Google will build a fiber network that offers speeds of 1 Gbps. The network could become an indirect threat to ISPs, because Google could disclose competitive data on actual network costs and it could lead to services that would suck more bandwidth on existing networks.

Google said today it plans to build an experimental fiber-to-the-home network in select areas of the country that would offer speeds of around 1 Gigabit per second. It says it plans to serve between 50,000 and 500,000 people and will offer the service for a “competitive cost.” The company is currently seeking a response to its request for information (RFI) by March 26 from municipalities that may want such a service for their citizens, but let me be the first to put my hometown of Austin, Texas, in the running.

When asked about the characteristics of those communities, a Google spokeswoman emailed the following response:

Above all, we’re interested in deploying our network efficiently and quickly, and are hoping to identify interested community partners that will work with us to achieve this goal. To that end, we’ll use our RFI to identify interested communities and to assess local factors that will impact the efficiency and speed of our deployment, such as the level of community support, local resources, weather conditions, approved construction methods and local regulatory issues. We will also take into account broadband availability and speeds that are already offered to users within a community.

Google’s announcement, which has been five years in the making, could positively shift the telecommunications landscape if it leads to new services that galvanize the FCC, communities and consumers to start demanding faster broadband. It also creates a potential testbed for innovative services that rely on broadband as a platform to work — benefiting entrepreneurs and those who invest in them.

With its web DNA and commitment to openness, Google will likely attract entrepreneurs to its network that are willing to try something new on the services front. Presumably it will also offer a faster path to the end consumer than what an existing ISP might. I’ve always felt that much of the innovation around broadband has occurred despite the ISP or even by bypassing the ISP, so imagine what projects we might see if the pipe owner were an active contributor to that innovation.

We at GigaOM have said for years that broadband is the platform for innovation, and Google no doubt agrees. The pace of technological innovation in terms of video conferencing, telemedicine and remote education are rapidly surpassing the average American’s connection speed, which ranges from 3 Mbps to 7 Mbps depending on the study. And without the demand for such services, or a cost-effective way to get there, ISPs and entrepreneurs that want to deliver products that require fat pipes are reluctant to invest. Think of it as a chicken-and-egg issue. Google can help change this.

The network can help spur innovation, but could also become a foil to the lobbying efforts from existing ISPs, many of whom are less than up-front about how their network costs are reflected in their prices, and tend to react with hysteria when faced with regulations that will limit their ability to control the bits running over their pipes. We’ve all read stories about how the web will break under the weight of network neutrality, or how the ISPs needs to raise prices or implement tiered pricing plans because some consumers are using too many resources. What we don’t have is the data showing that there’s an economic reason for this other than profiteering in an uncompetitive market.

Google makes almost all of its money from selling ads over the Internet, not from selling the pipe itself. Therefore, if it is truly transparent about its costs and traffic demands, it could provide valuable data to the FCC and the industry that telecommunications companies do not. It wouldn’t exactly make the broadband market competitive, but it could help make the economics of operating such a network more transparent. And that could help regulators determine how competitively priced broadband is.

Om wrote about Google’s interest in controlling its own bandwidth back in 2005 for Business 2.0, laying out an economic rationale for the creation of what he called the GoogleNet:

An even more compelling reason for Google to build its own network is that it could save the company millions of dollars a month. Here’s why: Every time a user performs a search on Google, the data is transmitted over a network owned by an ISP–say, Comcast–which links up with Google’s servers via a wholesaler like AboveNet. When AboveNet bridges that gap between Google and Comcast, Google has to pay as much as $60 per megabit in IP transit fees. As Google adds bandwidth-intensive services, those costs will increase. Big networks owned by the likes of AT&T get around transit fees by striking “peering” arrangements, in which the networks swap traffic and no money is exchanged. By cutting out middlemen like AboveNet, Google could share traffic directly with ISPs to avoid fees.

It didn’t happen five years ago and my hunch is that Google was waiting for a last-mile technology that would last. DSL and cable don’t have the capacity to reach 1 Gbps (although cable can offer up to 200 Mbps), and in 2005, fiber to the home was still an expensive pipe dream. But now fiber to the premise, which has the capacity to meet bandwidth demand for decades, is a reality.

It took Verizon’s $23 billion investment in its FiOS network to drive innovations for delivering fiber to the last mile and lowering the costs. Technologies such as bendable fiber and smaller optical network terminals that fit on desks rather than inside entire closets were pioneered for the FiOS effort. Google will surely take advantage of that with its deployment.

The fiber GoogleNet could become an indirect threat to Verizon and other ISPs because it could open the kimono on actual network costs and lead to services that would suck even more bandwidth on ISPs’ existing networks. So it’s ironic that the creation of such a network might have a large debt to Verizon at it makes its own fiber push. Personally, I can’t wait.

Related content from GigaOM Pro:

When It Comes to Pain at the Pipe, Upstream Is the New Downstream

  1. Another vote for Austin!!!

  2. “Google has to pay as much as $60 per megabit in IP transit fees.”

    You better double check that, I have never heard of such a price for whole sale IP transit.

  3. Stacey, is GOOG paying you to write this? Surely you can’t be in favor of anticompetitive practices by Google.

    1. How exactly is competing with incumbent ISP “anti-competitive”?

    2. don’t’ know what competition u talking about ? In our area (ie a suburb Raleigh, NC) the max upload we get is 512kbps, while the max download is 18mbps. The TWC & AT&T still live in the 1990s restricting end users better upload speed thinking folks will start streaming or hosting.

      This is all because they don’t’ have competition. If my online backup takes days, so be it. Where I am going to go.

    3. Unfair to accuse someone in this fashion – not cool.

      Interesting choice of words – anti competitive. Care to explain yourself??

  4. Closer to Skynet everyday.

  5. Sounds promising, but not sure if Google cherry picking one location – weather? – will necessarily reveal any relevant generalized insights into the economics of broadband. Will have about as little relevance as South Korean broadband rates/speeds…course doesn’t stop people from using them. sigh

  6. The key words in the headline above are “foil ISPs.” Google is trying to harm Internet service providers, which it has cast as its enemies.

  7. i better idea would be for google to invest the same amount of money to build out a large as possible of a free WiFi network across the nation. this could reach millions instead of thousands of people.

    this would also force a look at the pricing of what will dominate future internet access: wireless in various forms.

    they could build QOS controls into the WiFi network that support voice calling from android handsets without needing cellular service. this together with free google voice service would create massive handset sales in the areas covered.

  8. Google world domination is piecing together one piece at a time. There’s Google Public DNS, IPv6 just got supported by Google owned YouTube, Android mobile platform spreads like crazy, now here comes 1Gbps fiber. What’s still missing though is 4G. Be it WiMax or LTE I bet it’ll mimic the FON business model. Bye bye ISPs, we don’t need ya any more.

    1. IPv6 is not a choice, its a reality not enough IPs. Google has no effect on whether IPv6 is implemented or not it was accepted long ago IETF around 1996.

  9. [...] have for the longest time proposed that if we ever want real innovations and world class Internet connectivity it would take a company with the balls to be happy just being a dumb pipe. I said as much again in [...]

  10. Brett, what anti-competitive practices are you speaking of exactly?

    Are you sure you aren’t confused between “Google” and “Regional ISPs?” This is how you can remember: Google doesn’t have any monopolies–Yes, even in search. I could change my search engine in literally 2 clicks of my mouse. Try that with an ISP.


Comments have been disabled for this post