or even know the difference.) I do not know the inner workings of the video conference services but I do not necessarily assume their free tiers are fully encrypted. Looking at my windows 10 pc right now running an ordinary array of consumer software, I see lots of open connections from various little apps and services, and I bet not all of those are encrypted.
For starters, the things you mention are visible to any ISP you might subscribe to. It's not specific to Google, or T-Mobile, or any other player out there. Not that I'd give 2 f*cks about my ISP knowing which sites I visit. If you do, use VPN, which you'll always need regardless of ISP. Then you can worry whether the VPN provider sniffs your data somehow or not. Or set up your own VPN server somwhere, and worry if your VPN server's ISP sniffs on you. It's a never ending and pointless conspiracy theory.

DNS contains no sensitive data. DNSSEC exists to avoid MITM attacks, not to encrypt your query about the IP addresses corresponding to pornhub.com. HTTP is not encrypted, that's exactly why we have HTTPS. Any current browser will warn you when visiting plain HTTP sites. Not that it matters unless you exchange private information. "I bet not all of those are encrypted" is a guess and doesn't matter anyway, you only need to find the ones you enter sensitive info into. I can open a thousand open connections to random targets, it won't make my PC or my personal data any less secure.
 
Last edited:

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
OK. If you feel DNS has no relevance to privacy, you are not someone I want to engage in any further discussion on privacy topics with.

Meanwhile, I asked a straight forward question and I am still curious if a subscriber to this service or anyone else has the straight forward answer. Google's other services, if you read the fine print, make explicit that they are funded by Google having rights to your data and to insert advertising. Does Google's ISP also have similar terms? In other words, does the $100 cover the cost of service, or is it subsidized by what else they'll do to monetize your connection? Asked one more way, does Google have an intrinsic interest in being an ISP as a new profit source, or is this project motivated primarily by adding a new user data acquisition source?
 

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
OK. If you feel DNS has no relevance to privacy, you are not someone I want to engage in any further discussion on privacy topics with.
More like you have no idea how to prove your point. I'm still waiting on an example for both on this and on a service that you use and isn't encrypted and becomes a privacy issue in that specific case (in which case I'm also curious about the 'how').

All you said so far is that you don't know about video calls and that you don't know what's happening with your PCs open connections (but "you bet" they aren't encrypted). And also threw around a bunch of funny terms like "envelope data". That's not gonna cut it.
 

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
Buzz off. I did not initiate those topics, you did. I asked a straight forward question which you did not answer. You are welcome to assert that ISPs offer no threat to privacy as your own thesis, and someone with more passion for the topic than I have might engage with you, but that's not my primary interest here.

Meanwhile I asked a business question. I'm looking for the business answer from anyone who knows it.
 

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
Buzz off. I did not initiate those topics, you did. I asked a straight forward question which you did not answer. You are welcome to assert that ISPs offer no threat to privacy as your own thesis, and someone with more passion for the topic than I have might engage with you, but that's not my primary interest here.

Meanwhile I asked a business question. I'm looking for the business answer from anyone who knows it.
Yes, you did initiate the conversation. You asked if your privacy will be invaded. And I asked how it'd be invaded and how it'd be different from any other ISP on Earth. Which would finally give relevance to the question. No one will answer the question 'is my data safe' unless you finally specify exactly what kind of data you're talking about.

DNS queries or domain names going through your ISP are not an invasion of your privacy. That's like saying the mailman seeing you received mail from the IRS is an invasion of your privacy. We're not talking about the mail itself, we're only talking about the sender and recipient. It's pretty darn hard to exchange traffic without knowing those.
 

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
Bviktor, I think I remember enjoying some of your posts on some other topics. I'm sorry for my exasperation but if you are truly going to pretend there is no privacy implication to knowing someone's browsing history you are either intentionally trolling or so far behind on this topic it's really difficult to get started. Even if you have no personal sensitivity for it yourself, you must understand there are plenty of people who might feel sensitive about what their dns searches may imply about say their sexual orientation, their health conditions, their financial difficulties, their kinks, their vices, or anything else. You'd also have to be pretty under-informed to not understand how user data is monetized.

Now, to get back to my business question, which has nothing to do with my personal privacy especially as the service is not offered in my area (so no, that is not at all what I asked.)

I am curious why Google is interested in this business. Do they anticipate adding to the user profile data they already make their living monetizing, and that was the primary motivation for them to feel they must enter a business that is otherwise not a clear natural fit for their other activities? Compared to software and services, operating a fiber ISP is capital intensive, locally political, involves more direct user interaction, and does not offer the same explosive profit margins as their other businesses. All why I'm curious about their motivations.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,489   +1,762
That's not how TLS works.

American utilities are ridiculously overpriced, there's not much else to say about this story.
Yep, city tax, county tax, state state, franchise fee, connection fee, tv rebroadcast fee
and on and on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JKnight

bviktor

Posts: 216   +397
Bviktor, I think I remember enjoying some of your posts on some other topics. I'm sorry for my exasperation but if you are truly going to pretend there is no privacy implication to knowing someone's browsing history you are either intentionally trolling or so far behind on this topic it's really difficult to get started. Even if you have no personal sensitivity for it yourself, you must understand there are plenty of people who might feel sensitive about what their dns searches may imply about say their sexual orientation, their health conditions, their financial difficulties, their kinks, their vices, or anything else. You'd also have to be pretty under-informed to not understand how user data is monetized.

Now, to get back to my business question, which has nothing to do with my personal privacy especially as the service is not offered in my area (so no, that is not at all what I asked.)

I am curious why Google is interested in this business. Do they anticipate adding to the user profile data they already make their living monetizing, and that was the primary motivation for them to feel they must enter a business that is otherwise not a clear natural fit for their other activities? Compared to software and services, operating a fiber ISP is capital intensive, locally political, involves more direct user interaction, and does not offer the same explosive profit margins as their other businesses. All why I'm curious about their motivations.
My personal preferences in terms of protecting my privacy are perfectly irrelevant.

What you're trying to imply or aspire to is not technically possible to achieve, at any ISP.

In other words, your question is meaningless and nonsensical.
 
Now 50/50mbit for now. expensive one yousee past 7yeas in Denmark 159dkk per month 29.95usd soon 1/1 Gbit 50dkk more. Still very disappointed..
 

brucek

Posts: 498   +574
TechSpot Elite
My question is specific and has an answer. Anyone who was in the room when this initiative was green-lit knows what the internal motivation, justification, and dicussion was. It is also possible they've spoken more publicly about it to wall street analysts or other investor forums. Barring that, a knowledgeable analyst may be able to reverse engineer insights from applicable user agreements and required filings.

I agree that at a purely technical level ISPs have some similarity. But it does not mean their parent businesses are all the same or face the same circumstances.

The incumbents in the US were telcos and cable cos. They had existing wires in neighborhoods and to homes; they owned fleets of installation trucks; they payrolled installers and customer support; and they were deeply entrenched with local community city councils and public utility commissions. The ISP business basically fell in their lap as a bolt-on to their existing lines. While they may have the same potential for data monetization that Google does, they at least initially did not posses the same focus, expertise, connections, infrastructure and synergestic activities; while they do have very strong for-fee service to focus on instead (and I think both are still at least partially true.) They also have more direct regulation at multiple political levels which may more incline them towards caution in protecting the existing revenue streams. Why rock a very profitable boat.

Google is the opposite of all those business circumstances in almost every way. There is reason for curiosity at what is driving them in this direction.